Novak Djokovic breaks glandslam record

[Alzi]

This was never a problem for Nadal. Nadal came on to the scene around 2004 when he was 17 and beat Federer in straight sets in their first match, and won 6 of their first 7 matches against each other. In the decade from 2004 to 2014 Federer had only won 10 of their 33 matches. Was only from 2017 that Federer suddenly had some consistent success against Nadal. Nadal's also won 10 of their 14 Grand Slam matches.

I'm confused by the idea that Djokovic hit his peak in 2008 when he's won 22 of his 23 Grand Slam's from 2011 onwards. Nadal and Djokovic are basically the same age, I'm not sure what fading you think Nadal did comparative to Djokovic. Nadal won 13 Grand Slams post-2011 and reached 6 other Grand Slam finals in the time you're saying he supposedly faded, including two just last year. Even Federer won 4 and made 5 other finals. Djokovic just went to another level in 2011 and basically didn't drop a level for the next decade, and Nadal was right there battling him for a lot of it. It's the main reason the "big" rivalry in tennis became Nadal vs. Djokovic rather than Nadal vs. Federer.

Agree with this. 2008 Djokovic was pretty far from his peak....his stamina and consistency increased dramatically from 2011.

Prior to 2011 you'd have been hard pressed to say who was going to have the better career out of Murray and Djokovic.

Nadal being "better than people give him credit for" is also an odd comment. I don't think there are many who would argue he is anything other than one of the best players of all time.

 

[Funky_Chicken]

Stood his ground - good on him

 

[zzzzz]

Drug cheat

 

[Jedi boro]

Despite his ice man almost Ivan drago like persona on the court apparently he’s the life of the party off of it.

I agree he’s hard to warm to though as he’s so clinical and Machine like but you can’t deny his talent.

But give me Rafa any day ( Agassi before him).

 

[Jedi boro]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1126759229400932352

 

[Kowalski]

Despite his ice man almost Ivan drago like persona on the court apparently he’s the life of the party off of it.

I agree he’s hard to warm to though as he’s so clinical and Machine like but you can’t deny his talent.

But give me Rafa any day ( Agassi before him).

Agassi had the best return of serve I've ever seen.

 

[Andy_W]

This was never a problem for Nadal. Nadal came on to the scene around 2004 when he was 17 and beat Federer in straight sets in their first match, and won 6 of their first 7 matches against each other. In the decade from 2004 to 2014 Federer had only won 10 of their 33 matches. Was only from 2017 that Federer suddenly had some consistent success against Nadal. Nadal's also won 10 of their 14 Grand Slam matches.

Yeah Nadal's record against Fed was(is) great, but Fed took most of the majors though, from mid 2003 to 2007. From 2004-2007 it was like 11-3 to Fed, and Nadal only won RG. RG was like 60/70% of his majors though, as Fed was taking the others until like 2009, and then Dojovik from 2011.

I'm confused by the idea that Djokovic hit his peak in 2008 when he's won 22 of his 23 Grand Slam's from 2011 onwards. Nadal and Djokovic are basically the same age, I'm not sure what fading you think Nadal did comparative to Djokovic. Nadal won 13 Grand Slams post-2011 and reached 6 other Grand Slam finals in the time you're saying he supposedly faded, including two just last year. Even Federer won 4 and made 5 other finals. Djokovic just went to another level in 2011 and basically didn't drop a level for the next decade, and Nadal was right there battling him for a lot of it. It's the main reason the "big" rivalry in tennis became Nadal vs. Djokovic rather than Nadal vs. Federer.

People can have their peaks at the same time, but the others just be better (at that time), then when the others drop off the next in line is just there ready to go. We know for absolutely certain that around 2007/2008 Fed and Nadal were near the peak of their games, but then Fed clearly drifted off and then Nadal did similar a few years later. Djokovic might have improved very slightly, but the biggest impact of his change in fortunes was the Fed and Nadal downgrade, and to a lesser extent Murray after 2016, and the rest haven't been that great since then. This is almost proven by how Nadal kept winning majors, yearly, despite probably getting gradually worse from 2011 onwards.

It's the same in any sport, one of the biggest impacts on success, is the standard of opposition faced.

