The moment Djokovic realised he had the game to take down Nadal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plbomcLe1rI&feature=related

I know it was only recently that Novak started to beat Rafa consistantly but I think this was the moment he realised what he needed to do against him. It took some time after for him to put it into action but in the 5 years following the interview we saw flashes of what Novak can do to the spaniard, I remember in 08 Novak ended Nadals winning streak with a stunning peformace in Cincinatti. Then the 3 consecutive wins he had over him in late 09, admittedly Nadal was not at his best but it was the way he played him that impressed me most.

Now of course only 2 years ago their head 2 head was 14-4 to Rafa but I think Novak eludes to it in this interview where he says it was always on his racket, I just think the years that followed he didn't have the same confidence but he always knew what he had to do he just couldn't convert. But when he did convert, he crushed Nadal even back then. If you look at their early matches, all his wins pre 2011 were convincing ones, 6-3 6-4, 7-5 6-3, 6-3-6-2, 6-1 7-5, 6-1 6-4, 6-2 6-3, 7-6 6-3. However, when it came to a close 3 setter Nadal always took it, when it became a mind game. It wasn't until Indian wells and especially Miami of this year that Novak had won a 'close' match with Rafa and that was after he had just won the Australian Open and was full of confidence.

I think the match in Miami could well have been his most important win against Rafa, where the penny dropped because he proved to himself that he could win the close mental matches with the Spaniard when he couldn't blow him off the court.

So when he steps onto the court he knows that if he plays the way he knows will beat Nadal he can win comfortably but he now knows he can beat him in close matches if he doesn't get the tactic to perfection which he never had before in his locker before, and I think that must be a very calming situation for him.

Despite all Rafa's assertions that he can see a way to beat Djokovic now, I think, barring injury for Novak, that mental advantage is more firmly than every in Djokovic's court because he came through cramping and back pain to take a very convincing 4th set. to win while being sub par.......that's Rafa like!

I agree with the premise of this post, the question I have is when will we see Nadal beat Djokovic again? Beating Nadal 6 out 6 in matches so far this year is very convincing. Just like in the best of 3 matches, Djokovic's wins in grand slams have become more comfortable. Both Wimbledon & the USO were played over 4 sets, in the former, Djokovic won 19 games, in the latter 24 games and Nadal has stayed @ 14 games in both matches. Just looking @ the fact Nadal hasn't improved to win more games and Djokovic adding another 5 more games to his match winning performance suggests Nadal is not going to be overturning this bad stretch of results anytime soon.

It really does say something that Nadal is going to need to rely on Fed knocking out Djokovic if Nadal is going to stand any chance of winning @ any slam (and yes, that includes the French). It seems ironic that Nadal now needs Fed if he wants to add his tally of grand slams, unlike for Nadal, there was a silver lining for Fed in losing to Djokovic: Nadal a dead cert to lose to Djokovic. It will be interesting to see if Nadal carries on making it to the business end of tournaments in this later stage of the year because Nadal has had a poor post Wimbledon tournament record so if he does, what will happen if he meets Djokovic? Time will tell...

Great post CAS. It simply proves that tennis is all about matchups. Rafa's game matches up better against Federer's than it does against Novak's and Novak's game matches up against Rafa's better than it does against Roger's.

I know that Novak has gotten the better of Roger more often than not this year, but to me he's never seemed to have been as comfotable against Roger (Australia being a notable exception. Roger is yet to take a set off Novak down under).

Actually, early on Novak as you indicated had the advantage over Nadal, this was before the serve change and the racquet change that caused him to go in a nearly 2 year tailspin on his serve. I think if Novak had stuck with his old serve he would have had a much better 2009 and 2010 and maybe could have ended the fedal era at this point. Good analysis, lets remember that in early 09 he changed racquets and then changed serve motions. The madrid match he serves a little better (09) he wins that match against Rafa on clay. But one thing to his credit Novak never did was he never capitulated and improved every facet of his game even while his serve was in a tailspin.

kemet wrote:Great post CAS. It simply proves that tennis is all about matchups. Rafa's game matches up better against Federer's than it does against Novak's and Novak's game matches up against Rafa's better than it does against Roger's.

