Is there one category or weapon that Nadal has that is clearly better than Novak?

First topic message reminder :

Based on current form, I really can't think of one area of the game that Nadal is right now better than Djokovic at. In the last seven months the advantages that Novak had have increased and many of the weaknesses of his game have dissappeared.

1. Serve: Edge Novak he is holding at 89 percent rate #2 in the ATP, higher than even Roger, both guys have great second serves. Novak gets a few more free points and holds more consistently.

2. Return: Nadal is a top 5 returner, but Novak is the best in the game

3. Backhand: Novak has it all on the backhand goes up the line better. Hits more winners with his backhand and it rarely breaks down. Easily one of the top 5 two handers. Nadal has a good cross court backhand but not the variety and versatility of the Djokovic backhand.

4. Forehand: Last year you would clearly give the edge to Nadal, but Novak always had a good forehand and its been getting better and better now for 2 or 3 years. Right now I would again have to rate the forehands as an essential wash. Maybe one guy has a better forehand on a particular day or a particular surface but it isn't what I would call a clear cut advantage for either player.

5. Movement: About even

6. Fitness: Maybe you give it to Rafa but Rafa hasn't worn Novak down in a final for 2 years since Madrid 09. I don't really see this being a clear advantage anymore for one or the other.

7. Volleys: Surprisingly, while I rate Rafa as a good volleyer, and Novak has the reputation of being a poor volleyer, in their recent matchups it has been novak that has one a higher percentage of net points and who has come up more often. In terms of variety, Novak has improved dramatically in his volleys. And since he comes in more often and is winning points at good clip can't call this a Nadal advantage on current form.

So if breaking the games of these two champions down. Forehand, Speed, and fitness (traditional Nadal strengths) are pretty much even. Backhand, Serve, Return all are clear advantages for Djokovic. The only area I think is better for Nadal clearly is that Nadal has a better slice backhand something that Novak really needs to improve. But startling that when you analyze this matchup, based on current form, and look at each area of the game, Novak is pretty much clearly better or Rafa's equal in virtually every area.

If you had asked this question 6 months ago 99% of the posters would have said Rafa is by far rhe best of the two. Now everybody has forgotten what happend in the last four years and ready to rule Rafa out! GOSH!

Lucius, I don't need to show media sources to prove this theory. I am more credible a commentator than a lot of the people who cover tennis in the media. Just look at the records and do the analysis yourself. If you look at weak #1s, we had the most weak number ones in the era that I would consider weak in tennis. (1998-2007)In that period you have the most weak number ones and then the great federer. (Marcelo Rios, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelinikov, Guga Kuerten, lleyton hewitt, Andy Roddick, and Juan Carlos Ferrero) All are number ones in that period. You have some great players here but not really strong #1s by any stretch of the imagination.) Now compare these number ones with the #1s from lets 1988-98. You have wilander, becker, sampras, agassi, courier, lendl, and edberg. By the way Agassi and Sampras are in both 10 year periods. But Pete was definetly stronger up till 1998 than after it.

Rafa's towel wrote:If you had asked this question 6 months ago 99% of the posters would have said Rafa is by far rhe best of the two. Now everybody has forgotten what happend in the last four years and ready to rule Rafa out! GOSH!

I don't think many people are ruling Rafa out, he's too good a player for that. But he is now having deal with a situation that he has never faced before - that of being completely dominated by another player. He is usually the one doing the dominating! It remains to be seen how he rises to this new challenge. It's particularly interesting because, thus far, he is falling further behind. What were tight matches at the start of the year (Miami, Indian Wells) have now become comfortable Djokovic wins (Rome, Wimbledon). He needs a solution and he needs it fast!

socal, from your list of No. 1's why not just say 1998-2003 was the weak period?
Although I remember commentators of the time saying what great players Hewitt and Kuerten were, more than they did about, say, Courier, and for those three I'd probably agree.

julius, because frankly the arrival of just one player Roger federer doesn't make it strong. Roger certainly kept other champions from racking up slams. But, guys like hewitt and Roddick who were dominate forces in 2003 and earlier by 2007 where basically not even serious contenders for big tournaments. Roger was great in 2003 and in 2007 but the big guns that had been big guns in his era weren't just losing to Roger, they were losing to everybody else as well. The game passed JC Ferrero, Roddick,and Hewitt by while they were all still very young. And safin and Nalbandian where two stars of this period who just never ever fully dedicated themselves physically to the tour.