 

[Andy_W]

Nadal being "better than people give him credit for" is also an odd comment. I don't think there are many who would argue he is anything other than one of the best players of all time.

I think when people are saying it though (non tennis fans, who haven't watched a lot), they largely mean only on clay, as that's where he was practically unbeatable, and where he won 70% (14) of his majors. Even the commentators bang on about his clay strength but seem to undermine his ability on other courts, at least back in the day when he was top of his game etc (when it applied, as he's behind Djoko on those now).

If you took his RG wins away, then he would only have 8 majors and be like 10th on the list. Someone like Sampras has 14 majors on grass and hard courts (none on clay), almost twice as many as Nadal, but I would say Nadal should still be held in higher regard or at least match Sampras on those surfaces as the only reason he wasn't winning more was largely due to Federer.

I would probably rank it like this (at their peaks), for the four with the most majors, and including say Agassi as a recent player who was also good and high on the majors list:
Grass
Fed
.
Sampras
Nadal/ Djokovic
Agassi
Hard
Fed
Nadal/ Djokovic
Sampras/ Agassi
Clay
Nadal
.
.
Fed/ Djokovic/ Agassi
Sampras

Hard to factor for the rest, as I wasn't alive in the 60's and 70's, but Borg only won at RG and Wimbledon. Becker, McEnroe, Connors and Edberg never won the French.

 

[festa5]

I think when people are saying it though (non tennis fans, who haven't watched a lot), they largely mean only on clay, as that's where he was practically unbeatable, and where he won 70% (14) of his majors. Even the commentators bang on about his clay strength but seem to undermine his ability on other courts, at least back in the day when he was top of his game etc (when it applied, as he's behind Djoko on those now).

If you took his RG wins away, then he would only have 8 majors and be like 10th on the list. Someone like Sampras has 14 majors on grass and hard courts (none on clay), almost twice as many as Nadal, but I would say Nadal should still be held in higher regard or at least match Sampras on those surfaces as the only reason he wasn't winning more was largely due to Federer.

I would probably rank it like this (at their peaks), for the four with the most majors:
Grass
Fed
Sampras
Nadal/ Djokovic
Hard
Fed
Nadal/ Djokovic
Sampras
Clay
Nadal
Fed
Djokovic
Sampras

Hard to factor for the rest, as I wasn't alive in the 60's and 70's, but Borg only won at RG and Wimbledon. Becker, McEnroe, Connors and Edberg never won the French. Agassi was very strong on Hard courts, but not as good on clay or grass, and Sampras was covering grass anyway.

For me Djokovic was better on hard courts than Nadal. Very close to Federer. I'd say Djokovic has the edge on slower hard courts (AO) Federer the edge on the quicker American ones.

Federer obviously the best indoors too.

 

[Andy_W]

For me Djokovic was better on hard courts than Nadal. Very close to Federer. I'd say Djokovic has the edge on slower hard courts (AO) Federer the edge on the quicker American ones.

Federer obviously the best indoors too.

Yeah, fair point on breaking the harder courts down into more detail.

I think for most of his time Djokovic has been better than Nadal on hard courts, 100%, but I think the 2006-2010 Nadal was just better than Dojovic has ever been. Nadal just peaked much earlier in his career (massive overlap with Fed), age and date-wise, largely due to injuries hampering him more and more as time went on. Even at his peak I just seem to remember Nadal always carrying knocks and niggles and it seemingly just got worse and worse and was like he was largely focusing on clay titles, which was fair enough.

I just think Fed was so good, that it really masked Nadal off Clay at least, when Nadal was at the top of his game, and the same applies to Nadal masking Fed's clay ability. Fed was a very good clay player at his peak, and still got 10 clay titles when Nadal was knocking about and lost like 3/4 finals at RG I think (all Nadal).

 

[Jonathan]

Yeah Nadal's record against Fed was(is) great, but Fed took most of the majors though, from mid 2003 to 2007. From 2004-2007 it was like 11-3 to Fed, and Nadal only won RG. RG was like 60/70% of his majors though, as Fed was taking the others until like 2009, and then Dojovik from 2011.