I know that Novak has gotten the better of Roger more often than not this year, but to me he's never seemed to have been as comfotable against Roger (Australia being a notable exception. Roger is yet to take a set off Novak down under).

I believe Fed has taken 3 sets of Djoko and it came in 2007 in the 4th round. It wasn't at a time Djokovic was just another junior on the tour either. I buy into the match ups theory.

Djoko is saying exactly what I have been saying for years. People say To beat Nadal you have to play out of your skin! Wrong. You just have to execute ok...over the distance.

Djoko saying even with my bad back I was playing like him!

The problem of course is to keep playing the same level v Nadal cause as the rallies and match go on..it's getting harder to execute.

Shotmaking wise, Nadal has been the worst number 1 in teh world for a very very long time but hats off to Toni and his team to have thought this through and making it physically possible.

luciusmann wrote:I agree with the premise of this post, the question I have is when will we see Nadal beat Djokovic again? Beating Nadal 6 out 6 in matches so far this year is very convincing. Just like in the best of 3 matches, Djokovic's wins in grand slams have become more comfortable. Both Wimbledon & the USO were played over 4 sets, in the former, Djokovic won 19 games, in the latter 24 games and Nadal has stayed @ 14 games in both matches. Just looking @ the fact Nadal hasn't improved to win more games and Djokovic adding another 5 more games to his match winning performance suggests Nadal is not going to be overturning this bad stretch of results anytime soon.

It really does say something that Nadal is going to need to rely on Fed knocking out Djokovic if Nadal is going to stand any chance of winning @ any slam (and yes, that includes the French). It seems ironic that Nadal now needs Fed if he wants to add his tally of grand slams, unlike for Nadal, there was a silver lining for Fed in losing to Djokovic: Nadal a dead cert to lose to Djokovic. It will be interesting to see if Nadal carries on making it to the business end of tournaments in this later stage of the year because Nadal has had a poor post Wimbledon tournament record so if he does, what will happen if he meets Djokovic? Time will tell...

I am not a fan of The Nadull but it is ludicrous to write him off against Novak.

All it would take is a slight drop in Novak's performance; he loses a few matches, his confidence goes down slightly, and the tour will be ready to pounce. No doubt The Nadull will be leading the pack. This will definitely happen to Novak at some point just like it happened to all the others before him - it's just a question of when.

Unlike with the Fed-Rafa rivalry, these two are just a year apart, so Rafa has plenty of time to turn things around. Infact Rafa seems to be finally finding his groove this season (just destroyed Gasquet and Tsonga on clay); if he is fit and healthy, he will be the favourite at RG for sure.

Maybe Nadal and Federer could make a deal whereby Fed agrees to beat Novak in the semis and Nadal lets him win some of the finals given that we know Fed and Nadal will never be in the same half.

I'm not writing off Nadal by any means, I am just curious as to when Nadal will win any match (not necessarily a grand slam match). I am slightly sceptical about how soon Nadal will win a match off Djokovic because it's become clear that Djokovic has developed a mental edge over Nadal. Even if Djokovic's form does dip, I still believe that Djokovic will be able to produce the form he needs to beat Nadal @ the grand slams, even if he isn't as good as he has been recently. I also think that Nadal's recent form won't last forever and let's be honest, it's not been bad by any means, it's just he's kept losing to Djokovic who happens to be @ the other end of the net in the finals!

An interesting stat for this thread.

Djoko won 9 of the last 11 encourter versus Nadal.

His only 2 loses were :
1 - USO last year when the gluten-filled Djoko was clearly tired from his semi v Federer
2 - The London's Masters where Djoko played without his contact lense.

Doesn't bode well for Nadal.

I think Nadal will absolutely implode if he loses another match to Nole.

I don't mind that by any means NitB!

