Will Novak pass Rafa?

[britbox]

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?

Yes, but everything has a trade-off. If you bring in a second clay major then you'll lose one of the others. Sure, it might bump up Novak's clay resume, but he'd likely have less grand slam titles overall... and Nadal would probably add additional numbers.

 

[El Dude]

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.

But every great player has lost big matches to lesser players. Every single one, from Connors to Borg to McEnroe to Sampras, and of course the Big Three.

I mean, Rafa lost to Soderling to open Roland Garros for Federer in 2009. That's one, obvious example, but there are countless more.

 

[Moxie]

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

Sidebar point, but I actually made the point about Djokovic having a better winning pct. on clay than Nadal, but you said above that I'm incapable of giving credit to Novak for anything, so that's not true.

You keep insisting that Federer should have a better record against Nadal on clay. In fact, now you're blaming Roger for letting the whole "Nadal winning so much" thingy get out of hand. That's wishing and hoping and sour grapes. It didn't happen.

And yes, I did forget Novak's RG win over Nadal. Call it a Freudian slip. LOL.
[/QUOTE]

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.

El Dude was telling you why Nadal is a better match player than Nalbandian. Has nothing to do with Fed and Novak being great match players. Try to keep up.

As to the rest of the hysteria above, they are separate questions, but just a pile of bitterness you have as to why Novak and Roger haven't done better at the USO. As usual, you keep trying to extract one point from a full match between top players. When Fedalovic play each other, there is extra stress, and they tend to press each other more frequently into error. We've seen uncharacteristic errors for all of them when playing each other, particularly for big stakes. In the 2013 final at USO, Djokovic had a lead in the 3rd he couldn't hold onto. Nadal outplayed him for the most part from there. Djokovic had 2 more sets to play with to win that match, and yet he lost 1-6 in the 4th. That's on him. You always try to tell me I don't understand sports psychology as to why Djoker went down in 4, but I'm sorry...that's why it's best of 5. If he were playing better, or Nadal worse, he had time to change his own fortunes and couldn't.

You're also mad that Roger couldn't keep the date to face Rafa in '17 and '19. His fans say it was his back.

As to 2014, I can't tell you why Djokovic lost to Nishikori, though I suspect he underestimated him, and was looking ahead to the final. As for Roger v. Cilic, Marin took the racquet out of Roger's hand, if you saw that match.

Why DID Novak lose to Stan in '16? Stan played a smart match, and he's a bad match-up for Novak. For that matter, why did Novak lose the FO to Stan?

You can keep complaining that these things happened, but they did. And you can go down some rabbit hole of inventing an entire Major that doesn't exist and insisting how Novak would have played at it, but Here be Dragons. We can wonder if the AO had never switched from grass. Or if the YEC were played on clay. In the end, a pointless exercise. And we all recognize what you're after...trying to make a case that Nadal's HC resume should be lesser. We'll it's just not.

 

[El Dude]

I don't love the "GOAT Points" system, but it is well thought out and is pretty good for a more cumulative approach. According to ultimatetennisstatistics.com, on hardcourts:

HARDCOURT GOAT POINTS
1. Federer 471
2. Djokovic 441
3. Agassi 254
4. Sampras 229
5. Nadal 227
39. Nalbandian 34

In five years, it will probably be Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Agassi, Sampras. Meaning, according to their measurement, Nadal will end his career as the third greatest hard court player ever.

While we're at it:

CLAY
1. Nadal 377
2. Vilas 178
3. Borg 172
4. Lendl 144
5. Djokovic 138
6. Federer 113
75. Nalbandian 15

GRASS
1. Federer 196
2. Connors 133
3. Sampras 110
4. Djokovic 91
5. Newcombe 90
14. Nadal 50
66. Nalbandian 7

If we want to crown one guy as the all-surface GOAT, it very well may be Novak: he's the only player who will be top 5 on all three surfaces, and he's got a chance of finishing top 3 in all three, while Roger will never make the top 5 on clay (although he's very close), and Rafa will never make the top 5 on grass (he's #14).

 

[Moxie]

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.

I agree with basically all of this, including Cali's underlying Nalbandian "fetish" as the reason we get such a diarrhea of posts from him trying to make the case for Nadal overachieving, well, basically everywhere. (Ah, well, he'll always have the YEC, even when Nadal does finally win it. No one can ever say he has "overachieved" there.)