But then, in 2008 (with Blake still at No. 6), Fed was playing much more poorly, Rafa was not yet at his peak, Djoko was a one slam wonder (for quite a while) and Murray was....Murray.
How was, say, June 2008, vastly stronger than August 2007?

Well socal, I do respect most of you're views, but as they say, great minds think alike, hence why I ask for where in the media it's been discussed It's a reasonable request. By the way, if a theory is proven, it's no longer a theory, it's proven, it become a fact, so pedantically, unless you can 'prove' it (with evidence, good evidence), all it will be is a theory, less so a theory than an opinion at the moment (I believe this is correct, I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm not).

If you only judge an era just by who was No.1, it's misleading, it's why it's not particularly illuminating in music either. It can be equally argued that such was the dominance of Federer, that of course it will appear 'weak', that's how dominant Federer was, very few were able to beat him, so consequentially, by that very fact, it appears 'weak', doesn't mean it was though. This is where the problem occurs, was the field weak by chance or did it 'appear' weak because that's how dominant Federer was? You can't prove it either way, hence why it's not a convincing theory at all.

Exactly JuliusHMarx, that's why it's a 'weak' theory.

luciusmann wrote:Well socal, I do respect most of you're views, but as they say, great minds think alike, hence why I ask for where in the media it's been discussed It's a reasonable request. By the way, if a theory is proven, it's no longer a theory, it's proven, it become a fact, so pedantically, unless you can 'prove' it (with evidence, good evidence), all it will be is a theory, less so a theory than an opinion at the moment (I believe this is correct, I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm not).

my theory is just theory like evolution and the big bang are just theories. If you mean that i have to prove my theory like the laws of thermodynamics or gravity then well I don't have that kind of proof, and of course would have no way of convincing you anyway. What is clear to anyone who has followed the game and looks on this with an open mind that tennis late 90s to about the mid to late 2000s was in a lull in terms of depth. WE had Roger, but remember Nadal only emerged by 2005 and by then that was the first signal that the lull in terms of depth at the top was coming to an end. The next bellweather is 2007 when the murray and Djoko class of stars along with baggy, berdy, gazza, monfils all come en mass. And I am not just comparing a whole era based on one player. I give you comparison of players like ljubi and blake and you didn't want accept those facts either.

Lets look at blake and fellow top 5er ljubicic and compare them to the current top 5 right now. Forget about Roger, Rafa, and Novak that is obvious. Lets compare like for like. Murray current #4 (3 slam finals, 6 master's titles), number 5 Robin Soderling (2 grandslam finals, 1 masters), number #6 Tomas Berdych (1 final, 1 masters), and even Tsonga (1 masters, 1 grandslam final). Now compare that depth of top rated talent to ljubi and james blake. Ljubi 1 semi of a grandslam, Blake no semis or finals. Ljubi 1 masters series, Blake not even a 500 pointer that I remember, but certainly no master's series. Roger was great the depth of great players was poor. And the improvement of the top guys at this point has been a gradual process.

Neat trick to overlook the actual and clear #6, David Ferrer, and mention that he is now 29 but never got higher than #4 when in his prime during the "weak era".

There's also a few names you may want to bear in mind; Nalbandian (fit), Safin, Roddick (far better player then than the messed up and neutered thing he is now), peak Hewitt. You seem to have missed them amongst the Ljubos and Blakes.

Who did Roddick beat at Wimbledon in 2009?

socal, Blake was in the top 5 for a total of 12 weeks, Ljubicic for about 6 months (both in 2006). Not great examples for how 1998 - 2007 were weak. Wasn't Jonas Bjorkman No 4 in 1997?
I notice that you've now changed from 2007 to 'late 2000s' - shall we say 2009? Maybe only 2010 was back to normal?

The problem Nadal has with Djokovic hasn't started this year. Since Autumn 2009 it's 8-2 to Djokovic, with one Nadal win being the contact lens problem at the O2.

what Nadal should be doing is taking LESS time in between serve points like let's say 5-9 seconds after last point finished it could really affect Djokovic's returning

bogbrush wrote:Neat trick to overlook the actual and clear #6, David Ferrer, and mention that he is now 29 but never got higher than #4 when in his prime during the "weak era".

There's also a few names you may want to bear in mind; Nalbandian (fit), Safin, Roddick (far better player then than the messed up and neutered thing he is now), peak Hewitt. You seem to have missed them amongst the Ljubos and Blakes.