Exactly Tenez, Nadal's record with Djokovic over the last year has been pitiful and we're supposed to believe a come back is on the horizon? I actually thought Nadal would push Djokovic to 5 sets @ the USO because he would do something to stop Djokovic running away with it but it got worse with Nole winning more games during the match than @ Wimbledon.

All I can see is Djokovic taking the lead in the H2H over the course of the next 6 to 9 months and that will do damage to Nadal's 'invincible' image he gained over the years. Nadal's WR in grand slam finals is already just a mere 1% better than Fed's now so I will be intrigued to see what this will do to his claims of GOAT status. A WR only 1% better than Fed with fewer grand slams than Fed doesn't look like a a GOAT to me. Nadal has a tall order to turn things around but nothing's impossible, the question is, how many defeats can Nadal take, given he's not used to being owned.

Lucius, agree with that the losses to Djoko so far haven't affected Nadal's record against the rest of the tour he is still making the finals of all these events. However it has taken some of the shine out of Nadal's aura of invincibility and shown a spotlight on the flaws in his game, every player has them. But once one guy starts beating you consistently the intimidation factor against everyone else is also lessened.

socal1976 wrote:Lucius, agree with that the losses to Djoko so far haven't affected Nadal's record against the rest of the tour he is still making the finals of all these events. However it has taken some of the shine out of Nadal's aura of invincibility and shown a spotlight on the flaws in his game, every player has them. But once one guy starts beating you consistently the intimidation factor against everyone else is also lessened.

I dont think Nadal's aura has diminished even slightly. He is still beating people with ease in 3 sets. Its just those handful of matches against Djokovic. Djoko's form is bound to dip in the coming months as its impossible to maintain it. A few wins against him and things will be level again. Nadal can play until he is 30 like Federer which is another 16 slams maybe. I don't buy into the theory his style of play will shorten his career as he seems fitter now than 4 years ago so he's getting better bar the odd problems that crop up which all players are prone to getting on and off.

I still think he will get to 16+ because the only one who can beat him is Djokovic and to expect Djoko to win every slam is just daft. If the others in the pack are catching up and the field is stronger then it maybe harder. Let's face it, except for Djokovic there is no one else who is slam material at the moment. So I expect it to be a two horse race for a couple more years to come. Murray certainly cannot find a way through these two in slams let alone slam finals. The rest to me are far below the standard. So far Nadal has been consistent. Djokovic has not. Its just this year so the next 6 months will be interesting. Most players lose to Nadal in the locker room. Djoko has overcome that which is simply great news for tennis as it makes far more interesting viewing.

Fedsfan, you are right Nadal has actually won a higher percentage of matches against than top ten then he ever has in the past if you take out the six losses to Novak. Against everyone else in the top ten I think he is 13-1, and he has made it to a lot of finals. But I do think that losing so many finals in a row does start to work into a players mind even when he is playing other players. I am not writting Nadal off by any stretch of the imagination. But I would be stunned if he was able to get to 16+ slams at this point. Not because I think Djoko will win every slam but I think that Nadal is never going to get back to even footing with Novak, and because I think it is inevevitable as time marches on that other players start picking both of these guys off a bit more regularly, eventually the pack hunts down even the greatest of champions.

FedsFan, I'd buy into your theory that Nadal could get to 16 slams if it wasn't for the fact that everyone didn't see Djokovic coming a year ago. This idea that Djokovic can't maintain his current form is to be honest, a weak position, many said it after Wimbledon and he's added another 2 titles and a final, Nadal has added no titles, and 1 final. You certainly seem to be one of the few people who remain who think Nadal will get to 16, how? I'm pretty certain that RG is not owned by Nadal anymore and should Nadal lose that, he's got no lock down slams to get him to 16. Importantly, Nadal isn't as good on hardcourts, there will be players who will be able to outdo Nadal in the future. There's more reason to suppose that is more likely to happen than Nadal reaching 16.