I can understand why you don't feel the need to comb back over Nadal's draws in the USO's that he won, but there is a feeling of "truism" that they were felicitous, so I'll flesh it out a bit for you. We all know that the draw you get isn't necessarily the players you play. In '10, '13 and '19, the draw opened up for Nadal, but they weren't so easy looking from day 1.

2010: Murray was on Nadal's side, but went out to Wawrinka. Wawrinka lost to Youzhny. Nalbandian was also in there, but lost to Verdasco. Still, he played Verdasco and Youzhny, both of whom he's lost to on HC at majors. Beat Djokovic in the final.

2013: Rafa was supposed to play Roger in the 4th round, but he lost to Robredo. I know 2013 wasn't Roger's best year, but you can't call him an easy 4th round draw. There were other good players in there, but I won't bore you with the whole draw. But that's an example of a draw opening up. Beat Djokovic in the final.

2019: We know what happened to Roger and Novak last year. There really wasn't much of anyone else. He did play Medvedev in the final, who was the hot player of the summer. I'm not sure what else folks could have hoped for.

2017: This was the "gimme" Slam. 6 of the top 11 players were out due to injury including Djokovic the finalist from the year prior, and Wawrinka the winner. What everyone forgets was that the top half, the one with Rafa and Roger and Del Potro in it, was the tough one. The bottom one had been Murray's half and he bailed. Cilic was in there and Zverev, and they both got upset, leaving Anderson for the final. Much trolling was done here to say that Rafa won that USO without playing anyone in the top 30, but a) he'd have played the #2 seed if Roger had made the date and b) Del Potro was artificially outside of the top 30. This Major was there for the taking for either Roger or Rafa. But if you give it even a second look, the draw wasn't easy for either, compared to the bottom half. The embarrassment should be for either Cilic or Zverev that they couldn't make the final.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I hear you, but the initial draw isn't what makes a slam easy or hard, as I think you are pointing out.

It would be excessively tedious, but it would be interesting to see which were the easiest and hardest Slam titles in terms of rankings of opponents. I'm sure someone has done the leg-work...

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I hear you, but the initial draw isn't what makes a slam easy or hard, as I think you are pointing out.

It would be excessively tedious, but it would be interesting to see which were the easiest and hardest Slam titles in terms of rankings of opponents. I'm sure someone has done the leg-work...

Sure, a Slam could work out to be easy for the winner, if the draw opens up, and particularly if we're talking about the Holy Trinity, as you call them. The other thing I noted looking at these particular draws, and thinking across the past 10+ years of dominance by the Big 2-3-4 is that, as we sort of well know, the early rounds mean next to nothing to these guys. Yes, the odd upset, or tough early match, but mostly it's just about getting to the 2nd week or QF or SF. When the big 3 have won a Major, it has rarely mattered who they played until QF's, at the earliest.

As to working out draws by ranking, that's still a fool's errand, even if one could be bothered. H2Hs still mean something. And, as I pointed out in Nadal's 2017 path to victory, he played Del Potro, who beat Roger, and was a USO champion, but he was artificially ranked outside of the top 20 due to injury. (I got that wrong earlier. He was ranked 28 going into the USO in '17.) But he was back in the top 10 by Jan. of the next year. Likewise Stan, for example, who has been a dangerous floater. Would you downgrade someone like him as an opponent, just because his ranking was low due to injury, but if he was playing on form?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

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?

No it would be 12-.1. We are talking best of 5 sets, not wta matches. Nadal in clay best of 5 sets is a whole different animal.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Seriously, man, this post is a pile of garbage.

So, we move the US Open to Melbourne and the French Open to Madrid?

I am starting to miss the days when he considered "Nalbandian" was the GOAT because of his style of play.

 

[tented]

Yeah, I hear you, but the initial draw isn't what makes a slam easy or hard, as I think you are pointing out.

It would be excessively tedious, but it would be interesting to see which were the easiest and hardest Slam titles in terms of rankings of opponents. I'm sure someone has done the leg-work...

Try Greg Sharko — @SharkoTennis on Twitter. He’s the go-to guy commentators use for stats.