But you've framed it as Federer being the "problem" for Nadal in that time period, when he demonstrably wasn't, as is made clear by their head to head results from that time. From 2006 to 2009 they played 6 Grand Slam finals against each other and Nadal won four of them, the only ones Federer won were the first two Wimbledon finals where Nadal was basically still adapting to a grass court game. The reality is that in the 2004-2007 you're talking about Nadal was still basically a kid, excelling on clay courts but still very much figuring out an all-court game to adapt to the other Slams. Federer cleaned up until about 2007 and then from thereon he mostly won one slam a year at best when Nadal took over the mantle, and then later Djokovic.

People can have their peaks at the same time, but the others just be better (at that time), then when the others drop off the next in line is just there ready to go. We know for absolutely certain that around 2007/2008 Fed and Nadal were near the peak of their games, but then Fed clearly drifted off and then Nadal did similar a few years later. Djokovic might have improved very slightly, but the biggest impact of his change in fortunes was the Fed and Nadal downgrade, and to a lesser extent Murray after 2016, and the rest haven't been that great since then. This is almost proven by how Nadal kept winning majors, yearly, despite probably getting gradually worse from 2011 onwards.

It's the same in any sport, one of the biggest impacts on success, is the standard of opposition faced.

Nadal didn't do similar though? And he was nowhere near his peak in 2007, there's absolutely nothing to support the idea that he was. You need only look at the results to see that. He won 13 Slams from 2011 up to and including two just last year. He was 20/21 in 2007, and you're suggesting he "drifted off" a few years later, still very early in his career? "A few years later" he was having one of the all-time greatest individual seasons in 2010, and then again in 2013. Djokovic improved more than slightly, suddenly he was about a million times fitter and his endurance went up about ten levels, his serve became a weapon, his forehand become a consistent weapon, his backhand got even better when it was already great, and his returning basically became the best return there's ever been in the sport. His change in fortunes had nothing to do with some supposed "downgrade" in Nadal. Nadal's 2010 season was one of the best tennis seasons ever, he won three slams on three different surfaces among various other masters titles, and then Djokovic in 2011 suddenly had another of the all-time great individual seasons, winning three slams himself, a season in which Nadal also won the French Open and faced Djokovic in two of the other Slam finals. So I'm not sure how much "fading" or "drifting off" you think Nadal did between September 2010 and January 2011, honestly.

I've no idea why you have this idea that Nadal's ability somehow tailed off in the prime years of his career where he was still regularly winning multiple slams and masters titles every year. There's a reason him and Djokovic have faced each other so much since 2010/11, and why about 25 of their matches have been in finals, and it's not because Nadal "drifted off" or "faded" it's because Nadal was great and stayed great, and Djokovic became great, and they were going toe to toe, it's the defining rivalry of not just their generation but tennis as a whole. Nadal improved with Djokovic's rise if anything, simply because he had to find new ways to beat him.

You can see the massive improvement in Djokovic alone in this. His groundstrokes become a lot more consistent, he hits harder, he hits cleaner particularly on the forehand.

 

[Andy_W]

But you've framed it as Federer being the "problem" for Nadal in that time period, when he demonstrably wasn't, as is made clear by their head to head results from that time. From 2006 to 2009 they played 6 Grand Slam finals against each other and Nadal won four of them, the only ones Federer won were the first two Wimbledon finals where Nadal was basically still adapting to a grass court game. The reality is that in the 2004-2007 you're talking about Nadal was still basically a kid, excelling on clay courts but still very much figuring out an all-court game to adapt to the other Slams. Federer cleaned up until about 2007 and then from thereon he mostly won one slam a year at best when Nadal took over the mantle, and then later Djokovic.

Nadal didn't do similar though? And he was nowhere near his peak in 2007, there's absolutely nothing to support the idea that he was. You need only look at the results to see that. He won 13 Slams from 2011 up to and including two just last year. He was 20/21 in 2007, and you're suggesting he "drifted off" a few years later, still very early in his career? "A few years later" he was having one of the all-time greatest individual seasons in 2010, and then again in 2013. Djokovic improved more than slightly, suddenly he was about a million times fitter and his endurance went up about ten levels, his serve became a weapon, his forehand become a consistent weapon, his backhand got even better when it was already great, and his returning basically became the best return there's ever been in the sport. His change in fortunes had nothing to do with some supposed "downgrade" in Nadal. Nadal's 2010 season was one of the best tennis seasons ever, he won three slams on three different surfaces among various other masters titles, and then Djokovic in 2011 suddenly had another of the all-time great individual seasons, winning three slams himself, a season in which Nadal also won the French Open and faced Djokovic in two of the other Slam finals. So I'm not sure how much "fading" or "drifting off" you think Nadal did between September 2010 and January 2011, honestly.