You also assume that Nadal will easily play to 30, other physical players like Agassi only managed to play beyond 30 because they missed many tournaments early on in their career. Of course no one thinks Djokovic will win all the up coming slams but unlike with Nadal, Federer can and has beaten Djokovic. Nadal has never reached all 4 grand slam finals in a calendar year so there will be other winners besides Djokovic and Nadal and that gives Fed an opportunity. I do agree that Djokovic will not dominate the tour to the same extent in the future but that doesn't mean he won't be able to dominate the slams to the same extent. The question for me is if he can show the same level of domination as Federer (which was unprecedented) or fall back as historically happens to anyone who wins 3 slams in a calendar year typically does. Many media pundits were expecting slam domination from Nadal this year because of last year, yet history shows that to be highly unlikely, the only exception to that rule has been Federer.

Never say never, but I'd be amazed if Nadal manages another 6+ slams.

I don't assume Djoko will be there in every final, but he'll be there for a few and Nadal has also pretty consistently put in a (relatively) weak performance in at least one of the HC slams, most recently at this year's Aus Open.

Nadal is 25; to get to 16+ he'll almost certainly need to have two years in which he wins >1 slam. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do - as evidenced by the fact that Nadal's only managed that twice in his career so far. I don't see him doing it twice more.

luciusmann wrote:FedsFan, You certainly seem to be one of the few people who remain who think Nadal will get to 16, how? I'm pretty certain that RG is not owned by Nadal ...You also assume that Nadal will easily play to 30, other physical players like Agassi only managed to play beyond 30 because they missed many tournaments early on in their career. Many media pundits were expecting slam domination from Nadal this year because of last year, yet history shows that to be highly unlikely, the only exception to that rule has been Federer.

He is already on 10 and is 25 so in theory he can reach 16. When Sampras reached 14 people thought that would not be reached in a hurry but 7 years on it was broken and surpassed. What may prevent that is if the rest catch up and start beating him regularly or unless Nadal slows down. Neither of these two seem a possibility at the moment. The only spanner in the works is Djoko's new found confidence against him. Would you make anyone else favourite at RG? I would not and another title there looks more than likely. Let's face it, there is no one apart from Djoko who has squared off against him and come up with the wins on clay. What may cause a bit of a problem is the slightly faster court and small balls which I think we saw evidence of this year as Federer pushed Nadal for the first time in years at the FO. Imagine those factors and a fit Djoko?

If Djoko can maintain a good level of fitness then that would make things very interesting so lets hope he does. He is bound to have a dip at some point. If he is to have a dip, now would be the best time as then hopefully by the AO he should be back. I agree that one stellar season does not set a precedent in the exception (so far) of Fed's career. Where he fits into the whole equation now is anyone's guess! As most of you have noted, Nadal is still very confident and dominates the tour bar Djoko. A few more losses to guys like Fish and Dodig could give others the confidence when they step onto court.

Theory isn't always borne out in practice, as most of us are probably aware. Unlike Sampras, Nadal has never won 2 slams per year over 3 years like Sampras had already done by the same age. For Fed to get to 16, he had to do what Sampras never did and that was win 3 slams a year and not just in one year but in 3 separate years, something Nadal has done just the once and now Djokovic has done. That's how Fed got to 16 and Sampras 14.

You're putting a lot of hope in a 'dip' which is entirely speculative and isn't supported by any evidence. There is in fact more chance that Nadal will have a dip as he is a year older and is being continuously battered by Djokovic. There is only one man who stood between Djokovic and the grand slam of tennis this year and it was none other than Federer. Fed is getting older and he won't be able to stop Djokovic from reaching that final forever so actually I put Djokovic as clear favourite over Nadal. Don't forget, Djokovic has beaten Nadal on clay convincingly. As you agree with the notion of match ups you will see that as long as Nadal and Djokovic reach that final, Nadal will lose and Djokovic has a clear motivation to go for the only slam he doesn't hold.