 

[El Dude]

Sure, a Slam could work out to be easy for the winner, if the draw opens up, and particularly if we're talking about the Holy Trinity, as you call them. The other thing I noted looking at these particular draws, and thinking across the past 10+ years of dominance by the Big 2-3-4 is that, as we sort of well know, the early rounds mean next to nothing to these guys. Yes, the odd upset, or tough early match, but mostly it's just about getting to the 2nd week or QF or SF. When the big 3 have won a Major, it has rarely mattered who they played until QF's, at the earliest.

As to working out draws by ranking, that's still a fool's errand, even if one could be bothered. H2Hs still mean something. And, as I pointed out in Nadal's 2017 path to victory, he played Del Potro, who beat Roger, and was a USO champion, but he was artificially ranked outside of the top 20 due to injury. (I got that wrong earlier. He was ranked 28 going into the USO in '17.) But he was back in the top 10 by Jan. of the next year. Likewise Stan, for example, who has been a dangerous floater. Would you downgrade someone like him as an opponent, just because his ranking was low due to injury, but if he was playing on form?

Yes, agreed. I actually wasted an hour or so last night creating a spread sheet listing every opponent with their ranking for each of the 56 Slam titles of the Trinity, and had the same thought multiple times. For example, Marat Safin was #86 at the 2004 AO but was definitely one of the five best players in the sport.

I will say that Rafa and Novak faced another of the Trinity in the final or semifinal far more times than Roger did. We knew this, but it is pretty clear from the chart. Roger had to defeat Agassi a couple times, so that matters. But if we look at all-time greats defeated en route to the Slam title (Trinity + Agassi) we get:

Federer: 9 of 20 (incl 2x Agassi); never both.
Rafa: 12 of 19; 3 times both Roger and Novak.
Novak: 13 of 17; 1 time both Roger and Rafa.

Meaning, Novak only had four Slam titles in which he didn't have to face at least one of the other two.

The easiest Slam title of the three was probably the 2017 USO for Rafa, with only del Potro and Anderson as somewhat significant threats, as has been discussed. I'd say Roger's 2006 AO was pretty close--Haas and Davydenko were the best players he faced. Novak's 2018 USO was probably his easiest, with only del Potro in the final being a really good player, and I suppose Nishikori in the SF. Roger's 2018 AO was also pretty light, as was Rafa's 2010 RG.

Hard to say which was the most difficult, partially because of match-ups but it is also hard to know how each opponent was performing at the time. In both 2007 and 2008 Rafa had to beat Novak and then Roger in the SF-F, but Novak wasn't peak yet. Novak had to beat Roger-Rafa in the 2011 USO, but not much before then. Roger's 2004 AO was rather cool because he had to beat most of his best peers in a row: Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, then Safin. And of course 2017 AO, with Berdych, Nishikori, Wawrinka and then Nadal.

I'm hoping that we'll see a different story in 2020 and beyond, with more of the young guns going deep and posing stronger threats. The window of opportunity is getting more narrow, despite the maintained dominance.

 

[tented]

Yes, agreed. I actually wasted an hour or so last night creating a spread sheet listing every opponent with their ranking for each of the 56 Slam titles of the Trinity, and had the same thought multiple times. For example, Marat Safin was #86 at the 2004 AO but was definitely one of the five best players in the sport.

I will say that Rafa and Novak faced another of the Trinity in the final or semifinal far more times than Roger did. We knew this, but it is pretty clear from the chart. Roger had to defeat Agassi a couple times, so that matters. But if we look at all-time greats defeated en route to the Slam title (Trinity + Agassi) we get:

Federer: 9 of 20 (incl 2x Agassi); never both.
Rafa: 12 of 19; 3 times both Roger and Novak.
Novak: 13 of 17; 1 time both Roger and Rafa.

Meaning, Novak only had four Slam titles in which he didn't have to face at least one of the other two.

The easiest Slam title of the three was probably the 2017 USO for Rafa, with only del Potro and Anderson as somewhat significant threats, as has been discussed. I'd say Roger's 2006 AO was pretty close--Haas and Davydenko were the best players he faced. Novak's 2018 USO was probably his easiest, with only del Potro in the final being a really good player, and I suppose Nishikori in the SF. Roger's 2018 AO was also pretty light, as was Rafa's 2010 RG.