You mean Roddick, Safin, Hewitt; who I addressed in my post. These were dominate players in the earlier part of 2000s and by the time they were djoko and Nadal's age now the game had completely passed them by and none of them were serious threats for grandslams, although Roddick did have that close final lose to federer. If anything the trajectory of Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin of their careers proves my point. These were dominant players in the first half of the decade who were completely irrelevant in grandslams during the second half of their careers as the golden generation of Nadal, Djoko, and Murray came in and completely supplanted. These players were even supplanted by the monfils, Tsonga, Gasquet, Berdych and Soderling grouping of players as well.

David Ferrer is a special case, he is a player that has worked very hard and actually has been consistent in his ranking for a number of years but he didn't win anything of importance pre-2007 or post-2007. He basically has managed to maintain his position. Mardy Fish is a better example here is a guy who was top 20 or 30 and has earned his highest ranking late in his career. That could be taken as evidence against my argument except when you look at mardy fish today and fish 3 years ago and you realize that he is 30 to 40 pounds lighter today than he was then. If anything it shows how a talented player like Fish has had to take it to the next level physically to compete on today's tour. Fish always had the shots, he just lacked movement and suffered a lot of injuries. 30 pounds did wonders for his career, these are more isolated cases that have to do with the individual development of these players.

socal1976 wrote:These were dominant players in the first half of the decade....

So perhaps the weak era started in 2006? Or was is 1998? Or, with Bjorkman at No 4. do you include 1997?
And when did it end? 2007? or 'the late 2000s'? Perhaps, with Soderling (and his losing H2H against Ljubicic) at No. 5, it's still here?

Basically, the entirety of tennis history is a weak era. There's never been a strong one.

Again, i think you guys are taking these arguments to the extreme. Let me restate something it is never easy to dominate at the top of the game. However i really think if you look at the late 90s till mid 2000s there was a bit of a comedown in terms of depth at the very top of the game. Roger in 2003 lifted the bar to a large extent. But I am sorry you can't tell me that an era that has Kafelinikov, hewitt, safin, roddick, ferrero, moya, kuerten, and rios as world #1s is as tough as a ten year period that features: wilander, becker, sampras, lendl, agassi, edberg, and courier. What more evidence do you need than the quality of the world #1s? If you need more evidence look at how the level of the tour just zipped by the roddicks, hewitt's, safin's, and ferrero's of the world while they were all extremely young. With Roddick you can't even blame injuries or burnout. The guy has been very healthy and durable, and has been a model of dedication. The game he won with in 2003 was just not good enough in 07 or 08. Lets remember at this time Roddick was like 25 and 24 he should have been even better. And these guys weren't just losing to roger they were losing to lot of other young players.

But I am sorry you can't tell me that an era that has Kafelinikov, hewitt, safin, roddick, ferrero, moya, kuerten, and rios as world #1s is as tough as a ten year period that features: wilander, becker, sampras, lendl, agassi, edberg, and courier.

Really a strange reasoning here!

Go a few years back and you will make the Lendl era look weak if you compare it with the Rosewall, Pancho, Laver, Emmerson time cause they had plenty of slams or slams equivalent (for Pancho).

What you don't realise Socal is that the less competitive the era, the more you have the same guys collecting the slams and making names for themselves.

Name dropping doesn't tell you how tough the competition is. Djokovic doesn't sound like a great tennis name yet . Yet he is pretty tough to play.

And the fact that Roddick made the Wimbledon final in 2009 beating Murray, and with none of the new 'golden era' players making it to the final, what does that mean?

Or you could argue that an era that includes Courier, Muster, Kafelnikov, Moya, Rios and Rafter as No.1 isn't that great - 1992 - 1999.
And that an era that includes Agassi, Sampras, Safin, Hewitt and Federer as No 1 is much stronger - 2000 - 2008

"Is there one category or weapon that Nadal has that is clearly better than Novak?"

How about the art of moonballing.

Again, Tenez you want to focus on one of my examples and ignore other issues. And frankly the logic of what I have presented stands up, if you chose to accept it or not that is entirely up to you. We had an era dominated by weaker transitional number #1s. Federer's great rival didn't appear till 2005 when nadal made his big breakthrough and later until 07 when Djoko started winning master's and getting to grandslam finals. In no way do I see this argument as really being all about Federer. I have no dog in the fed is goat or Rafa is goat fight. I just think that we had a very special generation of players like Murray, Del Po, Nadal, Djoko, Tsonga, Gazza, Berdy, and monfils all coming up within 3 years of each other and that the tennis has gradually gotten better and better the last few years.

