Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Nice misleading bits of statistics.

---

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

Only the Guga loss took place after Federer won his first slam. Novak peaked earlier than Federer. Different story. When Novak most likely declines when he's nearing 30, would it be fair to bring up his FO results then and compare them to Roger's when he was the same age? You're trying too hard...

 

[Denis]

Nice misleading bits of statistics.

Why? What is misleading about it?

---

Only the Guga loss took place after Federer won his first slam. Novak peaked earlier than Federer. Different story. When Novak most likely declines when he's nearing 30, would it be fair to bring up his FO results then and compare them to Roger's when he was the same age? You're trying too hard...

So you are saying Djokovic peaked earlier, I agree. How does that make Federer a better clay court player? Of course it would be fair to compare them at that point in time, that is my whole point. We can only compare Federer up to age 25 to Djokovic up to age 25 because that is Djokovic's age right now. The comparison is not fair if you let in the results Federer had in years Djokovic has not had yet. I am trying to make a reasonable comparison for the time being. It might be that Djokovic in the end will never surpass Federer, but for now he is doing a much better job than Federer up to age 25.

---

By the way, I am only talking about the level on clay here, not grass or anything. I think I am making a pretty reasonable point that Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer, I am not bringing Djokovic into any kind of GOAT discussion....

 

[brokenshoelace]

So you are saying Djokovic peaked earlier, I agree. How does that make Federer a better clay court player? Of course it would be fair to compare them at that point in time, that is my whole point. We can only compare Federer up to age 25 to Djokovic up to age 25 because that is Djokovic's age right now. The comparison is not fair if you let in the results Federer had in years Djokovic has not had yet. I am trying to make a reasonable comparison for the time being. It might be that Djokovic in the end will never surpass Federer, but for now he is doing a much better job than Federer up to age 25.

---

By the way, I am only talking about the level on clay here, not grass or anything. I think I am making a pretty reasonable point that Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer, I am not bringing Djokovic into any kind of GOAT discussion....

---

The problem is your "reasonable" comparison is based on something that is highly flawed: how each player performed at the same age. Except reality is, circumstances are different. Novak was a better player at 21 than Federer was, for instance, as Roger hadn't peaked. There are multiple ways of looking at this. I could easily claim, in his prime (after winning his first slam), Roger has never lost to Kohlschreiber or Melzer at the French Open.

And if we're going to bring up numbers, then it's simple: 3 FO finals and a FO title.

And I'm someone who believes Djokovic's game is generally more suited for clay, as I stated above. And said that should Djokovic win this year (something that is very possible), the conversation becomes far more interesting.

For now, we can debate how well their games are on clay. But numbers? Sorry, no.

 

[reddy]

So you are saying Djokovic peaked earlier, I agree. How does that make Federer a better clay court player? Of course it would be fair to compare them at that point in time, that is my whole point. We can only compare Federer up to age 25 to Djokovic up to age 25 because that is Djokovic's age right now. The comparison is not fair if you let in the results Federer had in years Djokovic has not had yet. I am trying to make a reasonable comparison for the time being. It might be that Djokovic in the end will never surpass Federer, but for now he is doing a much better job than Federer up to age 25.

---

By the way, I am only talking about the level on clay here, not grass or anything. I think I am making a pretty reasonable point that Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer, I am not bringing Djokovic into any kind of GOAT discussion....

---

---

If you are comparing Federer and Djokovic's career upto age 25 years why does the OP pose the question "Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?" instead of asking "Is Djokovic a better clay court player at age 25 than Federer was?".

Can't have it both ways. If you want to rationalize Djokovic as a better clay courter than Federer, do it on the basis of their entire careers so far
OR
if you choose to compare their careers upto age 25 and conclude based on your reasoning that Djokovic is better upto age 25, then do so.

 

[Riotbeard]

So you are saying Djokovic peaked earlier, I agree. How does that make Federer a better clay court player? Of course it would be fair to compare them at that point in time, that is my whole point. We can only compare Federer up to age 25 to Djokovic up to age 25 because that is Djokovic's age right now. The comparison is not fair if you let in the results Federer had in years Djokovic has not had yet. I am trying to make a reasonable comparison for the time being. It might be that Djokovic in the end will never surpass Federer, but for now he is doing a much better job than Federer up to age 25.

