Will Novak pass Rafa?

[Moxie]

Djokovic completely squandered the break point to go up double break to 3-0. Had he gone up two breaks the likelihood of Nadal winning the set would have been close to zero.

Right but Nadal won that game. And again, you have nothing to say about the first set, which Nadal dominated. And you keep saying how Rafa wouldn't have comebacks had x not happened, but he's proven you wrong otherwise any number of times. It's just that you hate it. You can keep replaying that match in your mind with a different outcome, but there was only one winner. And I will say to you again, Djokovic had 5 sets to do better, but he only managed 4.

 

[calitennis127]

Right but Nadal won that game.

Because Djokovic missed a routine CC backhand on breakpoint, not because Nadal did anything special besides stay in the rally. Go watch the tape.

And again, you have nothing to say about the first set, which Nadal dominated.

That was not domination. He slightly outplayed Djokovic, who came out flat. But he did not dominate the set. The rallies were generally pretty long and if I remember correctly Nadal only hit 1 more winner than Djokovic did in the first set. Although - I must grant - by Nadal's standards that would be "dominating." So in your world I can see why you characterize it that way.

And you keep saying how Rafa wouldn't have comebacks had x not happened, but he's proven you wrong otherwise any number of times. It's just that you hate it. You can keep replaying that match in your mind with a different outcome, but there was only one winner. And I will say to you again, Djokovic had 5 sets to do better, but he only managed 4.

Comments such as these indicate that you really have no experience in playing sports or training with a highly competitive mentality. There are defining moments based on psychological thresholds that sway the direction of a match or game. Given that the US Open clearly plays faster than the Australian Open, the long rallies between Djokovic and Nadal required more energy to defend than at, say, Melbourne. Both players were clubbing the ball with offensive shots but retrieving very intensively at the same time. After how long the first two sets were, it was plain as day that the 3rd set would be decisive.

Nadal knew this (unlike you) which is why he threw everything he had into winning that third set. He knew there was no way he was coming back from 2 sets to 1, and to his credit he scratched and clawed to pull out the 3rd even though Djokovic clearly had the upper hand for most of it.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Because Djokovic missed a routine CC backhand on breakpoint, not because Nadal did anything special besides stay in the rally. Go watch the tape.



That was not domination. He slightly outplayed Djokovic, who came out flat. But he did not dominate the set. The rallies were generally pretty long and if I remember correctly Nadal only hit 1 more winner than Djokovic did in the first set. Although - I must grant - by Nadal's standards that would be "dominating." So in your world I can see why you characterize it that way.



Comments such as these indicate that you really have no experience in playing sports or training with a highly competitive mentality. There are defining moments based on psychological thresholds that sway the direction of a match or game. Given that the US Open clearly plays faster than the Australian Open, the long rallies between Djokovic and Nadal required more energy to defend than at, say, Melbourne. Both players were clubbing the ball with offensive shots but retrieving very intensively at the same time. After how long the first two sets were, it was plain as day that the 3rd set would be decisive.

Nadal knew this (unlike you) which is why he threw everything he had into winning that third set. He knew there was no way he was coming back from 2 sets to 1, and to his credit he scratched and clawed to pull out the 3rd even though Djokovic clearly had the upper hand for most of it.

Cali and Moxie, if you recall the early matches between Nadal and Djoker was always won by Rafa.

2006 RG
2007 RG
2007 Wimbledon
2008 RG
2008 Olympics
2010 US Open

The fact that this H2 H has changed so dramatically is still a bit humbling but I give both credit for having the ability to put a stop to some of their long h2h winning streaks vs each other. I hope Rafa can turn this around for the final time. Stan and Dominic's games have provided the blue print however their games are dissimilar to Rafa's game

 

[brokenshoelace]

If you are looking strictly at the scoreline of their 2015 Roland Garros match, Djokovic kicked Nadal's ass. If you look at the level of play, particularly in the first and second sets, it was not a completely dominant performance by Djokovic. This is completely consistent with my comments about Federer-Nadal matches on clay; I have said many times that the level was very close, but Nadal pulled out key points. There is no inconsistency here. There is just some complexity that flies over your head.

But, if you want to compare scorelines from the matches you brought up, here you go:

Nadal v. Gabashvili, 2009 US Open: 7-6, 7-6, 6-3
Nadal v. Istomin, 2009 US Open: 6-2, 7-6, 7-5

Djokovic v. Nadal, 2015 Roland Garros: 7-5, 6-3, 6-1

What's the difference? The two Nadal victories were clearly much more complicated. In the Gabashvili match, in particular, Nadal genuinely struggled. It's not too often he goes to two tiebreaks in the first round of a Grand Slam.