Droogle, in fact Roddick making the 09 wimbeldon is wonderful evidence of the stronger second half of the decade theory. Roddick, was a much better player in 2009 than when he was number 1. His backhand was better, he could actually volley a lot better as well, he missed some crucial volleys but it was his aggression that kept him in that final. Without question the Roddick that showed up in 2009 was a better player than the roddick that beat I think Nalbandian to win the USO. Roddick was lighter, improved his volleys, improved his backhand; all these improvements in recent years and he still hasn't managed to remain consistently relevant in the slams. And the game passed him by really when he should have been hitting his prime. And here is a guy who is one of the hardest workers in tennis and has been pretty healthy and dedicated to the tour the whole time.

This is hilarious; basically you say Roddick was better in 2009 because he had to be to make a final in the Golden Era. Circular logic at its best.

He seems to have fallen off a cliff though, having got nowhere near a final after W '09, despite being a much better player (allegedly), but that would be because in the Golden Era even best ever standards don't help (although he lost looking like an amatuer in the Davis Cup yesterday and at Wimbledon '11). I guess his conquerors would have been multiple Slam winners in the weak era.

No bogbrush, what is hilarious is you ignoring the same exact trend in hewitt, safin, and ferrero's careers. If you watched the 09 final and new anything about tennis you would see that the Roddick that showed up for that 09 was light years better than the Roddick who won the USO in 03. Frankly it was evidenced by how on Fed's best surface he pushed Federer in a grandslam in away that he had never been able to do before. Roddick moved to net more in that 09 final than he did the entire USO in 03. His backhand was much better in 09 than in 03. And he was actually lighter as well. And again, I said Roddick was better in the 09 wimby final than he was in 03. His game has obviously degraded since then, but he was at London last year and in 2010 he came up one set short of completing the Indian Wells miami double. Roddick is a good player but I would say that he is a pretty weak player in terms of being #1.

Any Era where a 30 year old can easily hold down a #3 position and where nobody outside the top 3 hardly ever makes a final can't be Golden.

Where's the depth?

#4 - 3 finals, no wins
#5 - 2 finals, no wins
#9 - 1 final, no win

Only JMDP buck the trend and then only once.

It's a fitness era, nothing more, and it's only because of the extraordinary capabilities of the #3 that we have anything anomolous at all.

bogbrush wrote:

It's a fitness era, nothing more, and it's only because of the extraordinary capabilities of the #3 that we have anything anomolous at all.

Exactly. We have one genius and 2 gladiators. in 3 years time we will have no genius and 10 gladiators.

Bogbrush, your last point was really quite frankly silly. Its not any old 30 year that his holding down his top 3 ranking. Its Roger Federer. And you do realize that your silly post can be used against the very argument you are trying to make. Didn't Andre Agassi in his mid 30s reach a US open final and he was ranked #6 in the world in 2005. I'll tell you what is a weaker than a 30 year old ranked #3 in the world. A guy who is 35 years old being ranked #6 in the world and reaching a grandslam final. Therefore, even by the silly criteria you establish to denigrate the current era the era of 1999-2006 is even weaker. Roger Federer is considered by you and Tenez to be the greatest player of the modern era, he is 30 years old and still ranked in the top 3. That in no way reflects poorly on the current era. Maybe a washed up Pete Sampras winning the US open at 31, or a nearly 36 year old Agassi reaching the finals of the US open and still dominating most of his younger rivals could show that an era is weak, under the same silly logic you used in the above post.

whilst Federer may be a genius, i do get bored of watching his inevitable losses to Nadal....Djokovic on the other hand is more than a match for the Majorcan baseline bore!

you actually *get bored WITH* something JM - English Grammar and
all that

If you think that Rafa is boring you do not understand nor
appreciate tennis !

socal could you please PM me again - My fingers did the walking
and obliterated you (Soz)

well yummy i'm just being honest, normally i'd watch any top 10 player but Nadal just plays mindless ball bashing nonsense so i only see him play when he's up against someone like Nole/Murray (cept that serve)/Tsonga in the latter stages.

Nadal is a phenominem in the tennis world JM - and to NOT
admire him is quite sad !

