Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?

[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.

---

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.

---

Good Post, Riotbeard. I agree with most of what you wrote. While, I agree that Djokovic has all the hallmarks of a great clay player (and that he is the better clay courter than Federer currently and his game might be better suited to clay) , greatness is not bestowed upon on the basis of skill or talent but on the basis of achievements. Without a RG title, can we truly call Djokovic a great clay courter? Nalbandian aside , who was most recent "great" player without a slam to his name?

In my mind he would atleast be the joint favorite along with Nadal to win this year's FO title and he could very well win multiple french opens by the time he calls it a day but I'd reserve judgement on proclaiming him as already having surpassed Federer. If I were to guess I'd say chances are Djokovic will end up as a better clay courter than Federer.

 

[Billie]

That is very nicely said Reddy I have no problems with Fed fans feeling that Fed is better clay court player than Nole, but when some of them start dissing my guy and twist our arguements.....well everybody knows how I feel about that

 

[huntingyou]

That is very nicely said Reddy I have no problems with Fed fans feeling that Fed is better clay court player than Nole, but when some of them start dissing my guy and twist our arguements.....well everybody knows how I feel about that

"my guy"

it's really that personal to you billie boy?

 

[Mog]

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.

---

Good Post, Riotbeard. I agree with most of what you wrote. While, I agree that Djokovic has all the hallmarks of a great clay player (and that he is the better clay courter than Federer currently and his game might be better suited to clay) , greatness is not bestowed upon on the basis of skill or talent but on the basis of achievements. Without a RG title, can we truly call Djokovic a great clay courter? Nalbandian aside , who was most recent "great" player without a slam to his name?

In my mind he would atleast be the joint favorite along with Nadal to win this year's FO title and he could very well win multiple french opens by the time he calls it a day but I'd reserve judgement on proclaiming him as already having surpassed Federer. If I were to guess I'd say chances are Djokovic will end up as a better clay courter than Federer.

---

Reddy you have said it excellently what needs to be said on this topic.
Djokovic's game is much suited on clay,no doubt and he is sure the favourite after Nadal at RG. Djokovis has all the tools to prove himself the better but we will hold that until they are done.

 

[brokenshoelace]

That is very nicely said Reddy I have no problems with Fed fans feeling that Fed is better clay court player than Nole, but when some of them start dissing my guy and twist our arguements.....well everybody knows how I feel about that

"my guy"

it's really that personal to you billie boy?

Billie Girl*

 

[Mastoor]

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.

---

Good Post, Riotbeard. I agree with most of what you wrote. While, I agree that Djokovic has all the hallmarks of a great clay player (and that he is the better clay courter than Federer currently and his game might be better suited to clay) , greatness is not bestowed upon on the basis of skill or talent but on the basis of achievements. Without a RG title, can we truly call Djokovic a great clay courter? Nalbandian aside , who was most recent "great" player without a slam to his name?

In my mind he would atleast be the joint favorite along with Nadal to win this year's FO title and he could very well win multiple french opens by the time he calls it a day but I'd reserve judgement on proclaiming him as already having surpassed Federer. If I were to guess I'd say chances are Djokovic will end up as a better clay courter than Federer.

---

I will repeat again that the difference in achevements on clay between the two is in one slam and two masters only, while the difference in age is 5 years!

The other thing is that Federer can thank to Nole for his only RG and those 2 clay Masters in the difference because of No1e's performance in 2009 and tiring Nadal in Madrid semifinal that year.

So, if we have to compare the two on clay right now rather than only when they are retired, the only fair thing Fed fans can say is that "(5 years older) Fed is barely more achieved on clay than No1e".

 

[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.

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.

As a 31 year old he almost lost to Benneteau, we were talking prime vs. prime on clay.

To sum up the levels are close while the results aren't which is expected given the age difference. It is rightly pointed out that Nole is significantly better vs. Nadal while I'd still say Fed was better vs. the field if we are comparing the 2 on clay at age 25. Back then everyone knew if Roger was going to lose at the French it'd be to Rafa and unfortunately for him he always lost. For Nole I don't think the same can be said yet...

---

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.

Billie I think we are pretty much in agreement here. Roger naturally has better results but Nole has a lot of time to pass Roger in that regard. When (not if) Nole wins an RG it is basically already even and Nole has a lot of years left to pile up more MS events and even RG's.

I think what some Nole fans are doing is basing clay prowess ONLY on how each of them matches up vs. Nadal. The ability to beat Rafa on clay is obviously huge as he is the gatekeeper but at the same time we already know how some matchups are worse than others. Nole is better vs. Nadal on clay but does that mean he would have a better chance against the rest of the field than Roger did back then? That is flawed logic and has already been proven inaccurate as Roger was 30-0 at RG vs. everyone but Rafa from 2005-2009.

As for the potential 25 year old Fed vs. 25 year old Nole on RG that would be a war. I've said before that I favor Djokovic by the thinnest of margins in that situation and I stand by it (not a popular opinion among fellow Fed fans I know). Nole's consistency and defense will give anyone past or present fits and Fed's advantage on serve is mostly neutralized on clay unless he is having an incredible day serving.