It's 2020. You have been on the forums for at least 15 years. It's clear that you have less vocabulary at your disposal than a 9-year-old, and you equate any sort of complexity with logical fallacy. As I explained above, there was no logical fallacy in what I said. And of course what you call "bias" is simply anything you don't like the sound of.

And here we go:

Djokovic was up on Nadal 4-0 in the first set of the 2015 Roland Garros quarter final. 4-0. That's not domination? If Nadal had gone on to win that set you would have wrote a fucking soliloquy about it.

Not enough to warrant the term "domination"? Fine, let's look at your arbitrary criteria: Novak hit 19 winners to Nadal's 10 during that set. Not domination by Cali standards? Or do you move the goalposts whenever it suits you? He had 9 break points, to Nadal's 5. Not domination?

The second set saw Noval hit 13 winners to Nadal's 4, and the final set 14 winners to Nadal's 2. Over the match, Novak had 18 break points. Nadal had 5.

Using the same nonsense that you always spew, how was that not domination?

The truth is, you literally make shit up as you go.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I just want to bump this thread especially after what happened today:

Nadal: 19 slams
Djokovic: 17 slams

There is 1 more slam this year: Roland Garros and it could very well determine the slam race at the very least between these two players.

If Nadal wins the French Open, it will be:

20 Slams for Nadal and 17 Slams for Djokovic

If Djokovic wins the French Open, it will be:

19 Slams for Nadal and 18 Slams for Djokovic

If neither player wins the French Open, then the count will remain the same.

As you could see, a win by either player next month could really shift the slam race scale.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I just want to bump this thread especially after what happened today:

Nadal: 19 slams
Djokovic: 17 slams

There is 1 more slam this year: Roland Garros and it could very well determine the slam race at the very least between these two players.

If Nadal wins the French Open, it will be:

20 Slams for Nadal and 17 Slams for Djokovic

If Djokovic wins the French Open, it will be:

19 Slams for Nadal and 18 Slams for Djokovic

If neither player wins the French Open, then the count will remain the same.

As you could see, a win by either player next month could really shift the slam race scale.

Nadal could win the French Open well into his 40s. He will end up with the slam record and it’s not even a question.

 

[El Dude]

Nadal could win the French Open well into his 40s. He will end up with the slam record and it’s not even a question.

Except it is a question. Both are aging and Novak is the more well-rounded player. Rafa seems to be more well-rounded (in terms of surfaces) than he was a decade ago, but also not as explosive. I think both are vulnerable and won't be as unbeatable as they were just a couple years ago, so no Slam title is automatic - even Roland Garros. Thiem has been inching closer to Rafa and, I think, has a legit shot this year. As does Novak. I'd temper your over-confidence if I were you.

And no, I don't think Rafa will win RG in his 40s. But we shall see.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Except it is a question. Both are aging and Novak is the more well-rounded player. Rafa seems to be more well-rounded (in terms of surfaces) than he was a decade ago, but also not as explosive. I think both are vulnerable and won't be as unbeatable as they were just a couple years ago, so no Slam title is automatic - even Roland Garros. Thiem has been inching closer to Rafa and, I think, has a legit shot this year. As does Novak. I'd temper your over-confidence if I were you.

And no, I don't think Rafa will win RG in his 40s. But we shall see.

It is why in my opinion, IF Nadal wins the French Open next year, then it will be really tough for Djokovic to surpass Nadal in the slam count. A three slam deficit (or lead depends on whose point of view you are looking at) will be a huge task. At 33.5 years old and the surge of the young players will make Djokovic's quest or opportunities hard and tight. Add in what happened yesterday, Djokovic has to really dig in mentally to try to erase that deficit. Anything can happen of course, but it will definitely be a tall order.

As for Nadal, he just have to take one slam (or match) at a time. There are no guarantees in sports, so he will try his very best to be focus one match at a time. You know for sure that he saw what happened to Djokovic yesterday. The opportunity to tie Federer AND increase his lead over Djokovic is on his racket next month at his favorite venue, so he will be mentally prepared on what's on hand.

 

[Bonaca]

Nadal is still celebrating.
Next month is very important for him, he has a shot at one slam, Novak at 3.
All of bulls opportunity’s to at least catch one important record is dirty Paris.
He is older and more in danger of injuries. Still no family, this will also throw him back.
If not now and next year, then never.

 

[Jelenafan]

Except it is a question. Both are aging and Novak is the more well-rounded player. Rafa seems to be more well-rounded (in terms of surfaces) than he was a decade ago, but also not as explosive. I think both are vulnerable and won't be as unbeatable as they were just a couple years ago, so no Slam title is automatic - even Roland Garros. Thiem has been inching closer to Rafa and, I think, has a legit shot this year. As does Novak. I'd temper your over-confidence if I were you.

