Djokovic now indisputedly a better grasscourtplayer than Nadal.....

[calitennis127]

Back in 2010, I took lot of heat from prisoners of the moment and those who have at various times vastly overrated Nadal's level and clearly misunderstood his success (because, for example, they hilariously think Gael "gasp for breath" Monfils has as good of stamina as Nadal) when I opined that Djokovic would have defeated Nadal in the Wimbledon final of 2010 had he not had that sorry loss to Berdych.

Since that time, everything that has happened with these two at Wimbledon has only reinforced my point. Djokovic had one of his easiest Slam finals in 2011 against Nadal at Wimbledon. Djokovic has also beaten Federer in two Wimbledon finals and gotten to another final and semifinal. Meanwhile, Nadal has struggled mightily with the likes of Lukas Rosol and Steve Darcis. For the stat zealots among us, Djokovic now has three Wimbledons to Nadal's two.

I know there are some people who think that Nadal produced other-worldly tennis with his 5-set victories over Robin Haase and Philip Petzschner at Wimbledon in 2010, but I was not as impressed. I just wish that Djokovic had not flamed out in the 2007 semifinal against Nadal after winning the first set (something people forget about) and that in 2008 he had not had the misfortune of drawing Safin in the second round so that this could have been apparent to all much sooner:

Djokovic is just a better grasscourt player than Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

This is true, had him as one even before winning yesterday seeing as how he destroyed Nadal in the final in 2011.

 

[brokenshoelace]

He is.

That said, LMAO @ "the misfortune" of playing Safin in the second round. You ever followed Safin's performances on grass? What about the "misfortune" of drawing Tommy Haas in 2009? And you could say the same about Novak's "otherworldly" victory over Kevin Anderson this year.

Regardless, 3 > 2 however way you slice it, so you're right. Now if only you realize that 14 > 0 and save us a lot of BS Nalbandian threads.

 

[Carol]

I would say that for the last three years anyone seems to be better than Nadal but.....they really are ? :huh:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

He is NOW. I remember 6-7 years ago he could not even walk on the thing though. His timing was off, he could not find his footing. To his credit, he has figured it out. I am impressed actually because figuring grass out is not easy for everyone.

 

[nehmeth]

I would say that for the last three years anyone seems to be better than Nadal but.....they really are ?

As Broken stated. 3>2.

Presently Novak is better, and has been for the past few years. Making it at least to the finals and then winning consecutively, is much better than not making it past the early rounds.

2006-2008? Rafa was contending against Roger who was in his prime. Then he won his 2nd title in 2010, so he was having better results than Djoker at that time.

Things always shift. Will Nadal have a resurgence in his career? Will he have another run to the finals on grass? We'll see. :s

 

[nehmeth]

He is NOW. I remember 6-7 years ago he could not even walk on the thing though. His timing was off, he could not find his footing. To his credit, he has figured it out. I am impressed actually because figuring grass out is not easy for everyone.

Yep. The only grass Lendl played well on was a golf course. :snicker

 

[Carol]

I would say that for the last three years anyone seems to be better than Nadal but.....they really are ?

As Broken stated. 3>2.

Presently Novak is better, and has been for the past few years. Making it at least to the finals and then winning consecutively, is much better than not making it past the early rounds.

2006-2008? Rafa was contending against Roger who was in his prime. Then he won his 2nd title in 2010, so he was having better results than Djoker at that time.

Things always shift. Will Nadal have a resurgence in his career? Will he have another run to the finals on grass? We'll see. :s

No dubts that at the present Novak is the best player on grass. But as you have said well Nadal did beat Federer in his prim and the next year to Berdych who also had beaten Federer which means a lot
The question is why Nadal who had showed how good can play on grass has lost the last four years in
the early rounds? I understood losing against Rosol and also the next year due to his bad knee conditions but the last two year been healthy losing against Kyrgios and Brown? come on, it's totally inexplicable. It's obvious that he is better than that but....

 

[Federberg]

Is anyone disputing this?

 

[Fiero425]

Is anyone disputing this?

If you look at the record, why is there a question? Since 2011, Nole has 3 Wimbledons while Rafa hasn't even played a semi or final! Roger has his from 2012 with 2 finals; what else can be said about who's the best on grass right now? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[kskate2]

Is anyone disputing this?

I don't think anyone is. Even the OP is making a statement not asking a question.

 

[19USC66]

Whatever. Personally I miss the fast grass that used to be at Wimbledon. All the courts are so generic these days they sort of run together with different colors.

Is anyone disputing this?

I don't think anyone is. Even the OP is making a statement not asking a question.
[/quote]

 

[the AntiPusher]

This is such a loaded question\thread but this is very typical of Cali to create. Why not ask this question during the 2008-2013 during Rafa's prime years. Cali, you might as well take it to the next level, "Is Djoker (presently)a better clay court player than Rafa".