I've no idea why you have this idea that Nadal's ability somehow tailed off in the prime years of his career where he was still regularly winning multiple slams and masters titles every year. There's a reason him and Djokovic have faced each other so much since 2010/11, and why about 25 of their matches have been in finals, and it's not because Nadal "drifted off" or "faded" it's because Nadal was great and stayed great, and Djokovic became great, and they were going toe to toe, it's the defining rivalry of not just their generation but tennis as a whole. Nadal improved with Djokovic's rise if anything, simply because he had to find new ways to beat him.

You can see the massive improvement in Djokovic alone in this. His groundstrokes become a lot more consistent, he hits harder, he hits cleaner particularly on the forehand.

I was mainly about the slams, and Nadal never beat Fed in slam outside RG until 2008, and he was winning slams (RG) from 2005, and beat Fed on the way to get it (a pretty good sign he was excellent). Sure their early record favoured Nadal, but the masters was clay heavy too.

2004 to 2007 Fed cleaned up the other slams and Nadal cleaned up RG, and Nadal didn't seem to get much better at RG after about 2008, as he was pretty much almost at perfection by then, or better than anyone previous anyway (on clay certainly).

Of the 9 you mention, where Nadal won 6, that could have very easily been 3-3 after 2008, which would have had Fed on 3 from Wimbledon and Nadal 3 from RG. By 2009 Fed had been no1 for four years, which was an extremely long time for Tennis, it still is a world record, by almost two years. Fed was older, so Nadal didn't need to deal with the true peak of Federer for as long, and sort of the same as how Djokovik developed a little slower than Nadal.

But if you look at totals by surface, Nadal clay 14–2, Federer grass 3–1, and hard court 11–9. Nadal dominated clay, like he would dominate anyone ever, and the only time they played on grass was Wimbledon finals which Fed was clearly better at. Hard courts are closer, but my point is Nadal would have basically won almost any other final, if he wasn't up against Fed, and the same for Fed v Nadal.

If you look at the streak lists as world no 1, normally a good indication of how much better players are at their peak, than ther peers, then Nadal is like 12th on the list, an odd position for the second greatest ever in my eyes.
Fed 237 weeks consecutive
Djokovic 122 weeks consecutive (from 2014 to 2016)
Nadal 46

If Fed had been almost any other no 1 ever then Nadal would still probably have a world no 1 streak probably in the top 3, same as if Dojokvic had came about at the time of Fed's dominance then he would have had a streak less than Nadal.
If Nadal hadn't been about then Fed's streak would have been 8 years /400 weeks.

I just think the peaks Fed and Nadal just largely overlapped, and if Nadal could win two majors on the bouce at RG, by 2006, then it's fair to say he's already exceptional by that point, especially when he won both of those against Fed (the best ever, with the longest world no 1 dominance). He had about 11 years in the top 10, the most of anyone ever I think, but he's not been the same level since he dropped out of it, yet still good enough to win some slams and beat Djokovik.

Djokovic's strokes might have got better, but his fitness won't have, it's not possible, he'll have been slowing up since 30. Certainly the last few years he has been playing lesser players, either a lower general standard or lack of true no1 contenders, or playing much weaker versions of Fed, or less fit versions of Nadal. It's easier to return balls where the oppo aren't as good.

 

[Marvanelli]

But you've framed it as Federer being the "problem" for Nadal in that time period, when he demonstrably wasn't, as is made clear by their head to head results from that time. From 2006 to 2009 they played 6 Grand Slam finals against each other and Nadal won four of them, the only ones Federer won were the first two Wimbledon finals where Nadal was basically still adapting to a grass court game. The reality is that in the 2004-2007 you're talking about Nadal was still basically a kid, excelling on clay courts but still very much figuring out an all-court game to adapt to the other Slams. Federer cleaned up until about 2007 and then from thereon he mostly won one slam a year at best when Nadal took over the mantle, and then later Djokovic.

