Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?

[BalaryKar]

My take is that if Nole gets 2 FO, he wins this non-existing battle of being better than Fed on clay. I think most often when Fed lost to Rafa in the final, Nole also went down to Rafa in the semis. Some of his great losses would be Hamburg 08 SF, FO08 Sf (he deserved to win at least two sets and remember the God-mode Rafa), and Madrid 09 SF.

The Hamburg and Madrid losses effected him much more than simply being SF losses. If he could have turn the tables at Hamburg, he would have a very different year, remember him just 5 points short of year-end No.2 ranking. His momentum was really down by Hamburg, and loosing Queens and Beijing made the matters even worst. These losses, and again loosing such a winnable match at SF Madrid 09 really put him on a hibernate mode for nearly 1 and 1/2 years.

Overall, I feel Nole should focus more on winning his first FO and he can be assured that Fed FO 11 does not occur every year at all, and once he is done winning his first FO this year, he should win one more of the next two years, and let us be honest. Green horns is oxymoron to red clay, and by that I mean there is no great clay challenger on the radar.

What does 3-12 against Nadal on clay mean? Is it just one more win than 2-10 of Fed? I am trying to get the right perspective here and not trying to malign Feds two win. When Nadal lost to Fed at Hamburg 07, how much advantage was it for Fed to win FO07? When Nadal lost to Juan Carlos Ferrero at Rome 08 (I hope to be right here), how many gave a chance to Ferrero? In 2013, sorry forgot the name of the Argentinian player who beat Nadal at the return 250 tourney, how may rate that guys chances at FO? Now compare each of Nole's 3 wins, and from this perspective I believe that he is much better against Nadal on clay than Fed. In fact many held Fed as the culprit for taking out Nole at FO 11 semis. That a near 31 (or 30) year guy takes out 2011 Nole for the first win of the year really shows what a remarkable great is Fed on clay

So, I will be more happy to see Nole win 2 FO's and be a more versatile player for his own sake, really he lost out on a lot number of slams between FO08-AO11 which is a staggering 11-slams draught for a player of his calibre, rather than win this hypothetical argument of being better than Fed on clay. It will just show that like Agassi was great on slow courts, so is Nole.

---

By the way, when did Rafa/Nole have any brutal semi matches at Roland Garros? From 2006-2008 they were all pretty straightforward 3 set victories. However, you may be right that falling on Nadal's half prevented him from reaching a final (still questionable though considering Federer was probably the superior clay courter from 2006-2008).

There is more to it than mere straight sets. It is also the overall things that count more than simple data comparison. Despite Rogers 5 FO finals, I have just added the significance of 2 and 3 wins of them against Nadal. Would like to know your opinion

 

[Postpre]

By the way, when did Rafa/Nole have any brutal semi matches at Roland Garros?

I never said RG... 2009 semifinal Madrid was what I was thinking about. Rafa played a grueling semi against Nole. He won 3-6, 7-6(5), 7-6(9), but had little left when he met Roger in the final.

Got ya.

 

[herios]

While Roger's record to date is better, Nole has the time on his side to surpass Fed's record by some way. And i am sure he will.
Let's talk about it in let's say 3 years from now.

 

[DarthFed]

For great players there is only so much credit that should be given for making a GS final. 5 finals is a lot but what matters is the 1 win which is still 1 win more than Nole has right now. No one wants to be the Buffalo Bills of Roland Garros and Fed thankfully avoided that.

Pretty easy to see Roger has the significantly better career than Nole on clay but he is 6 years older. There is a lot of time left for Nole.

 

[Moxie]

By the way, when did Rafa/Nole have any brutal semi matches at Roland Garros?

I never said RG... 2009 semifinal Madrid was what I was thinking about. Rafa played a grueling semi against Nole. He won 3-6, 7-6(5), 7-6(9), but had little left when he met Roger in the final.

Got ya.