 

[Carol]

Then Djoker is not even better than Wawrinka :cover

 

[calitennis127]

This is true, had him as one even before winning yesterday seeing as how he destroyed Nadal in the final in 2011.

Yeah, agreed Darth, but it really is too bad that Djokovic flamed out against Berdych in the Wimbledon semis in 2010. He could have gotten started with his 2011-and-onward role a lot sooner. Nadal was never all that impressive from a tactical or skill perspective on grass and it was clear that, Nadal serving 82% aside, Djokovic fundamentally had more game for the surface from a young age.

Djokovic's win over Nadal at Wimbledon in 2011 was one of the easiest Slam titles he has earned. The first two sets were over in the blink of an eye. And people forget that Djokovic beat Nadal pretty good in the first set of their 2007 semifinal as well. So it really is too bad that he did not get by Berdych in 2010; beating Nadal in that final probably would not have been overly difficult and a victory there really could have sent Djokovic sky-high even before the start of 2011.

 

[calitennis127]

Is anyone disputing this?

Federberg, I don't know if you were on the boards in 2010, but I took a lot of heat from a fellow named huntingyou as well as other Nadal fans for arguing that had Djokovic gotten by Berdych, he would have straight-setted Nadal in the final and that Nadal's level on grass really was not all that impressive. I clearly made the argument that Djokovic was, fundamentally, capable of a higher level than Nadal on grass, whatever the title numbers may have indicated at the time. Since that time we have seen everything I said supported by what has played out. Djokovic has swept Nadal aside in a final, beaten Federer in two finals, and gotten to another final and semifinal while Nadal has been unsuccessfully battling it out with the likes of Steve Darcis and Lukas Rosol on the first couple days of the tournament.

It is nice to see all these people now tamely surrendering that Djokovic is a better grasscourt player. So much for the "Djokovic can't move on the surface but Nadal moves brilliantly on it" argument. That was such a bunch of nonsense.

 

[calitennis127]

That said, LMAO @ "the misfortune" of playing Safin in the second round. You ever followed Safin's performances on grass?

So what? Everyone knows that Safin was inconsistent but had exceptional talent that could translate to all surfaces, and especially the faster ones where a premium is placed on power. Djokovic was playing very well in 2008 and Marat Safin, in case you are unaware, is a much tougher second-round opponent for a top-seeded player than most other second-round opponents for top-seeded players. On any given day, he could raise his level and beat the best. Everyone knows this.

And you could say the same about Novak's "otherworldly" victory over Kevin Anderson this year.

Are you serious? We can put this argument now in your Monfils-stamina treasure chest of colossal errors.

There is a huge difference between struggling with someone like Anderson or Karlovic at Wimbledon versus struggling with someone like Haase or Petzschner. There is a reason that Karlovic gets at least to the Round of 16 every year. When you are 6-10 with a 140 MPH serve at Wimbledon, you are tough to beat because you take away any normal rhythm to the match. Nadal struggled with Haase, Petzschner, and Youzhny because - despite his immense stamina capacity - his baseline game was not as great as you and others ever wanted to believe.

Also, I should add that in 2011, Isner even won the first two sets on Nadal at Roland Garros on the back of big serving. So are you going to try to say that Nadal wasn't very good on clay that year because he struggled with an irregular kind of match against a 6-10 big-serving opponent?

Regardless, 3 > 2 however way you slice it, so you're right. Now if only you realize that 14 > 0 and save us a lot of BS Nalbandian threads.

I posted one and it was about why we should miss Nalbandian's baseline excellence in light of how Djokovic flopped in the Roland Garros final after the first set. I stand by what I said because it is true. If you enjoy great tennis, then you should miss seeing Nalbandian's baseline game.

But, since you are playing a numbers game, try this one: 18 to 3. That is how many winners Nalbandian had to Nadal in the first 40 minutes of their US Open match. Not quite the 59-13 job Gulbis did at Rome, but man, those numbers are telling!

 

[Federberg]

Is anyone disputing this?

Federberg, I don't know if you were on the boards in 2010, but I took a lot of heat from a fellow named huntingyou as well as other Nadal fans for arguing that had Djokovic gotten by Berdych, he would have straight-setted Nadal in the final and that Nadal's level on grass really was not all that impressive. I clearly made the argument that Djokovic was, fundamentally, capable of a higher level than Nadal on grass, whatever the title numbers may have indicated at the time. Since that time we have seen everything I said supported by what has played out. Djokovic has swept Nadal aside in a final, beaten Federer in two finals, and gotten to another final and semifinal while Nadal has been unsuccessfully battling it out with the likes of Steve Darcis and Lukas Rosol on the first couple days of the tournament.

