Will Novak pass Rafa?

[El Dude]

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.

I think you know that that's not what I'm saying.

Anyhow, I would guess that Rafa and Novak end up in more Slam finals that Roger, or a very similar number.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

With no regard to time served on the tour again; age just comes and goes on a whim!

 

[Jelenafan]

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.

Aren’t stats so much fun?

Nadal 27/59 = 45.8 %

Djokovic 26/60= 43.33 %

Federer 31/79 = 39.2 %

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

And yet he's won 4 US Open titles, which as you know, happens once per year, just as the French Open is playedonce a year. So, to compare apples to apples, please explain how Nadal managed to win 4 US Open titles (let's ignore the AO title), while they only won two FO's combined. The argument is very simple and you're continuing to swim around it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Yes, and he's got 4 times as many US Opens as Novak does French Opens. Explain that. Oh right, 4 fluky wins.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, something tells me Nadal would totally sign up for two clay slams a year, in order to give Roger and Novak a fairer chance at balancing their clay resumes. Something also tells me not a single non-Nadal fan around here would have wanted to see that, for their own sanity and well-being.

 

[Fiero425]

Aren’t stats so much fun?

Nadal 27/59 = 45.8 %

Djokovic 26/60= 43.33 %

Federer 31/79 = 39.2 %

Again age and opportunity come into play!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Again age and opportunity come into play!

Novak and Nadal are almost the same age and have had the same opportunities. What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

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.

Lol Federer is 5 and 6 years older than Nadal and Djokovic and has played many more slams. He should lead by much more. In fact even Djokovic has played more slams than Nadal due to Nadal’s many injuries. So again GOATdal wins based on number of finals compare to how many slams he has played. have a nice day.

 

[calitennis127]

And yet he's won 4 US Open titles, which as you know, happens once per year, just as the French Open is playedonce a year. So, to compare apples to apples, please explain how Nadal managed to win 4 US Open titles (let's ignore the AO title), while they only won two FO's combined. The argument is very simple and you're continuing to swim around it.

There are dozens of reasons for why Nadal has 4 US Open titles while the other two have 2 Roland Garros titles combined. But why do you keep choosing Nadal's better HC slam for comparison to what the other two have done on clay? Apparently the Australian Open doesn't count.

How does Nadal's Melbourne resume measure up what Djokovic and Federer have done at Roland Garros? You are strangely silent about that particular comparison.

 

[calitennis127]

Yes, and he's got 4 times as many US Opens as Novak does French Opens. Explain that. Oh right, 4 fluky wins.

Yes, and Nadal has only as many Australian Opens as Djokovic does French Opens. Explain that. Oh right, the Australian Open doesn't matter when evaluating Nadal because it is just a mulligan for the other hardcourt Slam.

Regarding Nadal's US Open wins: it's not my fault that Djokovic and Medvedev could not close him out or that Federer shit the bed against Delpo in the 2017 quarterfinal and Dimitrov last year. Djokovic missing a simple CC backhand to go up double break against Nadal in the 3rd set of the 2013 final is not something you should be banging your chest about.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

The reason I am saying that 2009 was a fluke for Federer is that he had the good fortune of Nadal losing and that's the main reason he won the title. Nadal has typically not lost at Roland Garros in the last 15 years.

Saying that Federer should have won the 2007 title (where he failed on roughly 10 million breakpoints) and the 2011 title (when he owned Nadal for most of the first set to go up 5-2) has nothing at all to do with saying that him winning in 2009 was a fluke. If you look at his body of work on paper, Federer simply could not beat Nadal at Roland Garros. Therefore, his 2009 victory was a fluke in the sense that he won it simply because he was lucky Nadal got knocked out.

I think it is one of the biggest stains on Federer's resume that despite his talent and the ease with which he won Slams from 2003-2007, he never found a way to overcome the challenge of Nadal at Roland Garros.

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?

It's both. 2009 was a fluke but he also should have won in 2007 and 2011.

Either he was good enough to win more than 1 RG or he got one by lucky happenstance.

Why can't it be both?

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.