---

By the way, I am only talking about the level on clay here, not grass or anything. I think I am making a pretty reasonable point that Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer, I am not bringing Djokovic into any kind of GOAT discussion....

---

---

If you are comparing Federer and Djokovic's career upto age 25 years why does the OP pose the question "Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?" instead of asking "Is Djokovic a better clay court player at age 25 than Federer was?".

Can't have it both ways. If you want to rationalize Djokovic as a better clay courter than Federer, do it on the basis of their entire careers so far
OR
if you choose to compare their careers upto age 25 and conclude based on your reasoning that Djokovic is better upto age 25, then do so.

---

Here is the basic problem, is that the initial question is fundamentally flawed. "Better" should not be based on accomplishments. More accomplished and better are not synonyms, so Denisovich is being put into the losing game of trying to compare stats which really is not the starting point for this thread. To be fair, there is not a good matrix for stat comparison between someone at roughly the mid point of their career and someone nearish the end. Undoubtably, Federer's resume is better than Djokovic's on clay at this point. At this point, it is undeniable that Federer is a more accomplished clay courter. That however, was not the question, because the answer is quite simple and boring, and really not worth discussing outside stoking the ego that we all feel through our favorite players. We also cannot predict djokovic's future on clay, but certain signs would point to him having a real possibility of rivaling if not passing Federer's clay accomplishments. The point of Dennisovitch's young fed versus young djokovic comparison is to get to a more fair comparison for the purpose predicting Djokovic's future clay success as compared to Federer's. Imperfect it may be but it is not less problematic than comparing someone with many more years or opportunities than someone still just entering the middle ages of their career, and trying to act like it measures "betterness."

The measurement for better would be technical game suitability to surface in which case it might worth comparing the facets that we think are best suited to clay, perhaps the groundies, lateral movement, drop shot, and serve. I would give the edge to Novak because the two most important factors for modern clay are lateral movement and stable groundies, and while Fed is great at both of these things, I think the edge obviously goes to novak (with the caveat being Fed's forehand is better than Novak's).

Ultimately this question requires subjectivity and the splitting of hairs. These are two greats, and neither of them have huge glaring flaws on any surface, so comparison is ultimately fraught with difficulty, but I think Djokovic is undoubtably the better player currently and probably the player whose game is more naturally suited to clay irregardless of time.

 

[Denis]

So you are saying Djokovic peaked earlier, I agree. How does that make Federer a better clay court player? Of course it would be fair to compare them at that point in time, that is my whole point. We can only compare Federer up to age 25 to Djokovic up to age 25 because that is Djokovic's age right now. The comparison is not fair if you let in the results Federer had in years Djokovic has not had yet. I am trying to make a reasonable comparison for the time being. It might be that Djokovic in the end will never surpass Federer, but for now he is doing a much better job than Federer up to age 25.

---

By the way, I am only talking about the level on clay here, not grass or anything. I think I am making a pretty reasonable point that Djokovic is a better clay court player than Federer, I am not bringing Djokovic into any kind of GOAT discussion....

---

---

If you are comparing Federer and Djokovic's career upto age 25 years why does the OP pose the question "Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?" instead of asking "Is Djokovic a better clay court player at age 25 than Federer was?".

Can't have it both ways. If you want to rationalize Djokovic as a better clay courter than Federer, do it on the basis of their entire careers so far
OR
if you choose to compare their careers upto age 25 and conclude based on your reasoning that Djokovic is better upto age 25, then do so.

---

Hi Reddy,

I am not trying to have it both ways. After Monte Carlo I felt that it was a legitimate and interesting question to ask who the better clay court player was. People kept hammering on results, results, results. I didn't think this was entirely fair because Djokovic is so much younger so my means of comparison was to see what Federer had achieved up to Djokovic age.

Of course this is not rocket-science, this is a discussion on tennis. I am just trying to give arguments why I think Djokovic is a better clay court player. The Federer fans response here is rather weak and dismissive IMO. I haven't read anything that has led me to change my mind, and I am quite open-minded.

 

[Front242]

Let me just say this. The Nadal of 2005-2008 was a more formidable adversary on clay than he is these days and not just because of the 7 month layoff but because he's no longer in his prime either like Fed. The real key would be to transport Djokovic back to those years during Nadal's prime but we can't so it's all what ifs. Fed was head and shoulders above everyone not named Nadal though back then and clearly the 2nd best clay courter of his generation. This is a new generation and Djokovic is in his prime while Fed and Nadal are not.