It should be made clear that the confusion is made by Mastoor. As he said, above, Roger won the FO because of a 4-hour match between Rafa and Novak. By which he means the SF in Madrid. He's trying to make Roger's win at RG about how tired Rafa and Novak were after the match in a completely different tournament. That is a stretch. Nadal lost to Soderling in the 4th round. Djokovic to Kohlschreiber in the 2nd. I think it is overstating Djokovic's influence in that particular RG. And it would be unfair, in any case, to say that Federer didn't fight for that RG, and win it on own his terms.

 

[Billie]

I missed you Darth....and I.H....good to see you!

 

[Moxie]

I think Nole has every opportunity to pass Roger on clay, and he just might, but for now, I think Roger has a bit of an edge. I would not under estimate 5 RG finals. There have been so many great clay court specialists in the open era like Guga, Burgeira , Muster and even they could not make it to 5. Granted, Roger lost 4 of those , but to the GOAT of clay. Not too shabby.
Nole CAN get there though...he is solid on clay.

This is a reasonable point. Roger has better numbers on clay, bottom line. And Djokovic, up until 2011, couldn't beat Nadal on clay, when Roger had, and in two finals.

However, both Roger and Nole had to deal with the King of Clay. They've both had some success and some failure. Credit to the champions they are. I think you have to give a certain nod to Federer, though, for playing Nadal in his salad years. When he swung freely, and believed that every day was like the last. Djokovic had plenty of tries at Nadal in those years, and came up fallow. He's only done well against a post-injury and more-tentative Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

I think Nole has every opportunity to pass Roger on clay, and he just might, but for now, I think Roger has a bit of an edge. I would not under estimate 5 RG finals. There have been so many great clay court specialists in the open era like Guga, Burgeira , Muster and even they could not make it to 5. Granted, Roger lost 4 of those , but to the GOAT of clay. Not too shabby.
Nole CAN get there though...he is solid on clay.

This is a reasonable point. Roger has better numbers on clay, bottom line. And Djokovic, up until 2011, couldn't beat Nadal on clay, when Roger had, and in two finals.

However, both Roger and Nole had to deal with the King of Clay. They've both had some success and some failure. Credit to the champions they are. I think you have to give a certain nod to Federer, though, for playing Nadal in his salad years. When he swung freely, and believed that every day was like the last. Djokovic had plenty of tries at Nadal in those years, and came up fallow. He's only done well against a post-injury and more-tentative Nadal.

As stated before one of Roger's wins was due in large part to Rafa's semifinal battle with Djokovic (Madrid 09).

As to Roger beating Rafa in his "salad years when he swung freely and believed every day was like the last", well that all came to a screeching halt for Rafa when he ran into a buzz saw and was mowed down in IW, Miami, Madrid and Rome... the more tentative, post-injury guy followed

I'm really disappointed to see that you are buying Mastoor's narrative that Roger won RG because of the the long SF between Rafa and Nole. Not only was it a tournament away, it is also presuming that, at that point in time, anyone thought that Djokovic was "the other" impediment to Roger winning the French. That's retrospective thinking. I would say that Djokovic was the #3 on clay, even at that point, but away by a long mile, in terms of threatening Roger in a slam, with Rafa out. And, in any case, Roger won that RG, and it wasn't easy. To say that it's because Rafa and Nole were knocked out because of a tough SF in Madrid is to unfairly denigrate Roger's win.

 

[Postpre]

I think Nole has every opportunity to pass Roger on clay, and he just might, but for now, I think Roger has a bit of an edge. I would not under estimate 5 RG finals. There have been so many great clay court specialists in the open era like Guga, Burgeira , Muster and even they could not make it to 5. Granted, Roger lost 4 of those , but to the GOAT of clay. Not too shabby.
Nole CAN get there though...he is solid on clay.

This is a reasonable point. Roger has better numbers on clay, bottom line. And Djokovic, up until 2011, couldn't beat Nadal on clay, when Roger had, and in two finals.

However, both Roger and Nole had to deal with the King of Clay. They've both had some success and some failure. Credit to the champions they are. I think you have to give a certain nod to Federer, though, for playing Nadal in his salad years. When he swung freely, and believed that every day was like the last. Djokovic had plenty of tries at Nadal in those years, and came up fallow. He's only done well against a post-injury and more-tentative Nadal.

