Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?

[shawnbm]

The original post seeks a subjective answer, so it depends on the poster. As for his career--even limiting it to 2008 forward, I think he falls short of Fed a bit--at least in the big events. Over the long haul, who knows? Roger has been the third best on clay by record I have seen--and only one guy could beat him on clay (basically) who was himself virtually unbeatable.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I think of the two Novak's game on the surface seems to be more suited toward clay, but Novak has a ways to go to make an argument in terms of records on clay. However, he might make a more solid case if he can beat Nadal in the finals or period at Roland Garros which is something Roger has never been able to do. He does have all of the clay masters which is something Roger does not have, so if he can win a FO he can bolster his argument probably near the end of his career versus Roger's clay record.

 

[Andrew William]

That is a pretty vague subject. Overall I think Djokovic's game suits clay just a tiny bit more. So there you have it, Nole is better.....by a hair. I see that some people are using Nadal as some sort of excuse for Federer. I don't agree with that at all. If you want to be considered better than someone else, you have to beat the competition (no matter who it is). Now, if you want to just look at titles and records, Federer wins. That however would be unfair to Novak since he is working from a deficit of years. Djokovic by a whisker!

 

[huntingyou]

Your observation is subjective.

My observation is Roger had better movement, serve and forehand for clay while Novak has a superior backhand. Forget about Nadal, look at Roger record against the field and then look at Novak's record against the field. Roger made it look easy on clay, year after year.......even during Novak's magical run in 2011; he was pushed hard by Ferrer (Madrid) and Murray (Rome) before LOSING to 29 year old Federer at RG.

So no, Novak is not even in the same neighborhood and how come is unfair to him? He came to the scene as top dog in 2007, won his first slam in 2008 and then nothing happened........hmm, maybe Rafa and Roger had something to do with that.

Regardless, this is another year where Novak will have an excellent chance to win his first RG title. Now my question is, to some of the guys that are already counting 2013 RG in the bag for Novak.....are you going to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[tented]

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, with emphasis on "up to this point in time." As of right this second, Federer would be considered the better player. A year or two from now, however, we could look back on this thread very differently.

 

[calitennis127]

Forget about Nadal, look at Roger record against the field and then look at Novak's record against the field. Roger made it look easy on clay, year after year.......

Did he make it look easy when he needed a third-set tiebreak to beat Nalbandian in the 2006 Rome semis? Was he making it look easy when he was down 6-3, 3-0 to Nalbandian in the 2006 Roland Garros semifinals?

Regardless, this is another year where Novak will have an excellent chance to win his first RG title. Now my question is, to some of the guys that are already counting 2013 RG in the bag for Novak.....are you going to put your money where your mouth is?

I'm not saying that it's in the bag, but since I predicted that Djokovic was going to be outstanding at the 2013 French Open as soon as the 2012 French Open was over, I certainly am willing to put my money where my big mouth is.

 

[Andrew William]

Your observation is subjective.

My observation is Roger had better movement, serve and forehand for clay while Novak has a superior backhand. Forget about Nadal, look at Roger record against the field and then look at Novak's record against the field. Roger made it look easy on clay, year after year.......even during Novak's magical run in 2011; he was pushed hard by Ferrer (Madrid) and Murray (Rome) before LOSING to 29 year old Federer at RG.

So no, Novak is not even in the same neighborhood and how come is unfair to him? He came to the scene as top dog in 2007, won his first slam in 2008 and then nothing happened........hmm, maybe Rafa and Roger had something to do with that.

Regardless, this is another year where Novak will have an excellent chance to win his first RG title. Now my question is, to some of the guys that are already counting 2013 RG in the bag for Novak.....are you going to put your money where your mouth is?

Interesting perspective. I have to disagree on movement though. I don't believe anyone is superior to Nole in that category. Part and parcel with that is his ability to hit while at full stretch. That single aspect of his mobility to me is unmatched. Agree with Fed owning the better serve and forehand. Though Novak's forehand isn't chopped liver either. Djokovic is quite a bit better balanced between forehand/backhand than Federer. Overall the difference is very small, at least in my estimation. As Tented pointed out, we'll have to wait and see where the Serbian Slayer is in 3 or so years from now.

I'm in agreement with Cali (hard to believe, I know) on Djokovic's chances at RG. It's silly to say anything is in the bag as you never know how things will shake out. However, barring injury, I think Nole has to be the frontrunner after Monte Carlo, doesn't he? I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.

