Will Novak pass Rafa?

[the AntiPusher]

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.

Fed or Djoker never lost to Dustin Brown at Wimbledon.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

I am willing to acknowledge that Federer's Roland Garros win was a fluke. When have I ever said anything to the contrary? If you recall, I royally pissed of Darth a few years ago by pointing out that Federer avoided Nadal on numerous occasions and never overcame him head-to-head, particularly on clay.

 

[calitennis127]

Fed or Djoker never lost to Dustin Brown at Wimbledon.

Federer and Djokovic also don't play a style that is highly vulnerable to getting their ass kicked by a big hitter at Wimbledon. That factors in to what we are talking about.

 

[calitennis127]

"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?

Look. Do I really have to back this up to the beginning for you?

Let me make this as simple as possible: there are two hardcourt Slams. Therefore Nadal has had far more chances to win HC Slams than Djokovic has had to win clay slams.

Furthermore, Djokovic has only 1 less MS title on clay than Nadal has on hardcourts, despite there being twice as many hardcourt MS events on the calendar every year.

This is a matter of percentages based on opportunities.

I hope the argument is clear now.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Look. Do I really have to back this up to the beginning for you?

Let me make this as simple as possible: there are two hardcourt Slams. Therefore Nadal has had far more chances to win HC Slams than Djokovic has had to win clay slams.

Furthermore, Djokovic has only 1 less MS title on clay than Nadal has on hardcourts, despite there being twice as many hardcourt MS events on the calendar every year.

This is a matter of percentages based on opportunities.

I hope the argument is clear now.

THERE IS ONLY ONE US OPEN PER YEAR THOUGH!

Jesus Christ. We're comparing apples to apples.

Nadal has won 4 US Opens. That's double the amount of French Opens that Djokovic and Federer have won COMBINED. Nadal has as many chances to win the US Open each year as Novak and Roger do at the French every year. They all have one chance (though in Roger's case sometimes it's zero since he sometimes skips the French Open in an admission that he's not good enough to win it).

How fucking dumb are you?

 

[calitennis127]

THERE IS ONLY ONE US OPEN PER YEAR THOUGH!

Jesus Christ. We're comparing apples to apples.

Nadal has won 4 US Opens. That's double the amount of French Opens that Djokovic and Federer have won COMBINED. Nadal has as many chances to win the US Open each year as Novak and Roger do at the French every year. They all have one chance (though in Roger's case sometimes it's zero since he sometimes skips the French Open in an admission that he's not good enough to win it).

How fucking dumb are you?

Lol.....you fucking idiot: this conversation started with you comparing Djokovic's clay resume to Nadal's hardcourt resume. You can dance around one simple fact all you want but you can't change it: Nadal has far more opportunities to win hardcourt Slams than Djokovic or Federer do to win clay Slams because there are more of them. Period. Nadal has stabs at the Australian Open and US Open. Djokovic and Federer only have the French when it comes to clay.

Also, another fact you can dance around but ultimately cannot avoid: Nadal only has 1 more MS title on hards than Djokovic has on clay despite there being twice as many hardcourt MS events.

 

[calitennis127]

THERE IS ONLY ONE US OPEN PER YEAR THOUGH!

IT'S NOT THE ONLY HARDCOURT SLAM THOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE NADAL HAS TWICE AS MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO WIN HC SLAMS AS DJOKOVIC AND FEDERER DO TO WIN CLAY SLAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[britbox]

IT'S NOT THE ONLY HARDCOURT SLAM THOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE NADAL HAS TWICE AS MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO WIN HC SLAMS AS DJOKOVIC AND FEDERER DO TO WIN CLAY SLAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm puzzled. (and I'm not a Nadal fan by any stretch)... but he's won 5 on hard courts, and they've won 1. on clay That's five times as many with twice the chance. Not really sure what point you are trying to make Cali, because if it's a stats-based one then it's a bad fail.

 

[Moxie]

I am willing to acknowledge that Federer's Roland Garros win was a fluke. When have I ever said anything to the contrary? If you recall, I royally pissed of Darth a few years ago by pointing out that Federer avoided Nadal on numerous occasions and never overcame him head-to-head, particularly on clay.

You've said many times in the past year that you think Federer should have won the 2011 RG final v. Nadal. Including in this very thread: https://www.tennisfrontier.com/threads/will-novak-pass-rafa.6107/page-17 In your post #339. If you believe that Roger could have won in 2011, then his winning in 2009 shouldn't be considered a "fluke," isn't that correct? I believe you have also said that both Roger and Novak have "underperformed" at RG. Again, that would contradict the notion of "fluking" one win, would it not?