As stated before one of Roger's wins was due in large part to Rafa's semifinal battle with Djokovic (Madrid 09).

As to Roger beating Rafa in his "salad years when he swung freely and believed every day was like the last", well that all came to a screeching halt for Rafa when he ran into a buzz saw and was mowed down in IW, Miami, Madrid and Rome... the more tentative, post-injury guy followed

It's often surmised that Fed's clay wins over Nadal were strictly due to Nadal's fatigue. But, I'm not so sure. In Hamburg 2007, Rafa handily won the first set, but then Fed caught fire. In Madrid 2009, Fed served brilliantly. Nadal, for sure, may have been a bit flat, but he did play the first semi against Djokovic the day before.

IMHO, Nadal's form in Hamburg 2008 & Roland Garros 2008 was far superior to his 2011 Madrid/Rome form.

 

[Garro]

Sure, won FO thanks to the consequences of the 4 hour match between Nole and Rafa. What other achievements on clay he has that No1e doesn't have? They both have 4 Masters 1000 titles on clay. And don't forget they are not the same age.

Roger has six Masters 1000 on clay. He has more clay titles overall and a better French Open record (four finals in addition to his win in 09). Also he's been more consistent at the clay Masters than Djokovic has over the years, Fed lost ten clay finals to Rafa. You are right that Novak is much younger then Fed, that will give him a good opportunity to surpass Fed's results on clay, especially because Novak knows how to beat a healthy Rafa on clay.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic is better on clay against Nadal than Federer for sure. By any other measure, Federer is the better clay court player career wise.

Sure, won FO thanks to the consequences of the 4 hour match between Nole and Rafa. What other achievements on clay he has that No1e doesn't have? They both have 4 Masters 1000 titles on clay. And don't forget they are not the same age.

With regards to your first comment, the 4 hour match you refer to took place in Madrid, about 3 weeks before Roger won Roland Garros. Not sure how he won it "as a consequence."

I find your question funny: "outside of Roland Garros, what does Federer have on clay that Novak doesn't?"

Can you just disregard something that significant? And to answer your question, he has 3 finals more.

---

Denisovich, people here are a bit, how shall I say this politely, reluctant to give Nole any kind of advantage or say that he is better in something than Federer

Probably because he's not. At least as far as this particular topic is concerned.

---

At this point in their careers Federer has the better clay court results... some of those wins thanks to the brutal semifinal matches Rafa had with Nole.

Outside of Madrid 2009, which ones? It was no more thanks to Rafa's match with Nole than Novak's 2008 Rome title was thanks to Nadal's blisters and loss to Ferrero. We shouldn't go down that road since it's too open ended.

We have to be fair here, I don't recall Federer losing to Kohlschreiber or Melzer at the French Open.

It's one thing to discuss their respective games on clay (which I've done earlier, and even said Novak's game might seem more suited at times), but to try and interpret results is a bit of a stretch considering Federer's are significantly better at this point.

---

The only way we can determine the better player is based on wins and losses and the number of championships accrued. Based on the measurable recorded data up to this point in time, Roger is the better clay court player. There is no reasonable way to dispute the facts.

Exactly.

I think this conversation could be far more interesting in a couple of months though.

 

[Haelfix]

I definitely think that Rafa's best claycourt seasons where when he was a younger player. I'd say 2008 >> 2007>2010>2006>2005>2011>2012 in terms of level displayed. I'll remove 2009 from the picture, b/c of injury and 2013 b/c its not done yet.

In many ways the game he developed as an older player makes him more vulnerable to bad hitting days, then when he was a pure defensive brick wall when he was still wearing pirate shorts. Whereas I think his hardcourt game is significantly better as an older player.

Roger was more or less the opposite. He was not a great claycourt player (more like a Sampras on clay) in his youth until well past his prime and it took him awhile to find his rhythm on clay. It's not a coincidence that Roger's closest RG final was when he was 30 and Rafa at age 25.

Djokovic meanwhile was always considered the third wheel on clay through most of his career up until 2011, at which point we could say he was the 2nd best player on clay. But Rafa beat him in 2012 and Roger beat him in 2011, so even then its a little unclear if he *really* is the 2nd best claycourter. LIke Roger, his game isn't a masterpiece on clay compared to his best surface (slow hards).

