Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?

[Asmodeus]

Didn't Federer beat Nadal on Madrid clay? That would make it 2 for TMF.

---

Yes, he did it in 2009.

 

[Denis]

Didn't Federer beat Nadal on Madrid clay? That would make it 2 for TMF.

---

Yes, he did it in 2009.

---

Sorry, can't follow you here. What does TMF stand for?

 

[tented]

Didn't Federer beat Nadal on Madrid clay? That would make it 2 for TMF.

---

Yes, he did it in 2009.

---

Sorry, can't follow you here. What does TMF stand for?

---

TMF = The Mighty Federer

 

[Denis]

Right, thanks tented.

Ok sure Asmodeus, that makes two scalps on clay for Federer, but I was comparing Federer and Djokovic in terms of age. He defeated Nadal in 2009 at Madrid at age 27. Djokovic is not yet 27.

 

[calitennis127]

I usually agree with ricardo, but I am not buying his argument that Federer is better against the field on clay than Djokovic as a case for Federer being better overall.

Let's get a couple things clear here:

1) Federer has played a far greater number of clay tournaments overall, so his absolute numbers stand to be more impressive.

2) Djokovic won Rome twice, a tournament Federer never won.

3) Djokovic has now won Monte Carlo, a tournament Federer never won.

4) Djokovic has beaten Nadal three times when fatigue wasn't clearly a problem for Nadal (as it was in Hamburg 2007, riding the win streak, and Madrid 2009, after playing a brutal semi with Djokovic for over four hours).

5) Djokovic would undoubtedly have the multiple Roland Garros final appearances number to his name if he hadn't run into Nadal in 2007 and 2008. Yes, he had the ugly losses to Kohlschreiber and Melzer, but besides that his showings at Roland Garros have been very good.

As for ricardo's broader point about the Nadal series, I am sorry to say, but that is everything. The difference between Federer and Djokovic as clay-court players is very evident if you look at what Djokovic did to defeat Nadal at Madrid, Rome, and now Monte Carlo versus what Federer failed to do repeatedly against Nadal. The backhand and the asset of a go-to Plan A that will work consistently are two feathers in the Djokovic cap that are not in the Federer cap when playing Nadal. That is a huge difference.

 

[shawnbm]

All I gotta say is that I think Nadal played superior clay court tennis from 2006-2008 and the Roger Federer who fought him during those years was a helluva clay court maestro. Rafa's ability to run down shots and stay in points was something I had not seen since the Angelic Assassin's prime years. Federer destroyed most of the ATP tour on clay and only lost to the greatest clay court beast of them all. I think that Federer played at a higher level than Djokovic on the clay--in my personal, subjective opinion (obviously).

 

[huntingyou]

All I gotta say is that I think Nadal played superior clay court tennis from 2006-2008 and the Roger Federer who fought him during those years was a helluva clay court maestro. Rafa's ability to run down shots and stay in points was something I had not seen since the Angelic Assassin's prime years. Federer destroyed most of the ATP tour on clay and only lost to the greatest clay court beast of them all. I think that Federer played at a higher level than Djokovic on the clay--in my personal, subjective opinion (obviously).

Well put!

 

[Mog]

All I gotta say is that I think Nadal played superior clay court tennis from 2006-2008 and the Roger Federer who fought him during those years was a helluva clay court maestro. Rafa's ability to run down shots and stay in points was something I had not seen since the Angelic Assassin's prime years. Federer destroyed most of the ATP tour on clay and only lost to the greatest clay court beast of them all. I think that Federer played at a higher level than Djokovic on the clay--in my personal, subjective opinion (obviously).

Very well said, shawnbm.

 

[Denis]

All I gotta say is that I think Nadal played superior clay court tennis from 2006-2008 and the Roger Federer who fought him during those years was a helluva clay court maestro. Rafa's ability to run down shots and stay in points was something I had not seen since the Angelic Assassin's prime years. Federer destroyed most of the ATP tour on clay and only lost to the greatest clay court beast of them all. I think that Federer played at a higher level than Djokovic on the clay--in my personal, subjective opinion (obviously).

A higher level than this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZBHDyHgbV4

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0dDL0Jzknk

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFO8GaodgMQ

Sorry but showing up in a final to be sparring partner to Nadal doesn't do it for me.

---

And I don't agree with the argument that Nadal was a better clay court player in 2006-2008, he just faced weaker competition. He is just 26!

 

[Riotbeard]

I usually agree with ricardo, but I am not buying his argument that Federer is better against the field on clay than Djokovic as a case for Federer being better overall.

Let's get a couple things clear here:

1) Federer has played a far greater number of clay tournaments overall, so his absolute numbers stand to be more impressive.

