Comparing the Big Three on Difference Surfaces

[El Dude]

In the main Wimbledon thread I wrote a list of how Roger, Rafa, and Novak compare on four surfaces - grass, clay, fast hards and slow hards. I was starting a reply to Federberg in that thread, but instead decided to start a new thread as I think it is an interesting conversation in its own right.

Here's the original list:

1. RAFA clay
2. ROGER grass
3. ROGER fast hard
4. NOVAK slow hard
5. ROGER slow hard
6. RAFA slow hard
7. NOVAK fast hard
8. NOVAK grass
8. NOVAK clay
10. ROGER clay
11. RAFA grass
12. RAFA fast hard

The original point wasn't to give definitive rankings, which would require more research, but to illustrate that Rafa is the best of the three on his preferred surface, but lesser than the other two on his non preferred surfaces. It was written while at the beach, without looking at stats, so I'd like to do some actual research to see what their resumes actually look like.

The point of this thread is to actually discuss the order and try to come to a more definitive ordering. As I said, I'll offer some numbers a bit later, but first to reply to Federberg...

 

[El Dude]

I'm not sure Novak has earned the right to be ranked above Roger on clay yet has he? How many finals has he been in?

I made that list without looking at stats, so my impression is biased towards recent memory and Novak has been much better. But let's look at stats on clay:

ROGER: 75.9%
Clay finals: 11-15
Slams: 1 W, 4 finals, 2 sf, 4 qf
Masters: 6 titles


NOVAK: 80%
Clay finals: 13-10
Slams: 1 W, 3 finals, 4 sf, 3 qf
Masters: 8 titles

Just based on pure numbers, I'd give the edge to Novak. It is close, but he has the edge in overall titles, with two more, which are both Masters. They pretty much even out at Roland Garros, although if you want to give Roger an edge he's made one more final. But a bonus for Novak is that he's won all three clay Masters. Roger won Hamburg and its replacement Madrid, but not Rome or Monte Carlo.

For one final edge for Novak, compare their records on clay vs. Rafa:
Roger: 2-13 (0-5 at Roland Garros)
Novak: 7-15 (1-6 at Roland Garros)

So Novak has done better against the King of Clay. They're 4-4 against each other, so pretty even.

So yeah, I think the edge goes to Novak.

I'm guessing you're just trying to be provocative here? How many slow hard tournaments has Rafa won compared to Roger? And I'm not even going to point out the slam differential. Please enjoy the beach....

(This was in response to me saying "Can't wait for the quibbles, but I might rank Rafa higher than Roger on slow hards and maybe also on grass vs Roger on clay. Will have to do some research later.")

No, I'm not trying to be provocative, just allowing for different perspectives. Some might argue Rafa has been greater on slow hards. Of course the problems becomes differentiating slow and fast hards when they really exist on a spectrum and change over time. I think in the end I'd rather avoid that problem and just combine the two, and I think we can agree that Roger has been the greater player on hard-courts. So you can stop your unwarranted head-palming .

 

[El Dude]

Back to the overall rankings, there are two steps to coming up with a list. The first is to rank the players within each surface, which is easier to do than across surfaces. Because of the reasons I stated above, I'm going to combine fast and slow hard courts. Without in-depth analysis, I would rank them as follows:

CLAY: 1) Rafa...large gap...2) Novak...small gap...3) Roger

Rafa as #1 is easy. It is also easy to say there's a large gap between him and the other two. As you can see above, the other two can be discussed but I think the numbers support Novak, but it is a small gap.

GRASS: 1) Roger...medium gap...2) Novak...medium gap...3) Rafa

The order here is pretty clear, but I think the gaps can be debated.

HARD: 1) Roger...small gap...2) Novak...medium gap...3) Rafa

Perhaps the biggest point of contention might be whether to rank Roger or Novak higher on hard courts, at least before looking at the numbers (which I still haven't). But I think it is clear that they are 1-2 in some order, and Rafa 3.

Next up I'm going to actually bring numbers to see whether those orders hold water, then adjust accordingly if necessary. After that I will attempt to rank across surfaces.

 

[Federberg]

I made that list without looking at stats, so my impression is biased towards recent memory and Novak has been much better. But let's look at stats on clay:

ROGER: 75.9%
Clay finals: 11-15
Slams: 1 W, 4 finals, 2 sf, 4 qf
Masters: 6 titles


NOVAK: 80%
Clay finals: 13-10
Slams: 1 W, 3 finals, 4 sf, 3 qf
Masters: 8 titles

Just based on pure numbers, I'd give the edge to Novak. It is close, but he has the edge in overall titles, with two more, which are both Masters. They pretty much even out at Roland Garros, although if you want to give Roger an edge he's made one more final. But a bonus for Novak is that he's won all three clay Masters. Roger won Hamburg and its replacement Madrid, but not Rome or Monte Carlo.

For one final edge for Novak, compare their records on clay vs. Rafa:
Roger: 2-13 (0-5 at Roland Garros)
Novak: 7-15 (1-6 at Roland Garros)

So Novak has done better against the King of Clay. They're 4-4 against each other, so pretty even.

So yeah, I think the edge goes to Novak.



(This was in response to me saying "Can't wait for the quibbles, but I might rank Rafa higher than Roger on slow hards and maybe also on grass vs Roger on clay. Will have to do some research later.")

No, I'm not trying to be provocative, just allowing for different perspectives. Some might argue Rafa has been greater on slow hards. Of course the problems becomes differentiating slow and fast hards when they really exist on a spectrum and change over time. I think in the end I'd rather avoid that problem and just combine the two, and I think we can agree that Roger has been the greater player on hard-courts. So you can stop your unwarranted head-palming .

Nothing unwarranted about it. Most reasonable Rafa fans would not suggest that Rafa's slow hard record is close to Roger's. I think in trying not to get into a Fedal argument you've got stuck with some splinters from that fence

As for Roger and Novak's clay record, didn't realise it was that close I'll admit. Personally (and this is probably my bias) I think that Roger had to face a better King of Clay than Novak did. But achievements are achievements so I'll concede that it's a tough call on that one

 

[El Dude]

OK, just doing a cursory look at the numbers (which I can share later), I'd adjust these as follows (with changes in bold):

CLAY: 1) Rafa..huge gap...2) Novak...small gap...3) Roger

The gap between Rafa and the other two isn't just "large," it is "huge."

GRASS: 1) Roger...large gap...2) Novak...small gap...3) Rafa

Roger's lead over the other two is substantial - not quite huge like Rafa's on clay, but far enough from Novak to be considered large. I'm also reducing Novak's edge as it is smaller than I thought.

HARD: 1) Roger...small gap...2) Novak...large gap...3) Rafa

Looking at the overall results on all hard courts, Roger and Novak are very close, but head and shoulders above Rafa. More on that later.

 

[Haelfix]

Pretty good. Swap 3 and 4 bc I think Novaks dominance on slow hard is historically unprecedented, and swap Novak and Fed on clay, although it's very close. My reason is simple. Federer played prime Nadal on clay, who stopped him almost everywhere, whereas Novaks wins over Rafa came past 2008. Meanwhile an aging Federer beat Novak at his absolute peak in RG.
The win percentages will look worse for Novak as he ages.