Overall, I think that Roger is sometimes given a little bit too much credit for his clay court prowess. Don't get me wrong, he is a great player and one of the best of all time on the surface. But he isn't right behind Rafa either on the list. Borg, Kuerten and other claycourters were better. But by the same metric, Novak isn't really anywhere near that list at this time based on his accomplishments either. He might at the end of his career, but lets wait and see.

 

[Kieran]

Good post, Haelfix, and nice to see you here, but I'd disagree on one thing: 2012 was definitely >>> 2011 in all areas. He was browbeaten the year before and glad not to face Nole in Paris, but last year he was far more combative and assertive.

But you're right, he was a greater force in his calf days...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Good post, Haelfix, and nice to see you here, but I'd disagree on one thing: 2012 was definitely >>> 2011 in all areas. He was browbeaten the year before and glad not to face Nole in Paris, but last year he was far more combative and assertive.

But you're right, he was a greater force in his calf days...

Yeah. Even in winning, Nadal wasn't convincing at all at RG in 2011 (let's not forget the dramatic press conferences throughout the tournament). Last year, he actually looked phenomenal leading up to the final, notably against Monaco, and especially, Ferrer in the semis (which I think was his best performance of the season).

 

[Haelfix]

Good post, Haelfix, and nice to see you here, but I'd disagree on one thing: 2012 was definitely >>> 2011 in all areas. He was browbeaten the year before and glad not to face Nole in Paris, but last year he was far more combative and assertive.

But you're right, he was a greater force in his calf days...

Yea you are probably right. I actually thought the overall level was similar though, assuming you take Djokovic out of the picture.

 

[Kieran]

Good post, Haelfix, and nice to see you here, but I'd disagree on one thing: 2012 was definitely >>> 2011 in all areas. He was browbeaten the year before and glad not to face Nole in Paris, but last year he was far more combative and assertive.

But you're right, he was a greater force in his calf days...

Yea you are probably right. I actually thought the overall level was similar though, assuming you take Djokovic out of the picture.

That's what Rafa did so clinically last year - he took Djokovic out of the picture...

 

[Ricardo]

Djoker is a better clay courter than Roger, of course. So what if Roger has 5 RG finals (including one win) and 6 MS? he was lucky because he didn't play Djoker. Hell that goes for grass and hardcourt as well, since Roger would not even win one Wimbledon (let alone 7) if Djoker matured a few years earlier. On hardcourt, let's not even talk about slow hard since Djoker actually beat Roger at AO, even on fast hard Roger would not have a single USO.... just watch how Djoker beat the crap out of Fed at his peak.

In fact Djoker is also better than Nadal on clay, as he beat Nadal once he matured in 2011 (although didn't go well in 2012 as he went green-horn again), and again he beat Nadal yesterday once more who played the best match of his life.

Just remember, when Djoker beat someone, that player always plays the best tennis of his life. He is better than Nadal, which makes him the best ever clay courter. He is also better than Fed on grass and hard court, which makes him the greatest hard courter and grass courter. He is simply the best of all times, anyone who doesn't agree must be BIASED Nole-HATER.

So far, only Billy and Mastoor have got it right.

---

Good post, Haelfix, and nice to see you here, but I'd disagree on one thing: 2012 was definitely >>> 2011 in all areas. He was browbeaten the year before and glad not to face Nole in Paris, but last year he was far more combative and assertive.

But you're right, he was a greater force in his calf days...

Yea you are probably right. I actually thought the overall level was similar though, assuming you take Djokovic out of the picture.

That's what Rafa did so clinically last year - he took Djokovic out of the picture...

wrong last year Djoker didn't want to beat Nadal, he was tired of it and sympathized with Nadal.