 

[calitennis127]

I'm puzzled. (and I'm not a Nadal fan by any stretch)... but he's won 5 on hard courts, and they've won 1. on clay That's five times as many with twice the chance. Not really sure what point you are trying to make Cali, because if it's a stats-based one then it's a bad fail.

Again, this started as a comparison between the hardcourt resume of Nadal and the clay court resume of Djokovic. The point of the conversation was to argue who has the better resume on their second-best surface. What I keep pointing out is that Djokovic has only 1 less clay MS title than Nadal has HC MS titles despite having half as many opportunities.

And when it comes to Grand Slams, notice that when Broken says that Djokovic only has 1 clay court Slam he compares that total to what Nadal has at the US Open, not the Australian Open. Broken never brings up Nadal's second HC slam where his results are very similar to those of Djokovic and Federer at Roland Garros (1 title with some runner-up finishes and other losses late in the tournament).

I am simply making the point that Nadal has 2 HC Slams to play while Djokovic only has 1 clay court slam to play.

 

[calitennis127]

You've said many times in the past year that you think Federer should have won the 2011 RG final v. Nadal. Including in this very thread: https://www.tennisfrontier.com/threads/will-novak-pass-rafa.6107/page-17 In your post #339. If you believe that Roger could have won in 2011, then his winning in 2009 shouldn't be considered a "fluke," isn't that correct?

No, it should, because Federer showed repeatedly that no matter how high his level was going into clay finals against Nadal his strategy was too obtuse for him to beat Nadal, or even close out sets where he was up 5-2 (Roland Garros) or even 5-1 (Hamburg).

I believe you have also said that both Roger and Novak have "underperformed" at RG. Again, that would contradict the notion of "fluking" one win, would it not?

Not at all, though I think the win in Djokovic's case can be considered far less of a fluke. Djokovic has a much better overall record on clay against Nadal than Federer does, having beaten him in 6 MS finals and one time at Roland Garros. And three of his losses (2012, 2013, and 2014) were matches that he certainly could have won. Federer never took Nadal to 5 sets at Roland Garros or had him on the ropes to go up 2 sets to 0 like Djokovic did in the 2014 final (which was just 1 month after Djokovic beat him in Rome).

Federer's 2009 win was a fluke that happened because Nadal lost. Djokovic's 2016 win happened many years too late.

And yes, for the record, I do think Federer should have won both the 2007 and 2011 Roland Garros finals. He was the better player for long stretches in each of those matches.

 

[El Dude]

I'm puzzled. (and I'm not a Nadal fan by any stretch)... but he's won 5 on hard courts, and they've won 1. on clay That's five times as many with twice the chance. Not really sure what point you are trying to make Cali, because if it's a stats-based one then it's a bad fail.

Well done. It is really quite simple:

Rafa on hardcourts: 5 titles in 30 appearances. Conversion rate: 16.7%
Roger and Novak on clay: 2 titles in 33 appearances. Conversion rate: 6.1%

 

[the AntiPusher]

Federer and Djokovic also don't play a style that is highly vulnerable to getting their ass kicked by a big hitter at Wimbledon. That factors in to what we are talking about.

Cali, my friend. I do like your post but you keep "moving the goalposts" on the way you are providing the evaluations of Nadal's victories and accomplishments. Dustin Brown is not a big hitter by any stretch of the imagination. Roger and Novak's style of play are not similar to each other's. I know you didn't exactly say that they were but Rafa's game is very unique just like maybe a majority of players.
El Dude last post really addresses the winning percentage on all the surfaces and its very apparent that the numbers don't lie.

 

[El Dude]

A caveat: Rafa has had greater success on hards than Novak and Roger on clay, but that doesn't in itself mean that he's a greater hard court player than they are clay-courters. But not for reasons that Cali is saying. But this is one area where I think it is valid to differentiate between accomplishments and ability.

But it is undeniable: Rafa has had greater success on hard courts than Roger or Novak on clay. But it is not because there isn't a second clay Slam. It is because Rafa is such a great clay player.

The main problem with assessing anyone (other than Rafa) on clay is that Rafa on clay is the clear "surface GOAT." No one else dominates any surface like he does. Playing in the last decade and a half, you could literally be the second greatest clay courter ever and still not have more than an RG title or two.

I'm not saying that Roger or Novak are the second greatest clay courters ever, just that their single RG titles don't accurately represent how good they've been on clay.

How about, instead, RG finals:

12 Rafa
7 Borg
5 Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Federer
4 Djokovic
3 Connors, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi, Kuerten

Only two players have reached more RG finals than Federer: the two that are generally considered to be the two greatest clay-courters of all time. Lendl, Vilas, and Wilander all have a better clay resume than Roger, but that is skewed by Rafa. So it is hard to say.