I wouldn't lump them in the same category. That is lazy. Djokovic has a much better overall record against Nadal on clay and twice at Roland Garros (2013 and 2014) he had Nadal on the ropes and one year (2015) he straight-setted him at Roland Garros.

When did Federer beat Nadal in multiple MS clay finals in the same year? When did he beat him in Monte Carlo or Rome? When did he beat him at Roland Garros? When did Federer ever have a definitive lead on Nadal at Roland Garros where he was within striking distance of winning the match (as Djokovic did in 2013 and 2014 each)?

It really makes no sense to put the two in the same category.

 

[Moxie]

The reason I am saying that 2009 was a fluke for Federer is that he had the good fortune of Nadal losing and that's the main reason he won the title. Nadal has typically not lost at Roland Garros in the last 15 years.

Saying that Federer should have won the 2007 title (where he failed on roughly 10 million breakpoints) and the 2011 title (when he owned Nadal for most of the first set to go up 5-2) has nothing at all to do with saying that him winning in 2009 was a fluke. If you look at his body of work on paper, Federer simply could not beat Nadal at Roland Garros. Therefore, his 2009 victory was a fluke in the sense that he won it simply because he was lucky Nadal got knocked out.

I think it is one of the biggest stains on Federer's resume that despite his talent and the ease with which he won Slams from 2003-2007, he never found a way to overcome the challenge of Nadal at Roland Garros.

It's both. 2009 was a fluke but he also should have won in 2007 and 2011.

Why can't it be both?

Basically, because of the definition of "fluke." You like to reinvent the definition of words, ("collapse" comes to mind, as a recent example,) but I really don't understand how you can insist that Roger beating Nadal in '07 and '11 were likely to the point of them being finals he "should" have won, beating Nadal in those matches, when you say that he only won in '09 because Nadal was absent. I.e., that he wouldn't have beaten Nadal that year, in a match that wasn't played. Also because, as I said above, Federer winning that tournament once Nadal was out was the expected outcome. The "fluke" would have been if Haas, who had a MP v. Roger in their match, had actually beaten him and gone on to win RG that year. Try to be more careful with your use of words.

I wouldn't lump them in the same category. That is lazy. Djokovic has a much better overall record against Nadal on clay and twice at Roland Garros (2013 and 2014) he had Nadal on the ropes and one year (2015) he straight-setted him at Roland Garros.

When did Federer beat Nadal in multiple MS clay finals in the same year? When did he beat him in Monte Carlo or Rome? When did he beat him at Roland Garros? When did Federer ever have a definitive lead on Nadal at Roland Garros where he was within striking distance of winning the match (as Djokovic did in 2013 and 2014 each)?

It really makes no sense to put the two in the same category.

I would say they fit in the same category vis-à-vis Nadal at RG in that, in their times, they have each been the 2nd best player on clay in many matches against him there, and, no matter how close Djokovic got, he only beat Nadal there in a very reduced form. And even then, he didn't win the tournament. Each was only able to win that title when he wasn't there to be played. You can try making that vastly different, but it really isn't.

 

[El Dude]

How about this notion: There's no such thing as a "fluke" Slam. Yes, there are one-Slam wonders, but beating seven ATP players in a row--some of whom are either elite or playing in good enough form to beat elites (e.g. Anderson in 2017) to be worthy opponents--is never a fluke.

Instead there are easier or harder routes to the title. But every route is pretty damn hard, especially in the last thirty years or so. One commonality the Big Three all share is that they've had both. You don't accrue 17-19-20 Slams, or even just a few, without having some of both.

As a Federer fan I have no problem saying that he's had more easy Slams than Novak or Rafa. Scanning over my chart, Novak has probably had the hardest routes overall, then Rafa, than Roger. But they're all mixed. And you can't exactly penalize them for the easy ones, because they all had a chance of winning those Slams regardless of who they faced.

Again, take Roger. Some of his early Slams were on the easier side. Replace Gonzalez or Baghdatis with Novak or Rafa and he might lose. But similarly with his French Open finals: replace Rafa with anyone and he'd have one or two--or three or four--more. Over such long careers, "luck-of-the-draw" and easy vs. hard tends to even out.