And no, I don't think Rafa will win RG in his 40s. But we shall see.

El Dude, this isn’t directed at you, but after his first injury in 09 (and Even before) critics have been writing off Rafa for a whole slew of reasons. Been hearing for over 10 years he’s over. Done. Rafa is finished. Yes his body has taken some blows but this year I do think the 5 month sabbatical will be interesting how Rafa performs.

Clearly Rafa hasn’t got his old explosiveness but he’s made up for it in other ways through the years.

Obviously Theim is a real factor for the French Open, but a relatively injury free Rafa is still going to be the favorite. Of course it’s not a given , just like Novak was the favorite here but he probably would have still have had to go
through Theim ( who came so close at the AO) or Medvedev.

 

[Bonaca]

Once Novak ended his break of play in the 2nd and 3rd set, domina was behind.
Indeed it wasn’t that close, even against post prime BIG 3.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Soon it will be “Will Novak pass Roger?” because Rafa will be ahead of both.

 

[Bonaca]

Hopefully the three will keep up their level long enough, so pink sheet missy fails to win a single slam.

 

[Bonaca]

Nadal under huge pressure, just two shots on dirt this year and next, Novak more opportunities at 3 slams because he is more complete player.
Also Nadal did not earn one important record so far, he has to hurry up.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

If Nadal wins this year’s French Open by beating Djokovic in the final, he will be at:

20 slams
10-4 slam h2h vs Federer
10-6 slam h2h vs Djokovic

It would be epic and a confirmation that Nadal is the GOAT, since Federer would be at 4-10 and 6-11 in slam h2h and Djokovic would be 3 slams behind them, so both would have no case.

 

[Bonaca]

Not enough for goat, loser h2h against Novak and a joke in weeks at no1. Over a year behind .
Goat is domination , no 1 spot is best indicator.
Laughable to extract parts of a stat, like slam h2h out of overall h2h , which of course the better player leads.
Not a single WTF, last three slam matches lost to Novak. Not won all masters, not won all slams in a row.
And all of that despite being 2 years longer on pro tour

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Sorry it’s all about the slams and that means slam titles and slam h2h. If Nadal gets both he will be the undisputed Goat.

Then come things like Olympics, Year-end no.1, WTF, Masters 1000, weeks at no.1, Davis Cup, Overall titles, Overall h2h, career win-loss match records, etc.

Nadal has plenty of special records such as most titles in one slam, most consecutive years with a slam title, at least two slams on each surface, winning three slams in the year on three different surfaces, best one surface dominance ever, etc. and next week again most masters 1000 titles by himself.

Not to mention the huge accomplishment that he was able to beat the grass goat Federer in grass slam final, and the hardcourt goat Djokovic in hardcourt slam final, when they both didn’t manage to stop him in a clay slam final. He has showed excellence on all surfaces by beating the best in the finals.

Goldal, Silverer & Bronzokovic will end in that order of greatness. It wasn’t a coincidence.

 

[Bonaca]

Sorry it’s all about the slams and that means slam titles and slam h2h. If Nadal gets both he will be the undisputed Goat.

Then come things like Olympics, Year-end no.1, WTF, Masters 1000, weeks at no.1, Davis Cup, Overall titles, Overall h2h, career win-loss match records, etc.

Nadal has plenty of special records such as most titles in one slam, most consecutive years with a slam title, at least two slams on each surface, winning three slams in the year on three different surfaces, best one surface dominance ever, etc. and next week again most masters 1000 titles by himself.

Not to mention the huge accomplishment that he was able to beat the grass goat Federer in grass slam final, and the hardcourt goat Djokovic in hardcourt slam final, when they both didn’t manage to stop him in a clay slam final. He has showed excellence on all surfaces by beating the best in the finals.

Goldal, Silverer & Bronzokovic will end in that order of greatness. It wasn’t a coincidence.

Nope nothing is right.
Slams alone not enough for goat, let alone parts of a stat like the h2h. It shows who dominates the other, and no reasonable person can say bull is dominat Novak. It’s the other way around.
Olympics completely out of pro tour, separate business.
Davis Cup Ahaha
“Special records” haha now you become ridiculous.
No way some is considered goat when over a year behind three others in time at top spot of the sport!!!!!

Try again, try better.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Anyways the real question is how can Djokovic be the greatest hardcourt player yet with only 3 titles at the biggest hardcourt tournament in history the US open? Lol

 

[Jelenafan]

Anyways the real question is how can Djokovic be the greatest hardcourt player yet with only 3 titles at the biggest hardcourt tournament in history the US open? Lol

Would you give it to him if he wins next years AO to make his 9th in Oz?