 

[huntingyou]

Interesting perspective. I have to disagree on movement though. I don't believe anyone is superior to Nole in that category. Part and parcel with that is his ability to hit while at full stretch. That single aspect of his mobility to me is unmatched. Agree with Fed owning the better serve and forehand. Though Novak's forehand isn't chopped liver either. Djokovic is quite a bit better balanced between forehand/backhand than Federer. Overall the difference is very small, at least in my estimation. As Tented pointed out, we'll have to wait and see where the Serbian Slayer is in 3 or so years from now.

I'm in agreement with Cali (hard to believe, I know) on Djokovic's chances at RG. It's silly to say anything is in the bag as you never know how things will shake out. However, barring injury, I think Nole has to be the frontrunner after Monte Carlo, doesn't he? I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.

I think you are alone on your opinion of Novak moving better than Roger on a clay court........I'll give you hardcourts sure but on clay; there is really no comparison. I think since the memory of Novak thumping groundstrokes against Rafa is fresh, maybe the mind is playing tricks on you.

Yes, Novak is definitely the front runner at the moment, and unlike 2011; Rafa is more than happy to play second fiddle to the Djoker in this aspect. I like Rafa's state of mind and outlook so far this year. He measured his game against the best at his best and came up short....... knowing the intricacies of claycourt tennis better than anyone, his smile tells me he likes his chances. double down in Vegas??? :angel:

---

---

I'm not saying that it's in the bag, but since I predicted that Djokovic was going to be outstanding at the 2013 French Open as soon as the 2012 French Open was over, I certainly am willing to put my money where my big mouth is.

I'll send you a PM after Rome regarding this!

 

[Postpre]

I think you are alone on your opinion of Novak moving better than Roger on a clay court........I'll give you hardcourts sure but on clay; there is really no comparison. I think since the memory of Novak thumping groundstrokes against Rafa is fresh, maybe the mind is playing tricks on you.

I do think a comparison is valid, although I would agree that Roger in his prime moved forward better, as an attacking style player. Yet, when Novak is dialed in, I've never seen anyone stretch laterally or defend the corners as well as him.

 

[Billie]

Oh Ricky, you should really get me and Mastoor out of your head.

Let me introduce myself, I am a Nole fan and I am totally biased and have no clue so don't pay attention to my posts, OK?

Additionally as a huge fan, I don't feel a need to be completely objective and will almost always take Nole's side. No disrespect to any other fans or players, it's just the way it is. And most fans are like that, yes, always biased towards their own player, don't even try to argue that.

Somebody here says that Federer is the best clay court player behind Rafa ever? Maybe, if that is what his fans feel like, I don't mind it, they are fans. But just on top of my head Guga has 3 RG titles and 14 clay titles total, Muster has 40 clay titles (including 1 RG), or Borg....arguably better results than Federer to me, but it's fine if a Federer fan argues otherwise.

I don't offend anybody, fans or players, but I love Nole and I feel that he is a special person and player - yeah, I am guilty as charged.

And for other issues, well I remember that in 2010 I read how Murray is better than Nole...then in the middle of 2011 (still not realizing what was going on and that Nole was for real) we had to read over and over how he couldn't do this, couldn't do that....Had only 2 majors, no can't even put him in the same sentence as Nadal and Federer, hasn't beaten Rafa in a final, on clay....not going to last as #1, best returner ever??? you are crazy, of course only Nole fans would say something like this....hm...this is even without thinking too hard. This narrative is so boring and frankly off putting so normally his fans fight back. And that when he is over 4200 points than the 2nd best on ATP list.

I don't have problems with people saying that Federer is better on clay, well he does have better results, doesn't he? I just know what Nole is capable of and what he has gone through and what his mindset is, so I am very positive that he will win more titles on clay. That is what my gut tells me.

Nadal in MC to me seemed the same last year and this year, but the difference was Nole. Some found it funny or whatever that he was emotionally empty and saddened last year. Well his attitude was different this year, wasn't it? He will never have clay results like Rafa, it is even silly to mention it, but from time to time, he does have tools to beat him. I consider that a big accomplishment of Nole's clay prowness against the best ever on this surface.

And please, Nadal wasn't injured, he had plenty of matches on clay this year already, he might have been 10% off, but I didn't see a lot of people predicting that Nole would win on Sunday, just a couple of Nole fans. So when I say that Nole doesn't get enough respect from these 10 or so posters that always argue something about him, I mean it...and it's true.