Djokovic hasn't come out of nowhere as you're view point suggests, he's been No.3 for a long time and he's been a challenger for grand slams since 2007. This notion that he'll have a dip and return to where he was over a year ago is unlikely, he's been reaching the business end of slams regularly since 2007 and it's his new found confidence that has taken him on to winning them. If losing to Fed @ the French and Murray @ Cinni can't shake it, it will take a lot of defeats to shake that confidence. So far, Djokovic has shown the resilience of a champion and I think that's more likely to continue than a resurgence of Nadal as you seem to think.

Plus Nadal has had a lot of injuries in his career, I think for someone to break Roger's record they will have to have a relatively injury free career. He again hurt his leg during the AO. Plus he does rely on his speed more than Fed or Sampras, and he doesn't have a big serve like they do. With a big serve you always have a puncher's chance like Sampras in 02 US open.

socal1976 wrote:Plus Nadal has had a lot of injuries in his career, I think for someone to break Roger's record they will have to have a relatively injury free career. He again hurt his leg during the AO. Plus he does rely on his speed more than Fed or Sampras, and he doesn't have a big serve like they do. With a big serve you always have a puncher's chance like Sampras in 02 US open.

I agree with all of that - Nadal relies a lot on his ability to get stuff back and break opponents down by waiting for the right moment in long rallies. He does not win many cheap points against the top players. That's not the sort of style you'd recommend to a player entering the latter half of his 20's wanting to pick up multiple slams, even a player as good as Nadal.

Yes, barry Nadal's speed is a big part of his game. And he has had a lot of leg injuries for a player so young. You have to wonder how long he will be able to do the things that he does in terms of defense and retrieval skills. Borg and wilander were both very similar players who did not have any success after their early to mid 20s. I am not counting the guy out, I think he needs to really start to think about a different approach to winning now if he wants to keep having the kind of success he is used to over the course of the next few years. If he had a big serve it would be easier for him to get those shorter points that as you age your body really needs. And the serve is almost always the last thing to go. Although Agassi was able to have succeed into his thirties without that big serve just to play devil's advocate.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, barry Nadal's speed is a big part of his game. And he has had a lot of leg injuries for a player so young. You have to wonder how long he will be able to do the things that he does in terms of defense and retrieval skills. Borg and wilander were both very similar players who did not have any success after their early to mid 20s. I am not counting the guy out, I think he needs to really start to think about a different approach to winning now if he wants to keep having the kind of success he is used to over the course of the next few years. If he had a big serve it would be easier for him to get those shorter points that as you age your body really needs. And the serve is almost always the last thing to go. Although Agassi was able to have succeed into his thirties without that big serve just to play devil's advocate.

I can't find it, but Wilander said of Agassi's success in his late career that it showed that Agassi had not put in the hard miles earlier on, otherwise he'd not have as much gas in the tank.

socal1976 wrote: Borg and wilander were both very similar players who did not have any success after their early to mid 20s.

There wasn't a year in Borg's career when he did not have success. When he retired at the end of 1982, he was only 26. In 1982, he played only one tournament. So, you could say he retired at the end of 1981.

Between 1974-81, there wasn't a year when Borg did not win a major. In 1981, he won Wimbledon and French titles, and lost in the final of US Open to Mac.

[quote="Leff"]

socal1976 wrote:Between 1974-81, there wasn't a year when Borg did not win a major. In 1981, he won Wimbledon and French titles, and lost in the final of US Open to Mac.

No he did not. 1980 was the year be won both. In 1981, just the French v a young Lendl.

But that is the odd thing he basically won his last slam at 25 and left the game. Part of the reason he left was that he had lost three straight to Mac and it seemed that Mac had his number. Certainly, burnout and personal problems had a lot to do with why borg left the game. A lot of people have said that borg and Nadal have a great deal of similarities lets hope that Nadal has better longevity and more success in the later stages of his career.

What is interesting barry about agassi that for much of his career he never played wimby or the australian open. Meaning he played basically two slams for much of the early part of his career and did have a couple of long hiatuses. I think that is pretty amazing considering that he was a top ranked guy who simply decided not to show up for half of the slams.