 

[Denis]

I agree with your last post Riotbeard.

---

Let me just say this. The Nadal of 2005-2008 was a more formidable adversary on clay than he is these days and not just because of the 7 month layoff but because he's no longer in his prime either like Fed. The real key would be to transport Djokovic back to those years during Nadal's prime but we can't so it's all what ifs. Fed was head and shoulders above everyone not named Nadal though back then and clearly the 2nd best clay courter of his generation. This is a new generation and Djokovic is in his prime while Fed and Nadal are not.

Djokovic beat Nadal in 2011 in two clay court finals. IMO there was absolutely nothing wrong with Nadal. He had just won 3 majors the year before. I see what you are saying though, it's a difficult assessment, since we can't do any timetravelling. And there is no doubt that Federer is a formidable clay court player. I just think Djokovic is a notch higher.

Also, is it really true that Nadal is already in decline? The guy is 26. If anything he has more experience and better tennis intelligence then when he was 20. He hasn't looked entirely fit though the last few months, he looks a bit more chubby. But before that he looked just fine. And Federer didn't have Nadal's competition in the first 5 years or so of his career.

 

[Front242]

I agree with your last post Riotbeard.

---

Let me just say this. The Nadal of 2005-2008 was a more formidable adversary on clay than he is these days and not just because of the 7 month layoff but because he's no longer in his prime either like Fed. The real key would be to transport Djokovic back to those years during Nadal's prime but we can't so it's all what ifs. Fed was head and shoulders above everyone not named Nadal though back then and clearly the 2nd best clay courter of his generation. This is a new generation and Djokovic is in his prime while Fed and Nadal are not.

Djokovic beat Nadal in 2011 in two clay court finals. IMO there was absolutely nothing wrong with Nadal. He had just won 3 majors the year before. I see what you are saying though, it's a difficult assessment, since we can't do any timetravelling. And there is no doubt that Federer is a formidable clay court player. I just think Djokovic is a notch higher.

Also, is it really true that Nadal is already in decline? The guy is 26. If anything he has more experience and better tennis intelligence then when he was 20. He hasn't looked entirely fit though the last few months, he looks a bit more chubby. But before that he looked just fine. And Federer didn't have Nadal's competition in the first 5 years or so of his career.

---

Definitely, Djokovic was brilliant in 2011 without doubt and Nadal played great too and the better player won. Not disputing that at all. What I'm saying is that as well as Nadal was still playing in 2011, his RG performances in 2011 and 2012 weren't half as dominant and convincing as 2005-2008 (2006-2008 more so actually). Simply put, 2008 at RG was clearly the highest level Nadal has played on clay and I'd like to see the current version of Djokovic face that Nadal, which sadly we can't see. In a final I mean. Also, I'm not saying Nadal is declining much but he's definitely past his peak.

 

[Denis]

Agreed, the level reached by Nadal in 2008 was out of this world. But it wasn't only Federer that suffered because of it, Djokovic was beaten by him in the semis too. Actually in 2008 Djokovic won Rome. I don't think you are saying that either. But it 2006-2008 it was Nadal who beat Djokovic at RG. Federer just happened to be in the other half.

In the 2008 final for instance, Federer only made 4 games in the final. Djokovic made 3 times as many: 12.

 

[Front242]

Agreed, the level reached by Nadal in 2008 was out of this world. But it wasn't only Federer that suffered because of it, Djokovic was beaten by him in the semis too. Actually in 2008 Djokovic won Rome. I don't think you are saying that either. But it 2006-2008 it was Nadal who beat Djokovic at RG. Federer just happened to be in the other half.

In the 2008 final for instance, Federer only made 4 games in the final. Djokovic made 3 times as many: 12.

Don't remind me. That was one of the worst matches Federer ever played. He looked like he didn't care after set 2. Totally embarrassing performance. At least Djokovic tried and he did well. Fed tried for the start of set 2 and that was it. Granted Nadal played amazing but Federer was rubbish.

---

Agreed, the level reached by Nadal in 2008 was out of this world. But it wasn't only Federer that suffered because of it, Djokovic was beaten by him in the semis too. Actually in 2008 Djokovic won Rome. I don't think you are saying that either. But it 2006-2008 it was Nadal who beat Djokovic at RG. Federer just happened to be in the other half.