And no, I am not arguing any of these things. I am not another poster that needs to repeat some things over and over again 20 times in one thread. Just needed to stress these things on the new board so that people know how I feel.

Peace!

 

[Andrew William]

I think you are alone on your opinion of Novak moving better than Roger on a clay court........I'll give you hardcourts sure but on clay; there is really no comparison. I think since the memory of Novak thumping groundstrokes against Rafa is fresh, maybe the mind is playing tricks on you.

Yes, Novak is definitely the front runner at the moment, and unlike 2011; Rafa is more than happy to play second fiddle to the Djoker in this aspect. I like Rafa's state of mind and outlook so far this year. He measured his game against the best at his best and came up short....... knowing the intricacies of claycourt tennis better than anyone, his smile tells me he likes his chances. double down in Vegas??? :angel:

No where did I state that Djokovic was a better mover on clay than Federer. To me it's a dead draw on that surface. Roger is clearly more graceful and Nole is tremendous with his court coverage on the run, able to slide into gumby-like positions to retrieve the ball with interest . Hard to say apples are better than oranges -- it depends on what you like.

 

[Haelfix]

I think its clear that Novak is a better mover than Federer (yes even on clay and grass) at this stage of their careers. Although i'd definitely take prime Federer's movement but even then the difference is smallish.
Yes you can find some exceptions, like how Roger was able to seemlessly move on blue clay at age 30, but overall Novak is faster, stronger and more flexible.

Roger's backhand is actually tremendously underrated on clay. Its a very spinny shot, and translates well to natural courts. I've seen it readily hold up against the best backhands in the game, especially when the court gives a little leeway. Likewise, Novak's relatively new spinny forehand is also highly underrated. It gave Nadal all sorts of problems recently by bouncing high to his backhand.

 

[Denis]

OK, so here is an ‘objective’ list based on results to wake up the Fed-fans.

Clay court masters titles based on age (cumulative):

Federer
2002: 1 (age 20)
2003: 1 (age 21)
2004: 2 (age 22)
2005: 3 (age 23)
2006: 3 (age 24)
2007: 4 (age 25)

Djokovic
2008: 1 (age 20)
2009: 1 (age 21)
2010: 1 (age 22)
2011: 3( age 23)
2012: 3 (age 24)
2013: 4 (age 25) AND COUNTING.

Total wins by Roger Federer at Roland Garros by the age of 27: zero, nada, niente, rien, aucune.
Total wins by Novak Djokovic at Roland Garros by the age of 27: Novak Djokovic is still 25, so Novak still has plenty of time to surpass him. If he wins any Masters titles before RG he surpasses Federer comparitively speaking.

Subjective factors addition to my previous post: superior defense and ROS by Djokovic over Federer.

 

[shawnbm]

OK, so here is an ‘objective’ list based on results to wake up the Fed-fans.

Clay court masters titles based on age (cumulative):

Federer
2002: 1 (age 20)
2003: 1 (age 21)
2004: 2 (age 22)
2005: 3 (age 23)
2006: 3 (age 24)
2007: 4 (age 25)

Djokovic
2008: 1 (age 20)
2009: 1 (age 21)
2010: 1 (age 22)
2011: 3( age 23)
2012: 3 (age 24)
2013: 4 (age 25) AND COUNTING.

Total wins by Roger Federer at Roland Garros by the age of 27: zero, nada, niente, rien, aucune.
Total wins by Novak Djokovic at Roland Garros by the age of 27: Novak Djokovic is still 25, so Novak still has plenty of time to surpass him. If he wins any Masters titles before RG he surpasses Federer comparitively speaking.

Subjective factors addition to my previous post: superior defense and ROS by Djokovic over Federer.

Thanks for posting that, but even if Novak wins one FO this year, he would still have two less finals appearances in Paris than Fed taking them by age as you have done. So, I would still put him just behind Roger--even if he won another clay Masters or two. This is based solely on statistical evidence. The highest level I saw Fed play on clay was either Hamburg 2007 or in his epic loss to Nadal in Rome in 2006--probably the latter. Could Novak have beaten Roger at that level on clay? We will never know--it was awe-inspiring Rafael did and was probably his grittiest victory over Federer in my view.

 

[Denis]

OK, so here is an ‘objective’ list based on results to wake up the Fed-fans.