It is nice to see all these people now tamely surrendering that Djokovic is a better grasscourt player. So much for the "Djokovic can't move on the surface but Nadal moves brilliantly on it" argument. That was such a bunch of nonsense.

Haha! Fair enough Cali. When did tennis.com forums shut down? It took me a while to transition over, although I was an avid reader of posts. I just had far too much work to do!

It's a tough balancing act between looking at a players potential versus achievement. The only thing I would offer on the matter is that at some point the potential better start turning into achievement otherwise said player will be given short shrift on these boards. I think that's only fair. Otherwise we would all spend a lot of time talking about how talented a Leconte type player is versus a Wilander for example. What is it you Americans say? "All hat and no cattle?"

 

[calitennis127]

Federberg, my main issue with Nadal started in 2009 with his fans. I had actually rooted for Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final and I had no problem with him until I started reading the appalling things being said by his fans to me after the Australian Open win in 2009.

Nadal, to me, was the one player who exposed Federer's weaknesses when Federer was being overhyped in the 2003 to 2007 era. It is not that Federer wasn't great, but he was not perfect, and many were making him out to be. People forget that even in 2006 Federer won a slew of close matches and he was lucky that Nalbandian and Safin - the two from his generation who could have de-throned him - were MIA. So Nadal came along and exposed the weak backhand, mental flightiness, and lack of assertiveness that were obvious even when he was winning a ton in the 2003-2007 era.

I always thought that Federer was too passive and too reliant on flow instead of specific tactics and adjustments to be considered perfect, not to mention the clear backhand deficiency and his tendency to over-slice. Federer's backhand slice was viewed as tactical genius when often it was just laziness/playfulness that he could get away with because he was more talented and a better mover than most.

So Nadal came along and was ruthless in attacking the Federer backhand, particularly on clay, and Nadal was generally unfazed and unaffected by Federer's slices. He also never got caught up in the pro-Federer hype of thinking that Federer was an unbeatable deity, but instead he and Uncle Toni saw that there were clearly mental and skill weaknesses to target. By going after the backhand and also trusting that Federer did not have the will or the method to sustain great shotmaking for entire matches against elite defense of the sort Nadal possessed, Rafa and Uncle Toni built a formula for not just beating Federer, but demoralizing and exposing him after people had made him out to be perfect when he wasn't.

All this was well and good, and I had no problem with this. I actually rooted for Nadal to take Federer off the #1 spot because I can't stand when people get more credit than they deserve (which was certainly the case with Federer). So I was happy to see Nadal win at both Wimbledon and Melbourne over Nadal, and that was that.

But then - this is when things changed. I focused on Federer's weaknesses and how Nadal had benefited from them in a post entitled something like "The shot that could have won Federer his 13th and 14th Slams", which I deemed was the aggressive forehand return where he would run around his backhand, particularly on the ad side. On this, I had the full agreement of Darren Cahill and other tennis gurus who were simply flabbergasted by Federer's refusal to run around the backhand or be aggressive at all with the return. Federer was choosing to chip and chip all day, and finally Federer was facing a rival who wasn't shanking balls off the slice or getting over-awed by Federer simply picking up his racket to start the match.

So what was happening in that period was Nadal exposing the Federer weaknesses that had been overlooked by everyone who just kisses up to the winners. Federer was never an ideal tactician or gameplanner, and his backhand could be broken down. His mind-numbingly stupid refusal to attack Nadal's pedestrian serve aggressively was proof positive of this. He chipped and poked his backhand return literally 90% of the time and Nadal was eating him for lunch. So I said as much in my post.

But then, I had two pro-Nadal posters in particular - huntingyou and MikeOne - start telling me that, no, Nadal was actually just as good a shotmaker as Federer (ridiculous) and that Nadal was actually just a better tennis player altogether. MikeOne even went so far as to call Nadal "a perfect tennis player". This was all because Nadal had won. At that point, my feuding with the Nadal fans began because I believed that they were totally misreading why and how Nadal had de-throned Federer.

Since then, I have been considered anti-Nadal, but to be more precise I am anti-interpretation-of-Nadal-fans.

 

[Fiero425]

^^^Interesting! IMO, no one has been hyped and made into a tennis Gawd more than Nadal with all his glaring weaknesses and inability to sustain top form, often taking months away from the tour! He has never defended a title off the clay surface and this season, he couldn't even do that! He may very well make some kind of comeback, but it won't be anything as successful as 2013! IMO he's as done as can be; falling to pros he owned like the Spanish Armada and F3! Losing a match with points to close it out and failing against someone like Milos showed me all I needed to back up my thoughts on the matter! As most know, I've never cared for Nadal; some of the ugliest tennis played in comparison to the grace and fluidity of a Federer!