Novak will likely reach at least one more RG final, if not more.

 

[Moxie]

Federer's 2009 win was a fluke that happened because Nadal lost. Djokovic's 2016 win happened many years too late.

And yes, for the record, I do think Federer should have won both the 2007 and 2011 Roland Garros finals. He was the better player for long stretches in each of those matches.

If you think Fed's strategy was bad against Nadal, and that 2009 was a "fluke" then you have to stop insisting that Fed "should" have beaten Nadal in the 2011 final, or in '07, for that matter. Surely, it was lucky for Roger that Nadal got dumped out by Soderling in 2009, but then he was the one expected to win the tournament after that. If his skill was such that he was capable of beating Nadal, only that he employed the wrong strategy, then he wasn't going to win those matches. (And in fact, he didn't.) But which is it? Either he was good enough to win more than 1 RG or he got one by lucky happenstance. Personally, I don't think that either Roger or Novak winning RG was a fluke, only that they needed Nadal out of the way for it to happen.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is time for some Levity in the thread. I think Novak will whole heartedly agree with the idea of running tournaments without fans. This guy never gets support from fans (especially when he plays against Fedal). Sometimes people even applaud his doublefaults and missed overhead shots. I think Novak will thoroughly enjoy playing without fans.

 

[Jelenafan]

If we're adding finals to see how well one does in a surface, Nadal

A caveat: Rafa has had greater success on hards than Novak and Roger on clay, but that doesn't in itself mean that he's a greater hard court player than they are clay-courters. But not for reasons that Cali is saying. But this is one area where I think it is valid to differentiate between accomplishments and ability.

But it is undeniable: Rafa has had greater success on hard courts than Roger or Novak on clay. But it is not because there isn't a second clay Slam. It is because Rafa is such a great clay player.

The main problem with assessing anyone (other than Rafa) on clay is that Rafa on clay is the clear "surface GOAT." No one else dominates any surface like he does. Playing in the last decade and a half, you could literally be the second greatest clay courter ever and still not have more than an RG title or two.

I'm not saying that Roger or Novak are the second greatest clay courters ever, just that their single RG titles don't accurately represent how good they've been on clay.

How about, instead, RG finals:

12 Rafa
7 Borg
5 Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Federer
4 Djokovic
3 Connors, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi, Kuerten

Only two players have reached more RG finals than Federer: the two that are generally considered to be the two greatest clay-courters of all time. Lendl, Vilas, and Wilander all have a better clay resume than Roger, but that is skewed by Rafa. So it is hard to say.

Novak will likely reach at least one more RG final, if not more.

So Couldn't you apply that logic to Hard Courts where Nadal has reached 10 HC finals and in grass where he's reached 5 Wimbledon finals? IE, his record doesn't accurately show how good he is in those surfaces. So Perhaps he's a better HC and Grass court player then some presuppose.

 

[El Dude]

If we're adding finals to see how well one does in a surface, Nadal


So Couldn't you apply that logic to Hard Courts where Nadal has reached 10 HC finals and in grass where he's reached 5 Wimbledon finals? IE, his record doesn't accurately show how good he is in those surfaces. So Perhaps he's a better HC and Grass court player then some presuppose.

Absolutely, nor did I mean to imply otherwise. But the focus was on Rafa's hard court performances vs. Roger's and Novak's clay resumes.

I've often used the finals barometer as a way to point out how Andy Murray is closer to lesser greats like Wilander-Edberg-Becker than he is to Vilas-Courier-Kuerten. He's been to 11 finals, the same as W-E-B, but had the misfortune of playing alongside the three GOATs.

 

[El Dude]

Slam Finals by Court Type:
CLAY
12 Nadal
7 Borg
5 Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Federer
4 Djokovic

GRASS
12 Federer
9 Connors
7 Newcombe, Becker, Sampras
6 Rosewall, Borg, Djokovic
5 Ashe, McEnroe, Edberg, Nadal

HARD
16 Djokovic
14 Federer
11 Lendl, Sampras
10 Agassi, Nadal
7 Murray

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Slam Finals by Court Type:
CLAY
12 Nadal
7 Borg
5 Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Federer
4 Djokovic

GRASS
12 Federer
9 Connors
7 Newcombe, Becker, Sampras
6 Rosewall, Borg, Djokovic
5 Ashe, McEnroe, Edberg, Nadal

HARD
16 Djokovic
14 Federer
11 Lendl, Sampras
10 Agassi, Nadal
7 Murray

So, In total

Federer 31 > Nadal 27 > Novak 26.

So, Federer is greater than Nadal by a larger margin than perceived.

Also, Nadal is only marginally greater than Novak than perceived.