2) Djokovic won Rome twice, a tournament Federer never won.

3) Djokovic has now won Monte Carlo, a tournament Federer never won.

4) Djokovic has beaten Nadal three times when fatigue wasn't clearly a problem for Nadal (as it was in Hamburg 2007, riding the win streak, and Madrid 2009, after playing a brutal semi with Djokovic for over four hours).

5) Djokovic would undoubtedly have the multiple Roland Garros final appearances number to his name if he hadn't run into Nadal in 2007 and 2008. Yes, he had the ugly losses to Kohlschreiber and Melzer, but besides that his showings at Roland Garros have been very good.

As for ricardo's broader point about the Nadal series, I am sorry to say, but that is everything. The difference between Federer and Djokovic as clay-court players is very evident if you look at what Djokovic did to defeat Nadal at Madrid, Rome, and now Monte Carlo versus what Federer failed to do repeatedly against Nadal. The backhand and the asset of a go-to Plan A that will work consistently are two feathers in the Djokovic cap that are not in the Federer cap when playing Nadal. That is a huge difference.

I hate to do it but I agree with Cali. I stand by my point that fed is more accomplished on clay for the time being, but I do think Cali points out the basic truths of Novak's longterm potential.

 

[Denis]

Well Cali is actually referring to past results by Djokovic in the particular post you are quoting, but he has elaborated on Djokovic backhand being superior to Federer's on clay. But also just look at the intensity and the level of the finals in Rome, Madrid and MC between Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic game is so much better on clay than Federers. Results will come, unless some clay prodigy stands up quickly.

 

[Billie]

Well Cali is actually referring to past results by Djokovic in the particular post you are quoting, but he has elaborated on Djokovic backhand being superior to Federer's on clay. But also just look at the intensity and the level of the finals in Rome, Madrid and MC between Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic game is so much better on clay than Federers. Results will come, unless some clay prodigy stands up quickly.

They are comparing a career of 31 year old tennis player to the one of 25 soon to be 26 year old tennis player. And we can even argue that in this shorter span of their respective tennis careers, the younger tennis player has shown more in terms of big clay wins (to me there is nothing bigger than beating the best on clay ever in finals of all 3 clay masters). Honestly if Nadal and Nole didn't give up on Madrid's blue clay fiasco last year, I highly doubt that Federer would have won that. But it does not matter. I am sure that Nole's resume on clay will be more impressive than Federer's at the end of his career. Hopefully Nole can add a RG win over Nadal, he still has few more years to attempt that as long as he is healthy.

These threads always make me laugh, as soon as somebody mentions that Nole might be better than Federer in something, they all freak out. You just have to get used to it

 

[calitennis127]

Well Cali is actually referring to past results by Djokovic in the particular post you are quoting, but he has elaborated on Djokovic backhand being superior to Federer's on clay. But also just look at the intensity and the level of the finals in Rome, Madrid and MC between Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic game is so much better on clay than Federers. Results will come, unless some clay prodigy stands up quickly.

I wouldn't say that Djokovic's game "is so much better on clay than Federer's". That is going way too far. The offensive potency of what Federer can do has to be acknowledged.

However, Djokovic's ability - not so much temperamentally but rather skill-wise - to not have dips and lulls in his clay-court level is highly significant in this comparison. Djokovic's two-handed backhand allows him to be much more solid in rallies over a long duration of time.

 

[Riotbeard]

Well Cali is actually referring to past results by Djokovic in the particular post you are quoting, but he has elaborated on Djokovic backhand being superior to Federer's on clay. But also just look at the intensity and the level of the finals in Rome, Madrid and MC between Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic game is so much better on clay than Federers. Results will come, unless some clay prodigy stands up quickly.

I wouldn't say that Djokovic's game "is so much better on clay than Federer's". That is going way too far. The offensive potency of what Federer can do has to be acknowledged.

However, Djokovic's ability - not so much temperamentally but rather skill-wise - to not have dips and lulls in his clay-court level is highly significant in this comparison. Djokovic's two-handed backhand allows him to be much more solid in rallies over a long duration of time.

Well said Cali.

 

[Haelfix]

Djokovic's two-handed backhand allows him to be much more solid in rallies over a long duration of time.

Mmm kind of. Federer seemed to handle it perfectly fine when he beat him in 2011. I'd say Federer's topsin rally backhand is a pretty lethal shot on natural surfaces as it really has a tremendous kick to it, that really bothers most players.

It suffers a bit on slow hards, as the court eats the spin and it can sit up a bit, but on low bouncing fast courts (especially in his prime) or as a rally shot on grass or clay, its really completely underrated and world class.