Nadal didn't do similar though? And he was nowhere near his peak in 2007, there's absolutely nothing to support the idea that he was. You need only look at the results to see that. He won 13 Slams from 2011 up to and including two just last year. He was 20/21 in 2007, and you're suggesting he "drifted off" a few years later, still very early in his career? "A few years later" he was having one of the all-time greatest individual seasons in 2010, and then again in 2013. Djokovic improved more than slightly, suddenly he was about a million times fitter and his endurance went up about ten levels, his serve became a weapon, his forehand become a consistent weapon, his backhand got even better when it was already great, and his returning basically became the best return there's ever been in the sport. His change in fortunes had nothing to do with some supposed "downgrade" in Nadal. Nadal's 2010 season was one of the best tennis seasons ever, he won three slams on three different surfaces among various other masters titles, and then Djokovic in 2011 suddenly had another of the all-time great individual seasons, winning three slams himself, a season in which Nadal also won the French Open and faced Djokovic in two of the other Slam finals. So I'm not sure how much "fading" or "drifting off" you think Nadal did between September 2010 and January 2011, honestly.

I've no idea why you have this idea that Nadal's ability somehow tailed off in the prime years of his career where he was still regularly winning multiple slams and masters titles every year. There's a reason him and Djokovic have faced each other so much since 2010/11, and why about 25 of their matches have been in finals, and it's not because Nadal "drifted off" or "faded" it's because Nadal was great and stayed great, and Djokovic became great, and they were going toe to toe, it's the defining rivalry of not just their generation but tennis as a whole. Nadal improved with Djokovic's rise if anything, simply because he had to find new ways to beat him.

You can see the massive improvement in Djokovic alone in this. His groundstrokes become a lot more consistent, he hits harder, he hits cleaner particularly on the forehand.

Fully agree with this.

Bang on the money.

 

[Grover]

It’s quite an achievement to be the all time best at a popular sport and still be predominantly disliked.

I heard he controls the majority of the world’s supply of donkey cheese. Not sure how that effects things, but stands up to a fact check.

 

[Jonathan]

I was mainly about the slams, and Nadal never beat Fed in slam outside RG until 2008, and he was winning slams (RG) from 2005, and beat Fed on the way to get it (a pretty good sign he was excellent). Sure their early record favoured Nadal, but the masters was clay heavy too.

He also didn't come up against Federer in any other Slam other than Wimbledon until 2009 at the Australian Open, which Nadal also won so I'm not sure what your point is here really.

2004-2008
2005 French Open: Nadal beat Federer
2006 French Open: Nadal beat Federer
2006 Wimbledon: Federer beat Nadal
2007 French Open: Nadal beat Federer
2007 Wimbledon: Federer beat Nadal
2008 French Open: Nadal beat Federer
2008 Wimbledon: Nadal beat Federer

It's odd to frame it as "Nadal never beat Federer in a slam outside Roland Garros until 2008" as if they had played loads of them.

Of the 9 you mention, where Nadal won 6, that could have very easily been 3-3 after 2008, which would have had Fed on 3 from Wimbledon and Nadal 3 from RG. By 2009 Fed had been no1 for four years, which was an extremely long time for Tennis, it still is a world record, by almost two years.

I don't really understand what you're saying here?

If you look at the streak lists as world no 1, normally a good indication of how much better players are at their peak, than ther peers, then Nadal is like 12th on the list, an odd position for the second greatest ever in my eyes.
Fed 237 weeks consecutive
Djokovic 122 weeks consecutive (from 2014 to 2016)
Nadal 46

The problem with using this as the barometer is it doesn't take in to account things like injury. Federer stayed injury free for most of his career until towards the latter years of his career, similar for Djokovic until more recently, so their participation in tournaments has been largely consistent.