Mr FAVOURITE player is Andy Murray but that doesn't mean I
can't watch and admire Rafas tennis.

Yummy, I didn't PM you before, I think you erased someone else.

Josiah, I find that Nadal has grown on me. I really didn't enjoy his game much when he first broke on the scene. But I think he has added to his game and isn't just the grinder he used to be. I really love Nadal's passing shots, they are thing of beauty. Especially, when he hits the backhand pass from behind the baseline and past the double's alley cross court for a winner.

[quote="socal1976"]Yummy, I didn't PM you before, I think you erased someone else.

Josiah, I find that Nadal has grown on me. I really didn't enjoy his game much when he first broke on the scene. But I think he has added to his game and isn't just the grinder he used to be. I really love Nadal's passing shots, they are thing of beauty. Especially, when he hits the backhand pass from behind the baseline and past the double's alley cross court for a winner. [/quoOooops (blush)

I only caught a fleeting glance before old happy fingers here pressed the wrong button

Sorry

:Blush:

I FINK I meant Sportslover (Heylp)

Did you EVER have ONE of THOSE DAYS folks ?????????//////

Lol, yummy lets hope that is all that happens today.

socal1976 wrote:Bogbrush, your last point was really quite frankly silly. Its not any old 30 year that his holding down his top 3 ranking. Its Roger Federer. And you do realize that your silly post can be used against the very argument you are trying to make. Didn't Andre Agassi in his mid 30s reach a US open final and he was ranked #6 in the world in 2005. I'll tell you what is a weaker than a 30 year old ranked #3 in the world. A guy who is 35 years old being ranked #6 in the world and reaching a grandslam final. Therefore, even by the silly criteria you establish to denigrate the current era the era of 1999-2006 is even weaker. Roger Federer is considered by you and Tenez to be the greatest player of the modern era, he is 30 years old and still ranked in the top 3. That in no way reflects poorly on the current era. Maybe a washed up Pete Sampras winning the US open at 31, or a nearly 36 year old Agassi reaching the finals of the US open and still dominating most of his younger rivals could show that an era is weak, under the same silly logic you used in the above post.

So he was #6. Not #3, miles ahead of #4? So there's really no comparison?

Of course you are correct that it's Roger Federer and therefore unique. But it's also David Ferrer, 29, at #6, who most certainly isn't. One oldie at the top might be misfortune, two smacks of carelessness.

How is this Bogbrush, if Roger manages to be ranked #6 in the world at age 35 then I will come onto this site and say that Bogbrush is the greatest tennis mind ever and Roger the greatest champion ever in the toughest era ever! But frankly I think it is a hundred times harder to be ranked number 6 at age 35 than to be number 3 at age 30. Plus, Roger is supposedly better than Agassi in your book isn't he?

As for David Ferrer, he is one player who has managed to be succesful into his late 20s. So, it happens in every era that some players have a better second half of their career as they figure out what they need to do to compete. Some players burst onto the scene others get better and better until their physical tools start to decline. Great you wrap your whole theory around ferrer, wonderful, what about the complete dissappearance from tennis relevance of Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and Ferrero who were dominant early on and where basically irrelevant in their mid 20s when it should have been their prime. By the way david Ferrer first broke into the top 6 in 2007 my friend, and has gone up or down a few places and been pretty consistent since 2006 and 07. So in no way do I see how you are building a whole case around David Ferrer.

One or two players doing better or worse in different eras does not indicate a trend.

So apart from Federer hanging on because he's the GOAT, all you have to commend this era is Nadal and Djokovic.

The Iron Pyrites Era?

Just peeking through all the comments regarding weak era's. So what defines the era's deemed weak? Lack of competition or lack of dominance? Every era has a player that by and large makes the other players look inferior. Ljubicic was worthy of his ranking of 3 in the world. Davydenko too was worthy of the ranking, as was Blake, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. In this era we have 2 players that are miles ahead of the rest of the field. That's not to say it is a weak era. Just shows the quality that is Federer and Nadal. The 90's were dominated by Sampras and Agassi. You have to go back to the 80's where there was competition throughout. McEnroe, Willander, Becker, Lendl, Connors.

To answer the original question, Nadal's forehand and backhand slices are the only weapons at the moment that he is better than Djokovic at the moment. Djokovic has a better backhand, dropshot and serve at the moment. They are more than equal on movement and stamina.