Hard to say which was the most difficult, partially because of match-ups but it is also hard to know how each opponent was performing at the time. In both 2007 and 2008 Rafa had to beat Novak and then Roger in the SF-F, but Novak wasn't peak yet. Novak had to beat Roger-Rafa in the 2011 USO, but not much before then. Roger's 2004 AO was rather cool because he had to beat most of his best peers in a row: Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, then Safin. And of course 2017 AO, with Berdych, Nishikori, Wawrinka and then Nadal.

I'm hoping that we'll see a different story in 2020 and beyond, with more of the young guns going deep and posing stronger threats. The window of opportunity is getting more narrow, despite the maintained dominance.

I love that you’ve taken the time to compile information such as this over the years. Thanks.

I’ll add that Roger’s 2007 AO was pretty easy too. In fact, I believe it was the first time that someone won a major without dropping a set since the late 70s (Borg). He played Novak, but he certainly wasn’t in peak form yet. He played Roddick in the SF: 6-4, 6-0, 6-2. A memorable match. I think @brokenshoelace once described it as Roger being able to do anything he wanted.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, 2007 AO was on the easier side, but he still had to face a young--but talented--Novak, and three top 10 opponents in Robredo, Roddick, and Gonzalez. So easier side, but not a total walkover.

My sense is that the "archetypal" Slam run would be something like this:

1R: wildcard and/or outside top 100
2R: 51-100ish
3R: 31-50ish
4R: 11-30ish (seeded)
QF: Top 10
SF: Top 5
F: Top 3

Anything below that is easier than average, anything above that is harder than average.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I love that you’ve taken the time to compile information such as this over the years. Thanks.

I’ll add that Roger’s 2007 AO was pretty easy too. In fact, I believe it was the first time that someone won a major without dropping a set since the late 70s (Borg). He played Novak, but he certainly wasn’t in peak form yet. He played Roddick in the SF: 6-4, 6-0, 6-2. A memorable match. I think @brokenshoelace once described it as Roger being able to do anything he wanted.

Don't get me started about the anemic tennis abilities of Roddick.

 

[Ricardo]

Don't get me started about the anemic tennis abilities of Roddick.

sure he is only 5-4 overall vs Djoker, zero ability whatsoever.

 

[calitennis127]

But every great player has lost big matches to lesser players. Every single one, from Connors to Borg to McEnroe to Sampras, and of course the Big Three.

I mean, Rafa lost to Soderling to open Roland Garros for Federer in 2009. That's one, obvious example, but there are countless more.

No, Nadal has far fewer bad losses on his resume than the Djokovic or Federer. To Nadal's credit he has generally beaten people who he should beat and he has never had embarrassing self-implosions like Federer did against Dimitrov last year. That was a horrible loss in which Federer was firmly in control of the match and simply squandered it.

 

[calitennis127]

Yes, but everything has a trade-off. If you bring in a second clay major then you'll lose one of the others. Sure, it might bump up Novak's clay resume, but he'd likely have less grand slam titles overall...

Actually, it would depend on which hardcourt Slam was being replaced. If it was the Australian Open, you're probably right. But if it was the US Open, it is entirely conceivable that Djokovic would have more Slams now if it was played on clay. Hence my point about how badly he has underachieved at the US Open.

And I will grant that Nadal would have two homecourt Slams if the second was on clay. But by the same token Federer and Djokovic would have known this and placed more emphasis on doing well at those events.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

"Take out those FOUR - yes, fucking FOUR...1, 2, 3, 4 - major titles at this particular grand slam, his resume sucks."

Amazing argument. Yes, all you have to do is erase 4 US Opens, which is more titles than Federer and Djokovic have at the FO COMBINED, then his resume isn't as impressive. I really don't have to explain to you why this is so stupid. Or are there 2 US Opens per year, allowing Nadal to rack them up easier?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I still find it hilarious that Nadal's US Open wins, all FOUR of them, are being labelled as fluky, but by the same token, Roger's sole RG win, which he conveniently won the one time he managed to avoid the guy who always beats him (well, he managed to avoid him other times too...due to losing to other players), isn't. You can't have one without the other.

 

[Ricardo]

No, Nadal has far fewer bad losses on his resume than the Djokovic or Federer. To Nadal's credit he has generally beaten people who he should beat and he has never had embarrassing self-implosions like Federer did against Dimitrov last year. That was a horrible loss in which Federer was firmly in control of the match and simply squandered it.

You are correct Fed has lost more matches which he was in control of, than the other big 3.....I would say it adds to their legacy though. Since mental fortitude is part of greatness.