Federer didn't miss a single Grand Slam from 1999 all the way until 2016. Djokovic similarly has only ever missed three Grand Slam tournaments, the first one being in 2017. Comparatively Nadal has struggled with injury throughout his career and has been unable to participate in about 13 Grand Slams, which leaves a lot of ranking points completely undefended. So for example, from 2008, you have a Wimbledon win, backed up the next year with him not playing the tournament, for a loss of 2000 ranking points. 2011 to 2012, he made the final of the US Open in 2011, didn't participate in 2012, loss of points, and so it goes. And then you take Masters events in to account, it's hard to sustain a run as the year end number 1. If anything, what it shows is that, far from fading as you believe, he did the complete opposite to consistently bounce back from long injury layoffs, coming back better than ever to consistently win titles and get himself back to number 1 or 2 in the world again.

If Fed had been almost any other no 1 ever then Nadal would still probably have a world no 1 streak probably in the top 3, same as if Dojokvic had came about at the time of Fed's dominance then he would have had a streak less than Nadal.
If Nadal hadn't been about then Fed's streak would have been 8 years /400 weeks.

This really just speaks to how weak the tour was when Federer was dominating more than anything. Because his dominance ended once Nadal and later Djokovic really got going. Being able to rack up Slams in finals against players like Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, a 35 year old Andre Agassi, and Marcos Baghdatis doesn't exactly look the most impressive preceding a string of finals against Rafael Nadal, nor does maintaining the world number primarily amongst that generation of players look especially impressive, which isn't to say he wasn't great because he was, but he could also basically phone it in and still comfortably beat those players.

I just think the peaks Fed and Nadal just largely overlapped, and if Nadal could win two majors on the bouce at RG, by 2006, then it's fair to say he's already exceptional by that point, especially when he won both of those against Fed (the best ever, with the longest world no 1 dominance). He had about 11 years in the top 10, the most of anyone ever I think, but he's not been the same level since he dropped out of it, yet still good enough to win some slams and beat Djokovik.

I maintain there is no argument that can be made to say that Nadal's peak was in 2006 when he was 19, when he was still primarily a specialist on one type of court. Exceptional on one surface, fine but improving on others. He was playing the same bunch of good but not great players, and Roger Federer. He won a French Open against Mariano Puerta who's career high ranking was only just inside the top ten and who otherwise never went further than the third round in any Slam either before or after that final. It's hard to say he's not been at the same level and then say "yet still good enough to win some slams and beat Djokovic" because that in itself means he is still exceptional, because very few other players besides Djokovic and Nadal are winning multiple slams.

This is the list of Slam winners from 2019 onwards.

Australian Open
2019: Djokovic
2020: Djokovic
2021: Djokovic
2022: Nadal
2023: Djokovic

French Open
2019: Nadal
2020: Nadal
2021: Djokovic
2022: Nadal
2023: Djokovic

Wimbledon
2019: Djokovic
2021: Djokovic
2022: Djokovic

US Open
2019: Nadal
2020: Thiem
2021: Medvedev
2022: Alcaraz

The US Open is the only outlier where different players have managed to win one, but otherwise it's still only two players, of which Nadal is one of those two. I don't really know what you're really arguing about Nadal unless you think he was previously absolutely superhuman that him fading or not being as good means he's still utterly exceptional.

Djokovic's strokes might have got better, but his fitness won't have, it's not possible, he'll have been slowing up since 30. Certainly the last few years he has been playing lesser players, either a lower general standard or lack of true no1 contenders, or playing much weaker versions of Fed, or less fit versions of Nadal. It's easier to return balls where the oppo aren't as good.

Unsure what you're saying here. What do you mean "it's not possible" that his fitness would have improved? His fitness demonstrably did improve around 2010/2011, even it wasn't very much clear just from watching him play, literally by his own admission it has. He used to regularly have breathing issues and all sorts of fitness issues at Grand Slams and then... he didn't anymore. I don't really understand this separation you seem to have created between Djokovic and Nadal as if they're not basically of the same generation. Djokovic is 36, Nadal is 37, yet you're talking like Nadal is about 10 years younger and there's some huge gap in age and therefore ability and fitness between them and Djokovic is benefitting from some natural decline of his rivals. Like, again Nadal won two Grand Slams and reached the semi-final of Wimbledon before having to withdraw from injury just last year. He pulled off one of the best comebacks the sport has ever seen in the Australian Open final, he beat four top ten players - including Djokovic - on his way to winning the French Open.