Joined
·
1,006 Posts
I've said previously that I definitely consider Nadal to be the weakest of the big three. Obviously it's a slightly obtuse scenario, because he's also clearly the best on clay, and is the best player on one particular surface ever. I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with that.
But his record on clay has disguised the fact that across all surfaces, in the cold light of day, he's probably not even top ten of all-time. Maybe he would scrape in there. But it's quite obvious that on any surface other than clay, he's nowhere near as good as Federer or Djokovic.
I have a hard time deciding which one of Federer or Djokovic is better. Federer is undoubtedly the most skilful player that I've seen, with the most flexible game, and Djokovic has undoubtedly benefited more from the prevailing conditions than Federer. But I would probably plump for Djokovic as being the best, because he has absolutely no weaknesses. If I was going to coach a player from scratch, I would definitely use Djokovic as the model.
However, regardless of how you feel about this, look at Nadal's record against Federer since 2015:
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Walkover (when he would have lost)
Won (on clay)
Lost
That is pretty bad. But his record against Djokovic in the last six years is nothing short of atrocious:
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Won (on clay)
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Won (on clay)
Won (on clay)
Lost
Lost
Won (on clay)
Lost
You can make more of a case for him being better than Federer because he leads the head-to-head, and he obviously posed Federer massive problems earlier in their careers. But I don't see how anyone can possibly claim that Nadal is better than Djokovic, almost regardless of their Grand Slam tally. Djokovic has won 25 of their last 37 matches (68%), and Nadal has only beaten Djokovic on anything other than a clay court four times in eleven years! If you take clay out of the equation then Djokovic has won 18 of their last 22 matches (82%) over eleven years.
That's before you take lots of other things into consideration. But I don't see how you can look at those numbers and still claim that Nadal is better than Djokovic.
But his record on clay has disguised the fact that across all surfaces, in the cold light of day, he's probably not even top ten of all-time. Maybe he would scrape in there. But it's quite obvious that on any surface other than clay, he's nowhere near as good as Federer or Djokovic.
I have a hard time deciding which one of Federer or Djokovic is better. Federer is undoubtedly the most skilful player that I've seen, with the most flexible game, and Djokovic has undoubtedly benefited more from the prevailing conditions than Federer. But I would probably plump for Djokovic as being the best, because he has absolutely no weaknesses. If I was going to coach a player from scratch, I would definitely use Djokovic as the model.
However, regardless of how you feel about this, look at Nadal's record against Federer since 2015:
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Walkover (when he would have lost)
Won (on clay)
Lost
That is pretty bad. But his record against Djokovic in the last six years is nothing short of atrocious:
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Won (on clay)
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Lost
Won (on clay)
Won (on clay)
Lost
Lost
Won (on clay)
Lost
You can make more of a case for him being better than Federer because he leads the head-to-head, and he obviously posed Federer massive problems earlier in their careers. But I don't see how anyone can possibly claim that Nadal is better than Djokovic, almost regardless of their Grand Slam tally. Djokovic has won 25 of their last 37 matches (68%), and Nadal has only beaten Djokovic on anything other than a clay court four times in eleven years! If you take clay out of the equation then Djokovic has won 18 of their last 22 matches (82%) over eleven years.
That's before you take lots of other things into consideration. But I don't see how you can look at those numbers and still claim that Nadal is better than Djokovic.