In the 2008 final for instance, Federer only made 4 games in the final. Djokovic made 3 times as many: 12.

One more point to note on this. Everyone knows Rafa plays his best in RG finals. Not to detract from Djokovic's performance that day as he played extremely well and clearly better than Fed's woeful performance in the final, but Fed met an even more fired up Nadal in the 2008 final than Djokovic faced in the semi final. But yes clearly Djokovic played better than Fed against Nadal in RG 2008, but that wouldn't be hard given how bad Fed was in the final.

 

[Moxie]

Agreed, the level reached by Nadal in 2008 was out of this world. But it wasn't only Federer that suffered because of it, Djokovic was beaten by him in the semis too. Actually in 2008 Djokovic won Rome. I don't think you are saying that either. But it 2006-2008 it was Nadal who beat Djokovic at RG. Federer just happened to be in the other half.

In the 2008 final for instance, Federer only made 4 games in the final. Djokovic made 3 times as many: 12.

Don't remind me. That was one of the worst matches Federer ever played. He looked like he didn't care after set 2. Totally embarrassing performance. At least Djokovic tried and he did well. Fed tried for the start of set 2 and that was it. Granted Nadal played amazing but Federer was rubbish.

---

Agreed, the level reached by Nadal in 2008 was out of this world. But it wasn't only Federer that suffered because of it, Djokovic was beaten by him in the semis too. Actually in 2008 Djokovic won Rome. I don't think you are saying that either. But it 2006-2008 it was Nadal who beat Djokovic at RG. Federer just happened to be in the other half.

In the 2008 final for instance, Federer only made 4 games in the final. Djokovic made 3 times as many: 12.

One more point to note on this. Everyone knows Rafa plays his best in RG finals. Not to detract from Djokovic's performance that day as he played extremely well and clearly better than Fed's woeful performance in the final, but Fed met an even more fired up Nadal in the 2008 final than Djokovic faced in the semi final. But yes clearly Djokovic played better than Fed against Nadal in RG 2008, but that wouldn't be hard given how bad Fed was in the final.

---

Djokovic is the only one who tested Rafa to 5-7 in that whole tournament, where he didn't drop a set.

Anyway, I get the point of the question, and why it's difficult to answer. Lots of valid points have been raised for and against either player. Novak has time on his side, but Roger has the results. Federer has the all-court game, but Djokovic's is more suited to the surface.

The reason to discuss it is that Rafa is clearly the best on the surface. If not "ever," co-GOAT with Borg. What we're trying to sculpt is otherwise legacy, right? Who is the 2nd-best clay player in the era of Nadal? I don't think the answer is knowable, yet.

 

[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.

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.

So by your logic, Federer is not really better grass court player because he lost to Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga? By the way, see the 1st meeting on clay between Roger and Nole, it wasn't bad for a youngster against TMF.

Players face pressures and struggle from time to time. Yes, Nole failed last year in that he didn't win FO title, but he still made finals of all clay tournaments (except that fiasco of Madrid). He also gave up on RG in 2009 when he lost that heartbreaker to Nadal in Madrid as he was scheduled again to meet Nadal in the semis. Knowing him, he must have felt: oh, no, not him again, what can I do??? And if you want to be fair, you have to admit that in 2010 there were a lot of things going wrong for Nole. Didn't you think that he would never win another slam back in 2010? I am sure you were not the only one and I am not picking on you, I just remember you saying it.

Nobody said that Roger isn't darn good on clay. We are just giving arguments that Nole's level might be higher than your guy's. Yes Roger has better results at RG than Nole, but when you think about it from 2006 to 2008 Nole faced Rafa in quarters and twice in semi finals and lost. Rafa defeated Federer all those years but in finals, so we have to agree that his 3 finals are better than Nole's results for those 3 years. You might dismiss Nole's success against Nadal, but the fact is that Nadal is the best player on clay, he wasn't easy to defeat in 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2011 or 2013 and I like Nole's success vs him because it shows that Nole can play on clay when he is determined and in top form.

As for Nadal and decline, I don't buy it. He lost to Nole 2 times on clay in 2011 and then won 3 straight times in 2012. Loses one match in 2013 and decline talk starts. Come on, Rafa fans, you can be better than that.