End of discussion? Didn't think so

 

[GameSetAndMath]

How about this notion: There's no such thing as a "fluke" Slam. Yes, there are one-Slam wonders, but beating seven ATP players in a row--some of whom are either elite or playing in good enough form to beat elites (e.g. Anderson in 2017) to be worthy opponents--is never a fluke.

What if RG goes on despite numerous cases of COVID19 in France. Then players from other countries would not go there and La Monf (assuming he did not test positive) will win it beating seven other negative French players. Wouldn't you call that a fluke slam?

p.s. In fact, this was the case for AO for several years in the past (although without any virus).

 

[El Dude]

What if RG goes on despite numerous cases of COVID19 in France. Then players from other countries would not go there and La Monf (assuming he did not test positive) will win it beating seven other negative French players. Wouldn't you call that a fluke slam?

p.s. In fact, this was the case for AO for several years in the past (although without any virus).

There's a reason I said "last thirty years"--or maybe 35, really. I was thinking of the AO before then, but especially the Kriek era.

But yeah, that would be an exception. It wouldn't be unlike MLB during WWII, when most of the stars were off killing "Japs" and Nazis. You had players like Snuffy Stirnweiss winning batting titles - .309 in 1945. He never hit above .261 after the real players came home.

I'd love to see Monfils win the FO, btw.

(And no, Moxie, it has nothing to do with Nadal )

 

[Jelenafan]

What if RG goes on despite numerous cases of COVID19 in France. Then players from other countries would not go there and La Monf (assuming he did not test positive) will win it beating seven other negative French players. Wouldn't you call that a fluke slam?

p.s. In fact, this was the case for AO for several years in the past (although without any virus).

You’re going waaaay back , circa 1977-1982, and even then some finalist/winners in other Majors won ( Vita’s Geralitis, Guillermo Vilas) some of those years.

I think El Dude’s point is that in this modern era the fields of the Majors are packed with the top players so it’s an impressive feat to win one regardless .

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, and Nadal has only as many Australian Opens as Djokovic does French Opens. Explain that. Oh right, the Australian Open doesn't matter when evaluating Nadal because it is just a mulligan for the other hardcourt Slam.

Regarding Nadal's US Open wins: it's not my fault that Djokovic and Medvedev could not close him out or that Federer shit the bed against Delpo in the 2017 quarterfinal and Dimitrov last year. Djokovic missing a simple CC backhand to go up double break against Nadal in the 3rd set of the 2013 final is not something you should be banging your chest about.

What a bullshit, cop-out post. I expected more effort honestly.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are dozens of reasons for why Nadal has 4 US Open titles while the other two have 2 Roland Garros titles combined. But why do you keep choosing Nadal's better HC slam for comparison to what the other two have done on clay? Apparently the Australian Open doesn't count.

How does Nadal's Melbourne resume measure up what Djokovic and Federer have done at Roland Garros? You are strangely silent about that particular comparison.

Guy A: "Nadal only has 1 Australian Open. Just like Novak has 1 French Open. His failures on clay aren't any different to Nadal's failures on hards."

Guy B: "Yes, but he has 4 US Opens..."

Guy A: "If only there was a second clay slam for Novak to balance out their resumes. Novak would surely have won more of that slam than Nadal did at the US Open ""

Guy B: "Novak doesn't even have as many US Opens as Nadal."

Guy A: "...""

 

[calitennis127]

What a bullshit, cop-out post. I expected more effort honestly.

Lol.....what do you want me to do? List all 45 reasons for why Nadal has more US Open wins than Djokovic does? We have gone over those many times. The gnat took advantage of his opportunities while Djokovic and Federer severely underachieved.

That is the essence of it. And you know (unlike clueless Moxie) that at the start of the 3rd set in the 2013 final Djokovic was in complete and total control and was bitching Nadal around the court, with far more forehand winners than your Mr. Forehand was producing. Djokovic was the better player and lost. But you have to give Nadal credit. He has his petty way of pulling out matches even when he is getting owned. I will admit that only Nadal possesses the pettiness to win a match in which he is outhit in winners 59 to 13 (like what happened in Rome against Gulbis). That is a unique gnat talent.