No quite frankly bogbrush, you are like Bruce willis in the sixth sense, you only see what you want to see. There is a lot more than just Nadal and Djoko. You have Roger the greatest player ever, 2 years past his prime. Although its hard to judge him in 08 because of the illness, 09 he was at his prime or just slightly passed it. You have Andy Murray who in my mind is already the best player never to win a slam. The guy has been to 3 finals and won 6 masters. He has shown his quality in being able to compete with Nadal and Fed. Then you have Del Po who has had serious injury problems but who is also a towering figure with massive potential. And you have big hitters and dangerous floaters up and down the rankings. Sorry Ljubi, and Blake aren't as good as murray, that is as easy to judge as saying chocolate tastes better than horse doody.

legendkillar wrote:To answer the original question, Nadal's forehand and backhand slices are the only weapons at the moment that he is better than Djokovic at the moment. Djokovic has a better backhand, dropshot and serve at the moment. They are more than equal on movement and stamina.

I would concede the slice backhand as well. The forehand, six months ago would definetly agree with you. But Novak's forehand has just seemed to get better and better the last couple of years. That hardly ever gets talked about although frankly Novak has done a lot of work on the forehand to keep getting it better and better. He always had a good one but in recent years he has gone more western and taken a bigger swing. In the past he used to hit it flatter and it would break down on him when he was in a funk. Right now he puts a charge in the ball both in terms of miles per hour and spin. What he has on the forehand right now over Nadal, is that because he started out as a flatter hitter who took the ball early, he can still hit the flat forehand more comfortably than Nadal. Also right now I would say that Novak has better and more fluid change of direction on the ball. He has a great cross court forehand one of the best in the game, and then he can go up the line just as easy and hit the inside out one when he wants it as well. I still feel that Nadal is slightly deficient with the up the line forehand. When he is hitting it well, it is usually a sign that he is really playing well and he is tough to live with. But I think Nadal hits the cross court more comfortably off of both wings.

"Sorry Ljubi, and Blake aren't as good as murray"

I agree. Blake was never a top 4 player though. A bit like Soderling, perhaps.
But, yes, maybe June 2006 - Dec 2006 was a weak era. Not sure how you expanded it from 1998 - 2006/7/8. Especially without including 1997, with Bjorkman at No. 4.
And don't get me started on any era where Chang was No. 2!

I do rate the Djokovic Forehand, it is flat and heavy. I think the reason I give it to Nadal is because of the variation he has with it and for me the inside out forehand that he hits up the line or cross court is the best Forehand out there at the moment. Djokovic has improved it dramatically, especially when he works the opponents around the court. Sometimes though for me he can get caught out with the cross court forehand as it doesn't generate the pace of a Nadal CCFH. That is being very critical. It is easier to punish the Djokovic FH than it is the Nadal one. When Djokovic plays a short length, it can get punished. The only time I have seen Nadal's Forehand get dismantled was at Wimbledon this year in the final.

The sliced BH is not really a weapon. It's a good to have shot but you don;t get many winners from that shot.


Djoko has a better FH than Nadal. Much better in fact. Nadal's FH is not precise and deep enough and more importantly he doesn't take it early enough and when he tries to then we see the UEs adding up.

A good FH is a FH that hurts, Nadal's FH in general doesn't hurt, it's ashot that's difficult to attack. That's the difference. His FH is a libability for most players who have a good DHBH. You woudl never say that of a good FH.

Nadal's mouvement is good enough to use his FH 6 times out of 10. I woudl not call a FH that needs to be hit 6 times to get a point a good FH. Djoko and more so Federer hurt on their first FH. There is a big difference there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rJ_ECDptjc

There we see how much better is Djoko's FH than Nadal. And Djoko hasn't got the best FH in teh world. It's good but there are a few better FH than his out there.

Julius I actually take the weak era from lets say 1999 to 2006 or 07. In 1999, Pete was really starting to tailspin and the other talent around him was not particularly great if you get past agassi.

I think Nadal does have a good forehand contrary to tenez. However in the last 7 months Novak has been doing more damage. And legend if anything I think the Nadal forehand isn't that versatile. He doesn't hit the flat up the line forehand as naturally as Novak in my opinion.

Djoko pulling out of the singles DC due to knee injury. I guess he is a bit tired but he hascertainly worn this knee bandage for some times now. he is entering the HC season which is going to last 9 months and that it not going to help him heal that injury or weakness.