 

[Haelfix]

Some clay stats (its interesting to see what a monster young Nadal was)
Return games won % Serve games won%
2012 47 89
2011 44 83
2010 41 91
2009 43 85
2008 51 84
2007 45 87
2006 40 84
2005 45 84

Rule of thumb. If you're serve is 83-88% you are in the top 30 on the ATP tour in general, but it doesn't really make that much of a difference in distinguishing players in that tier until you go over 88%, at which point you can win on those numbers alone (think Isner taking Rafa to 5 sets) regardless of your return numbers. If you return over 30% in general, you are in the top 20. Anything over 40% basically correlates to being in the top 3 of the world regardless of your hold game. Anything over 45 basically makes you unplayable.

The seasons that stand out.. Obviously 2008, with a ridiculous return game win percentage. No person in history has ever done anything like that. That's the definition of unplayable.
2010, Rafa's hold game was ridiculous, so even though it looks like his baseline was less stellar, he made up for it with those ridiculous numbers. That's John Isner territory folks.
2012 with both high serve and return stats. I am a little surprised by how well he did here, b/c his play at RG while good, didn't strike me as his best, but ok I can be wrong.. I think its partially a better match schedule in that he played fewer matches relative to 2011.
2007 with ridiculous return game won rate as well as a much improved hold game.

 

[DarthFed]

I definitely think that Rafa's best claycourt seasons where when he was a younger player. I'd say 2008 >> 2007>2010>2006>2005>2011>2012 in terms of level displayed. I'll remove 2009 from the picture, b/c of injury and 2013 b/c its not done yet.

In many ways the game he developed as an older player makes him more vulnerable to bad hitting days, then when he was a pure defensive brick wall when he was still wearing pirate shorts. Whereas I think his hardcourt game is significantly better as an older player.

Roger was more or less the opposite. He was not a great claycourt player (more like a Sampras on clay) in his youth until well past his prime and it took him awhile to find his rhythm on clay. It's not a coincidence that Roger's closest RG final was when he was 30 and Rafa at age 25.

Djokovic meanwhile was always considered the third wheel on clay through most of his career up until 2011, at which point we could say he was the 2nd best player on clay. But Rafa beat him in 2012 and Roger beat him in 2011, so even then its a little unclear if he *really* is the 2nd best claycourter. LIke Roger, his game isn't a masterpiece on clay compared to his best surface (slow hards).

Overall, I think that Roger is sometimes given a little bit too much credit for his clay court prowess. Don't get me wrong, he is a great player and one of the best of all time on the surface. But he isn't right behind Rafa either on the list. Borg, Kuerten and other claycourters were better. But by the same metric, Novak isn't really anywhere near that list at this time based on his accomplishments either. He might at the end of his career, but lets wait and see.

Good post but I disagree with regards to Federer being better on clay when he was past his prime. It definitely took Roger longer to become good on clay and I'd say he didn't fully come into his own until 2006. But I'd still say his best performances on clay have been 2005-2007 with 2008 and 2009 a good step below and then 2010 - 2012 bigger steps down. Now 2011 was his highest level at FO, and that is obviously a big deal, but it is worth pointing out that the conditions were significantly different than what he had seen at RG before due to them changing the ball.

 

[Didi]

Overall, I think that Roger is sometimes given a little bit too much credit for his clay court prowess. Don't get me wrong, he is a great player and one of the best of all time on the surface. But he isn't right behind Rafa either on the list. Borg, Kuerten and other claycourters were better.

Interesting what you say because in a historical context I would only put Rafa and Borg above Roger on clay. While Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, Vilas and Nastase might have the better accomplishments, I still can't see Fed of 2005-2009 losing many matches to them, let alone to the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Corretja or Moya etc. I think it's important what criteria we take here, pure results or the level of play? If it's the latter I see Roger at his very very best on clay with the insanely complete game he has as the leading candidate behind Borg/Nadal. I just don't see anyone outside them really hurting him on a consistent basis.

Stylistically Kuerten and Lendl might have troubled him the most but in my opinion he still would have come out on top for most of the time. I've seen Fed on clay making mincemeat out of Ferrero and Coria on a couple of occasions who were easily two of the most gifted claycourters to ever step on the dirt. So that I wouldn't say that Roger is given too much credit for his clay results, I think it's the opposite. I've seen clay lists where he doesn't even feature in the top 10 or put behind Agassi, Chang and the likes of Berasategui and Gomez, lol.