Clay court masters titles based on age (cumulative):

Federer
2002: 1 (age 20)
2003: 1 (age 21)
2004: 2 (age 22)
2005: 3 (age 23)
2006: 3 (age 24)
2007: 4 (age 25)

Djokovic
2008: 1 (age 20)
2009: 1 (age 21)
2010: 1 (age 22)
2011: 3( age 23)
2012: 3 (age 24)
2013: 4 (age 25) AND COUNTING.

Total wins by Roger Federer at Roland Garros by the age of 27: zero, nada, niente, rien, aucune.
Total wins by Novak Djokovic at Roland Garros by the age of 27: Novak Djokovic is still 25, so Novak still has plenty of time to surpass him. If he wins any Masters titles before RG he surpasses Federer comparitively speaking.

Subjective factors addition to my previous post: superior defense and ROS by Djokovic over Federer.

Thanks for posting that, but even if Novak wins one FO this year, he would still have two less finals appearances in Paris than Fed taking them by age as you have done. So, I would still put him just behind Roger--even if he won another clay Masters or two. This is based solely on statistical evidence. The highest level I saw Fed play on clay was either Hamburg 2007 or in his epic loss to Nadal in Rome in 2006--probably the latter. Could Novak have beaten Roger at that level on clay? We will never know--it was awe-inspiring Rafael did and was probably his grittiest victory over Federer in my view.

Well actually, Federer had 2 FO finals up to 2007. And Novak has 1. You can argue that this year he will turn 26 before the FO, but I think it is fair to count the age at the start of the clay season. In that case, Novak can even surpass Federer in that respect, because he cannot only reach the final, but also win it.

Plus, I'd like to add that Federer only defeated Nadal once in all of those 4 masters titles. Djokovic has defeated Nadal three times, with all of those victories being title matches.

 

[Denis]

Also, in addition, Djokovic has won all three masters clay tournaments, Federer only one: Hamburg/Madrid. Hamburg/Madrid is far less prestigious than Rome and Monte Carlo, tournaments that have been around forever with a list of winners comparable to that of Roland Garros itself.

I think I'm done now .

 

[Riotbeard]

Also, in addition, Djokovic has won all three masters clay tournaments, Federer only one: Hamburg/Madrid. Hamburg/Madrid is far less prestigious than Rome and Monte Carlo, tournaments that have been around forever with a list of winners comparable to that of Roland Garros itself.

I think I'm done now .

The field at monte carlo can be a bit weaker than madrid to be fair due to its status as not mandatory. On the other hand, it is the biggest rafa clay-test outside the F.O. You do a good point about in general though. Beating rafa at rome or monte carlo is harder generally speaking than madrid/hamburg.

To the larger question, on the only measurable standard, for the time being fed is better, although a more precise term would be "more accomplished on clay" because that is what titles measure, not necessarily the quality of one's game on clay. At the end of it I do think Djokovic will become a more accomplished clay courter getting at least 2 F.O.'s. This is partly due to the fact that he is a much better player now than in Rafa's peak clay years, which people bring up as a slight to Novak, even though it is certainly beyond his control, and that rafa has maybe lost a LITTLE BIT of the extreme quality he had in a few years ago. To be fair though, if rafa's drop in ability is a knock to Novak's clay titles (like I said I think it is a combo of Novak better and rafa a little weaker on the surface), then it is fair to bring up that Fed's F.O. title came without facing rafa (to no fault of his own)

 

[calitennis127]

I don't even see how this is debatable. Djokovic, because of his backhand, is clearly the better clay-court player. Federer may have better stretches of play but the difference in backhand has been so big on the surface that I don't really see how there is much of a debate here.

 

[Ricardo]

Also, in addition, Djokovic has won all three masters clay tournaments, Federer only one: Hamburg/Madrid. Hamburg/Madrid is far less prestigious than Rome and Monte Carlo, tournaments that have been around forever with a list of winners comparable to that of Roland Garros itself.

I think I'm done now .

done with your agenda?

 

[Denis]

Also, in addition, Djokovic has won all three masters clay tournaments, Federer only one: Hamburg/Madrid. Hamburg/Madrid is far less prestigious than Rome and Monte Carlo, tournaments that have been around forever with a list of winners comparable to that of Roland Garros itself.

I think I'm done now .

done with your agenda?

Hello Ricardo,

I am done with bringing my point accross that I think Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer.