« Wall Of Fame Contest. | Main | Can there be ANY rationale for anyone who can spell tennis to now not switch to a bigger racket? »

04/25/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alpha

Many differences

Federer and Nadal are different generations in tennis terms. Nadal and Djokovic are the same
Nadal bothered Federer from Day 1. Nadal used to beat Djokovic handily before he started getting owned
Nadal and Federer played different styles. Djokovic and Nadal similar styles.
Nadal beat Federer by going after his weakness (BH); Djokovic beat Nadal by going after his strength -- consistency and fitness
Nadal got Federer early on his favorite surface; Djokovic took a long time to beat Nadal at the FO.
Nadal beat Federer but took a long time to topple him in the rankings. Djokovic beat Nadal and became #1 almost simultaneously.

i could keep going for the none of them are probably TP's answer.

O

WOF getting harder try anyway. Nadal solved Federer by a powerful topsin game AN INEFFICIENT YET UNIQUE GAME. Djokovic dominated Nadal by his better reach and a generally MORE EFFICIENT MORE REGULAR game.

Have you been observing birds - hummingbird fly a bullet? Something can go even faster? The hummingbird moth fly like a laser? It's smaller and faster very much just like a hummingbird. People have captured many things on camera, but nobody has been able to capture them when they fly so fast. How can you do it?

Veglia

During the "domination" Djokovic "dominated" Nadal on his favourite surface while Nadal didn't do the same to Federer.

O

Nadal dominated Djokovic at FO and can you then say Djokovic dominated Nadal on clay?

Veglia

Djokovic won more than a few finals on clay over Nadal (Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid), lost because of a stupid net call at RG and finally destroyed Nadal at RG. So, even though he didn't dominate Nadal over the entire career, during the "domination" period he did. Similarly, Nadal didn't dominate Federer during the entire career so it's in the spirit of question.

O

You might get this, most often you know what TP is shinking.

O

Nadal's domination of Federer is more domination by inhibition. It disarmed Federer's vast arsenal, it's like there is a key. Once Federer breaks loose, he might completely reverse it and dominate Nadal. Djokovic's domination of Nadal, there is no such key and no solution.

Veglia

In a sense, another difference is that Federer was able to reverse the trend and dominate Nadal again while Rafa still needs to do that to Djokovic. However, based on Nole's current state of mind, he will be lucky to stay in top 10 let alone think about Nadal ...

Tennis Planet

Hint: Some may say 'it' delegitimizes Nadal's domination of Federer.

Nipurn

Nadal's domination of Federer was mostly on clay. On other surfaces it was fairly even (though Nadal was up but it was not domination).

Djokovic's domination of Nadal was across all surfaces.

Veglia

Djokovic was at the same time No1 while Nadal was No2 to Federer on ATP

Alpha

6-13 in favor of Nadal on clay. Near the end Novak broke through the fortress but never dominated Rafa on clay.

O

Nadal and Djokovic represented a new generation of racket technology. Therefore Nadal's domination of Federer doesn't count. Those two will dominate Rod Laver too.

Nipurn

Nadal always dominated Federer since the beginning0.

Djokovic turned the tide and started to dominate Nadal later in his career.

Alexandre

I know this is not the answer, but I'm posting it. The mind game is always a part of it. Nadal dominated Federer because of Federer's ego and the constant feeling of his superiority. Don't blame me until I finish my thought. I'm a Federer fan and I'm OK with this. He has the right reasons. Recently he has adopted a new vision of himself and the results are fact. He has accepted his abilities as a gift not as a burden.
Djokovic's dominance was the cocky one. He had to be accepted and admired. The mission was accomplished and he lost his enthusiasm.

O

Nadal's domination of Federer was opposed by the public, Djokovic's domination of Nadal was approved by the public.

O

Nadal's domination of Federer was perceived as unfair, Djokovic's domination of Nadal was perceived as fair.

Alexandre

PEDs, gluten free diet + PEDs?

O

In case of Nadal Federer, a former fellow top player intervened to help reverse the domination.

Tennis Planet

O

You are on the right track. Need to be more specific.

O

Federer is 5 years older and belonged with the generation of Hewitt Fererro Safin Nalbandian Roddick etc. Nadal and Djokovic are of about the same age and belong with a new and more powerful generation.

Alpha

Nadal's domination of Federer has based on Nadal being a lefty and going to Federer's BH with his FH. Once Federer figure out how to deal with it, the domination ended. Djokovic's domination was more all around. (have actually said this before)

If you want to go further, the domination was based on one shot aided by new technology of rackets and strings. Once Federer changed rackets, the domination ended.

Nipurn

Nadal's 'ugly' game and brute force beat Federer's beautiful game and elegance. This was not really expected.

Djokovic was just another grinder who began to beat Nadal at his own game.

Nipurn

Djokovic and Nadal had similar physical styles. So people were not adverse to the dynamic of Djokovic dominating.

Prasad

TP,

If anything 'it' legitimizes Nadal's domination over Federer.

When Federer was flying high during 2004-2007(where he won bulk of his majors), Nadal was a pesky little bug that annoys for a while and goes away and Djokovic was nothing but a potential. Nadal truly came of age in late 2007 which also coincidentally is the starting of the rise of Djokovic, though it took him a few years to establish a credible threat to Fedal. When Nadal inflicted a beatdown on Federer in 2008 FO, it was the truly the point when he started to believe he can keep up with Federer on other surfaces. (After 2007 Wimbledon final, Federer himself said that he better win as many as possible before Nadal starts winning).

After 2009 AO, Nadal had issues with knees(some say PEDs, so God knows the truth). It took him a more than a year to come up with his best year 2010 and before you know it, Djokovic started his own version of beatdown on Nadal. Then Nadal pushed back and Djokovic pushed back harder. And don't forget how many times Djokovic denied Federer a chance at immortality. Nadal's career is sandwiched between two of the best ever to pick up a tennis racquet and he managed to hold his own.

For the life of me I can't figure out who damaged whose prospects more. Is it Nadal who denied Federer in so many places or Fed who did not give Nadal a shot at a second career slam, twice in Wimbledon and Miami, once in WTF or Djoker who crushed Nadal is his prime or Nadal who beat Djokovic in all those slams or Djokovic who stopped Federer in so many US Open and Wimbledon championships?

If there are such beings called Tennis Gods, they must be really enjoying themselves over these 3.

Veglia

This will be difficult to defend without any arguments about single surface, one-trick pony, No 1, etc, which were already used. Can't wait ...

O

Nadal's various gamesmanship delaying tactic time violation grunting etc is perceived as unsporting unacceptable unwatchable illegal and cheating.

Veglia

Not it. Nole has been accused of cheating more than Rafa ...

Fionski

I disagree with the notion that Federer played in a different era to Nadal. Although Federer is five years older than Nadal, he has been playing on tour only a little over two years longer.
He was also a late bloomer. Federer became world no. 1 in 2004, Nadal became no. 2 in 2005. One year is not an era.
Nadal holds the record for most weeks at No. 2 without getting to no. 1 because he was not competitive on hard courts or indoor courts for years. And his record on indoor courts is still weak.

O

For any Federer match, he commands 90+ percent support. Every Federer supporter may find his or her own reason that Nadal domination is unfair.

RafaKenya

I'm with Nipurn. It adjusts to the hint

gipotu

Nasal never won more than two consecutive matches against Fed, while Djockvic won seven straights matches!

Tennis Planet

Correct answer:

Federer was better (FAR?) than Nadal - on paper or on a tree bark - surface notwithstanding.

Djokovic was better than Nadal - surface notwithstanding.

Veglia

So I win?

Alpha

Not sure what the answer is? Nadal's domination everywhere except on paper? Djokovic domination everywhere including paper?

Or Federer was the better player but Nadal won i.e. Nadal dominated a better player while Djokovic dominated a worse player?

Veglia

My understanding is your second option, which is why I believe I may have won ...

"Djokovic was at the same time No1 while Nadal was No2 to Federer on ATP" - was one of my answers.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

YOU NEED ULTRA-THICK SKIN TO VISIT THIS SITE. IF YOU ARE FAINT OF HEART OR TOO SENSITIVE, DO NOT ENTER.

April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30