Meanwhile Djokovics backhand while great against Rafa, doesn't have the same sort of penetration on clay as it does on slow hards (where you have to respect the dtl winner each and every point). A lot of players run his backhand down when he's aggressive with it on clay, so it doesn't completely blow open the point like it does on hards.

The flipside is that he has an unbelievable ability to stay inside the baseline and take the ball early. This is ridiculously hard to do on clay against ATP players, as their balls have unpredictable bounces, yet Novak absorbs it as well as Nalbandian and Agassi.

 

[DarthFed]

Well Cali is actually referring to past results by Djokovic in the particular post you are quoting, but he has elaborated on Djokovic backhand being superior to Federer's on clay. But also just look at the intensity and the level of the finals in Rome, Madrid and MC between Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic game is so much better on clay than Federers. Results will come, unless some clay prodigy stands up quickly.

Djokovic is much better on clay than grandpa Fed but if we are making an age comparison (Fed at 25 vs. Nole at 25) it is very close between them. There is no doubt that Djokovic is much better vs. Rafa than Federer ever was and that's true on every surface I'd say.

But that is a matchup vs. one player. It is a big deal in this case because one thing we can say is this...if you go back in time and insert 25 year old Nole in 2006 he would have a better chance at winning RG than Federer for the simple fact that his chances vs. Nadal are 30-50% higher than Roger's.

But don't let today fool you, Roger was damn good on clay. Back then it was impossible to make a surface he wasn't going to destroy 99-100% of the tour on. And it should be said that Roger wasn't struggling to get by in 5 sets vs. clay nobodies like Seppi and Tsonga nor did he lose to a player going on 30 who hadn't won a slam in 18 months.

 

[Didi]

All I gotta say is that I think Nadal played superior clay court tennis from 2006-2008 and the Roger Federer who fought him during those years was a helluva clay court maestro. Rafa's ability to run down shots and stay in points was something I had not seen since the Angelic Assassin's prime years. Federer destroyed most of the ATP tour on clay and only lost to the greatest clay court beast of them all. I think that Federer played at a higher level than Djokovic on the clay--in my personal, subjective opinion (obviously).

I think whether Nadal from 05-08 was a better claycourter than his 2010-13 version depends on how much weight you put on certain factors. In my opinion he possessed better footwork and explosiveness back then, not just in running down balls or staying in points but also in turning defense into offense and in positioning himself to the ball in general. Plus he was physically and mentally not only a lot fresher than his current injury-, and mileage tortured body but also stronger. I would also add that his backhand was way more consistent and had more bite to it.

Now, the problem here is how much weight do we put on his 5-10% loss of movement (which is a lot on this level we talk of) and physical issues in relation to the things he does a lot better now? Which are IMO a much improved serve, much more experience, better point construction, an improved offensive/attacking approach and I have to say his forehand impresses me more these days than it did back then.

I think it finally depends on what we think is more essential on clay. Some attributes you lose can be compensated with others, others can't. Ultimately I would put it this way: Nadal from 05 - 08 was a ridiculous freak of nature and a more consistent claycourter on a week-to-week basis but from an isolated point of view, in absolute terms during a single match his current version is as good as ever. Same can be said about Roger on hardcourts.

 

[Denis]

Results at Roland Garros in the early years of their careers:

Roger Federer:
1R 4R QF 1R 1R 3R

Novak Djokovic:

2R QF SF SF 3R QF

Federer lost a staggering three times in the first (!) round at Roland Garros with only one QF appearance. Nadal wasn't even in the picture back then. Djokovic over the same time-span reached the semis twice and the QF twice.

 

[Moxie]

Results at Roland Garros in the early years of their careers:

Roger Federer:
1R 4R QF 1R 1R 3R

Novak Djokovic:

2R QF SF SF 3R QF

Federer lost a staggering three times in the first (!) round at Roland Garros with only one QF appearance. Nadal wasn't even in the picture back then. Djokovic over the same time-span reached the semis twice and the QF twice.

I haven't looked back at the draws, but to be fair to Roger, in his early years there were a lot of clay-courters in the mix. I know that in 04, the year he was ascending, and might have gotten one before Nadal featured, he lost to Kuerten, which is not shabby. In those days, Moya, Ferrero, Coria, and Gaudio also featured. I'm not saying that Djokovic isn't a fine clay player, because he is, but you should also consider the depth of the competition, which I think was higher, as to clay-courters when Roger was coming up.

 

[Denis]

Well I just did Moxie, tell me which list looks more impressive:

Rafter, Corretja, Corretja, Arazi, Horna, Kuerten

or

Coria, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Kohlschreiber, Melzer