OK, I was wrong about the year, Tenez. It was 2 grandslams in 1980 and one in 1981.

But, the point I was trying to make was that Borg was still among the top two players in the world when he left the game. In 1981, he was seeded #1 at Wimbledon and lost to Mac in the final; he was seeded #2 at the US Open and lost to Mac in the final. He won the French, and he didn't enter the Aus Open (he mostly skipped this event).

Being in three finals of the three majors he entered and winning one showed he was still a very good player when he retired.

It's not about losing to Mac. Borg was feeling worn out.

Wilander Q&A in 2008:

Eurosport: Could a major defeat shock Nadal and destroy his current confidence? When Bjorn Borg lost against John McEnroe twice in 1981, there was a kind of breakdown and he left the tour...

Wilander: No. What happened to Bjorn Borg in 1981 is that the ITF organized the Grand Prix Tour with eight tournaments imposed on the players. Maybe Borg didn't know exactly which tournament he wanted to go to, and he didn't sign. So the rules were that he had to qualify for Roland Garros, even though he had won it four times in a row (six titles in eight tournaments) and he was then number one in the ATP ranking... French Open organizers did try to make money out of his qualifying games by selling tickets on a big court at Jean Bouin. Bjorn Borg didn't accept that and decided not to play again. Of course, he knew there were young players who could beat him, like McEnroe, but this is not the only explanation for why he quit the tour.
So to answer your question, no. Rafael Nadal would not be struck by a major defeat in Roland Garros or elsewhere because he's at the very beginning of his career and he wants to know how far he can go. I'm sure he must sometimes think, "Wow, it's crazy that I have already won three majors!" He's ready to do the work necessary to improve and very ambitious. He is here to stay.

Thanks, Barrystar. That's what I heard.

barrystar wrote:Wilander Q&A in 2008:

Eurosport: Could a major defeat shock Nadal and destroy his current confidence? When Bjorn Borg lost against John McEnroe twice in 1981, there was a kind of breakdown and he left the tour...

Wilander: No. What happened to Bjorn Borg in 1981 is that the ITF organized the Grand Prix Tour with eight tournaments imposed on the players. Maybe Borg didn't know exactly which tournament he wanted to go to, and he didn't sign. So the rules were that he had to qualify for Roland Garros, even though he had won it four times in a row (six titles in eight tournaments) and he was then number one in the ATP ranking... French Open organizers did try to make money out of his qualifying games by selling tickets on a big court at Jean Bouin. Bjorn Borg didn't accept that and decided not to play again. Of course, he knew there were young players who could beat him, like McEnroe, but this is not the only explanation for why he quit the tour.
So to answer your question, no. Rafael Nadal would not be struck by a major defeat in Roland Garros or elsewhere because he's at the very beginning of his career and he wants to know how far he can go. I'm sure he must sometimes think, "Wow, it's crazy that I have already won three majors!" He's ready to do the work necessary to improve and very ambitious. He is here to stay.

Well as a fellow Swede, Wilander has probably got it right about Borg. According to the father of a friend of mine who was employed by Borg's management company in the 70s and 80s Borg had been growing disenchanted with the tour for about a year before he walked but was always terrified of being broke - he was constantly questioning how much money he had made and deciding whether he felt financially secure enough to quit. I think he was mentally exhausted and fed up with hotel rooms and living out of a suitcase, and seemed out of love with tennis but had a pathological dread of being without to the point where he was quite irrational and obsessive about money. It is incredible to think that the man my friend's father described as being quite neurotically tight about money and worrying over every penny should have gambled away his fortune - perhaps that was the flip side of a slight obsessive disorder?

luciusmann wrote:Theory isn't always borne out in practice...So far, Djokovic has shown the resilience of a champion and I think that's more likely to continue than a resurgence of Nadal as you seem to think.