 

[Mastoor]

I hope No1e beats Nadal in the FO final this year and then all the naysayers will shut up because Fed has never done anything similar.

 

[Asmodeus]

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.

I'm not really sure how this matters. According to your logic wouldn't Federer's 2009 win be even more impressive since Federer was rapidly advancing toward the twiligth of his career.

Moreover, I'm not sure you can compare ages too effectively since Federer played the most dominant clay courter of the open age. Remember, Nadal winning 81 clay court matches in a row, he was undefeated at the FO, and, more importantly, no one beat Nadal on clay, not even Novak. So, in my mind, Federer's Hamburg win was important since it is really the first win in a number of years against a player who simply didn't lose to anyone. By the time Novak was beating Nadal two years ago there were some chinks in the armor. One of those defeats, if memory serves me, is Ferro defeating Nadal in Rome from which Novak goes on to win the title--some would have called a similar Federer victory questionable and immediately placed an asterisk next to it.

 

[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.

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.

So by your logic, Federer is not really better grass court player because he lost to Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga? By the way, see the 1st meeting on clay between Roger and Nole, it wasn't bad for a youngster against TMF.

it should be said that Roger was struggling to get by in 5 sets vs. grass nobodies like Benneteau.

 

[Front242]

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.

So by your logic, Federer is not really better grass court player because he lost to Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga? By the way, see the 1st meeting on clay between Roger and Nole, it wasn't bad for a youngster against TMF.

it should be said that Roger was struggling to get by in 5 sets vs. grass nobodies like Benneteau.

It should also be said that Benneteau is quite a player when in form despite having never won a title (real shame 'cos he's a very good player) and also it's not unusual to see 31 year old tennis players struggling at that stage of their career. I like Djokovic very much but he's had 2 set deficits to Seppi while in his prime so I think we can pretty much guarantee he'll struggle too when he hits 31, if he's still even playing.

 

[Asmodeus]

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.

So by your logic, Federer is not really better grass court player because he lost to Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga? By the way, see the 1st meeting on clay between Roger and Nole, it wasn't bad for a youngster against TMF.

it should be said that Roger was struggling to get by in 5 sets vs. grass nobodies like Benneteau.

Or in 2008, a 21 year old Novak was spanked in the 2nd round at Wimbldon by a 28 year old Safin who, by his own admission, was not a fan of grass.

You see how stupid these tit-for-tat analogies are. In the long run, they mean very little.

 

[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.

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.

So by your logic, Federer is not really better grass court player because he lost to Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga? By the way, see the 1st meeting on clay between Roger and Nole, it wasn't bad for a youngster against TMF.

it should be said that Roger was struggling to get by in 5 sets vs. grass nobodies like Benneteau.

Or in 2008, a 21 year old Novak was spanked in the 2nd round at Wimbldon by a 28 year old Safin who, by his own admission, was not a fan of grass.

You see how stupid these tit-for-tat analogies are. In the long run, they mean very little.

I agree and most of my posts have been fighting against this general tendency in the thread, but I couldn't resist. Plus people had been ignored my previous two measured posts about comparing resumes does not answer this question. I actually like Benneteau a lot too. He is one of my favorite players to watch. Really nice all court game.

I was also tagging on to billie's point that Darthfed's logic was flawed that because djokovic had problems against seppie and tsonga, he is not good on clay. You could make the same argument by bringing up bad grass court matches for roger but it is ultimately foolish. Of course roger is one of best grass players ever.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

So by your logic, Federer is not really better grass court player because he lost to Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga? By the way, see the 1st meeting on clay between Roger and Nole, it wasn't bad for a youngster against TMF.

it should be said that Roger was struggling to get by in 5 sets vs. grass nobodies like Benneteau.

Or in 2008, a 21 year old Novak was spanked in the 2nd round at Wimbldon by a 28 year old Safin who, by his own admission, was not a fan of grass.

You see how stupid these tit-for-tat analogies are. In the long run, they mean very little.

"Or in 2008, a 21 year old Novak was spanked in the 2nd round at Wimbldon by a 28 year old Safin who, by his own admission, was not a fan of grass."

To be fair, Djoker was taken to the woodshed by probably the most powerful gifted players of all time.. I dont think that fair to compare that to playing against Benneteau or the current entire French davis cup team