And I applaud Djokovic for showing that especially not allowing himself to let down physically or mentally against Nadal. That's the one negative aspect about Federer. He was not able to find a way round Nadal despite all the shots, skills and talent he possesses. I personally would have liked to have seen him put a little more distance between where he is now and Nadal's 10. Maybe 17/18 would have been ideal as then his record would surely last a while. I agree, Nadal cannot win 3 a year but Djoko looks as if he can. What would really make for interesting debate is if Djoko beats Nadal at RG. Surely that would be the last straw? If that were to happen Nadal will won't be able to make a comeback from there. That's the final stronghold of his and once that fortress has been captured he's out of the running. Time will tell.

Let's hope Djoko can keep up the good work as otherwise tennis was getting a bit predictable. With him around the clay season will at least come alive. The one consolation this year for Fed is that despite 0 slams and a title drought is that he was able to defeat the #1 player of 2011. He has come much closer than Nadal has this year.

I agree FedsFan, Fed has let him self down against Nadal all too often so it's ironic that Nadal doesn't seem to be able to find a way around Djokovic. Many commentators have pointed out that what Nadal did to Fed, now Djokovic is doing to Nadal!

I still think Fed has a year or two to capture a slam (if he's lucky two) considering that both Sampras and Agassi both won a few more slams after their final year of winning 2 slams. Fed won 2 in 2009 and then won another in 2010 so there is a precedent for winning one or two more (after the age of 30). That said, it won't be easy and Fed would rely on Nadal not being @ the other end (which does happen, typically @ the Aussie Open). I think we can see there is a decline in progress, losing from 2 sets to love twice in the same year, even if he had match points against Djoko is something Fed would never have allowed a few years back.

Djokovic is to be praised for making the clay court season interesting again but even when Fed was winning clay court titles @ his peak, few thought he would win the French, the fact Djokovic has beaten Nadal in grand slam matches and on clay does give a high probability Nadal won't be able to stop Djokovic from winning the French. What would really spark a crisis of confidence for Nadal is if Djokovic is able to make a clean sweep of all 4 clay court titles, Djokovic did win 2 out of the 4, perhaps he could go 1 step further next year? That really would be ownership and would set Rafa's alarm bells ringing, all 3 titles he has this year have been on clay. Even when Nadal isn't winning on other surfaces, he can still win on clay. Next year will be very intriguing.

I agree, Nadal cannot win 3 a year but Djoko looks as if he can. What would really make for interesting debate is if Djoko beats Nadal at RG.

I said last year that Nadal is now most dangerous on HC, especially as they are now pretty slow with high bounces.

I have no doubt that Djoko would have beaten Nadal convincingly at the FO this year hadn't Fed (or Fognini) messed up Djoko. Likewise had Federer converted his MPs v Djoko at the USO, then Nadal would have most likely beaten Federer...though in my view not as certain as Djoko beating Nadal at the FO.

Nadal is just near the outskirts of his peak optimum performances, anybody serving great against him will have chances to eliminate him in the first few rounds of a slam, just look at what Isner and Haase put him through! The only chances Nadal will have beating Novak is serving big and brushing the lines with it.. but with Nadal's ball toss and preference of control over power he will not be able to serve so impressively.

What strategic changes has Novak made to his game to make Nadal clumsy?

I saw the final at Ashe. Nadal didn't even bother moving forward to reach a few drop shots from Novak.

It's called the Wham Bang Thank you Maam style of tennis!



Boring Boring Boring !!!!!!!!!!!

Boring? Its painfull watching them 2 struggle. Silly seeing top 2 on endless rallies with no FH or BH winners, but mostly UE.

Djokovic plays like that?

When I watched at Ashe, he played corners, down-the-line, side lines, centre, with varying serve angles, and a few yummy drop shots too.

Yummy, you thought he was just another Wham Bang?

Funny, yummy Andy plays pretty much very similarly to Djokovic, but you are a fan of Andy's and not a fan of Novak's game. Andy if anything plays a more passive version of Novak's game, maybe the most defensive player of all the top 4. At least more defensive than Novak and Roger.