 

[Moxie]

It seems like (most) everyone is coming to agreement on this, which is that Roger has the better results, to date, but Djokovic has the more natural game to the surface, so time will tell. They all had to play Rafa, and the question is for bragging rights over #2, in this era.

@Mastoor: You keep trying to say that Roger was "lucky" that Novak was done in by the Madrid SF with Rafa, and he "gifted" him the RG title. This is fanboy-ism, and means nothing. Roger won that title fair-and-square. And he fought for it. (Haas, for example.) Novak lost in the 3rd round. He would have had to have gotten through Robredo, and Del Potro, then Roger in the final. In 2009, that was no guarantee for him. Certainly not Fed in the final.

If Djokovic had made the final that year, we might talk about gassed. But he lost in the 3rd round. You are trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG, and it doesn't wash. Even Nadal fans give Roger his props for taking his opportunity. And, I'm sorry, we know who the real impediment was. I think it's embarrassing that you try to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win.

 

[Mastoor]

It seems like (most) everyone is coming to agreement on this, which is that Roger has the better results, to date, but Djokovic has the more natural game to the surface, so time will tell. They all had to play Rafa, and the question is for bragging rights over #2, in this era.

@Mastoor: You keep trying to say that Roger was "lucky" that Novak was done in by the Madrid SF with Rafa, and he "gifted" him the RG title. This is fanboy-ism, and means nothing. Roger won that title fair-and-square. And he fought for it. (Haas, for example.) Novak lost in the 3rd round. He would have had to have gotten through Robredo, and Del Potro, then Roger in the final. In 2009, that was no guarantee for him. Certainly not Fed in the final.

If Djokovic had made the final that year, we might talk about gassed. But he lost in the 3rd round. You are trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG, and it doesn't wash. Even Nadal fans give Roger his props for taking his opportunity. And, I'm sorry, we know who the real impediment was. I think it's embarrassing that you try to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win.

I am not trying to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win. Aren't you embarrassed to impute something like that? It is also unfair to say that i am "trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG" since I've been repeating TO YOU the same since Madrid 2009 and that is last 4 years. Someone who actually read my posts before replying in anger, may also recall that I spent 2 years repeating after the Madrid semifinal match that next time the two are playing on clay, No1e will finish what he started in Madrid semi. No one believed me about it, but No1e did win next time they played indeed, two years later in Madrid 2011 final.

No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed.

 

[Moxie]

It seems like (most) everyone is coming to agreement on this, which is that Roger has the better results, to date, but Djokovic has the more natural game to the surface, so time will tell. They all had to play Rafa, and the question is for bragging rights over #2, in this era.

@Mastoor: You keep trying to say that Roger was "lucky" that Novak was done in by the Madrid SF with Rafa, and he "gifted" him the RG title. This is fanboy-ism, and means nothing. Roger won that title fair-and-square. And he fought for it. (Haas, for example.) Novak lost in the 3rd round. He would have had to have gotten through Robredo, and Del Potro, then Roger in the final. In 2009, that was no guarantee for him. Certainly not Fed in the final.

If Djokovic had made the final that year, we might talk about gassed. But he lost in the 3rd round. You are trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG, and it doesn't wash. Even Nadal fans give Roger his props for taking his opportunity. And, I'm sorry, we know who the real impediment was. I think it's embarrassing that you try to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win.

I am not trying to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win. Aren't you embarrassed to impute something like that? It is also unfair to say that i am "trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG" since I've been repeating TO YOU the same since Madrid 2009 and that is last 4 years. Someone who actually read my posts before replying in anger, may also recall that I spent 2 years repeating after the Madrid semifinal match that next time the two are playing on clay, No1e will finish what he started in Madrid semi. No one believed me about it, but No1e did win next time they played indeed, two years later in Madrid 2011 final.

No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to insinuate Novak into Roger's win, and no, it doesn't embarrass me to say so. I remember that you started hitting that note about a year ago, but not since 2009. Forgive me if you have been since then, but you would have been a voice in the wilderness, at the time.

And you say this: " No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed."


You say that "no one says Fed didn't win (RG) fair and square," and then you proceed to qualify the win. I reply, not in anger, but in the notion of fairness. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal was there to play Federer for the RG title in 2009. The reasons are not really that important. Federer still had to win the title, and he did. No slams are "gifted," they're won.

 

[Mastoor]

It seems like (most) everyone is coming to agreement on this, which is that Roger has the better results, to date, but Djokovic has the more natural game to the surface, so time will tell. They all had to play Rafa, and the question is for bragging rights over #2, in this era.

@Mastoor: You keep trying to say that Roger was "lucky" that Novak was done in by the Madrid SF with Rafa, and he "gifted" him the RG title. This is fanboy-ism, and means nothing. Roger won that title fair-and-square. And he fought for it. (Haas, for example.) Novak lost in the 3rd round. He would have had to have gotten through Robredo, and Del Potro, then Roger in the final. In 2009, that was no guarantee for him. Certainly not Fed in the final.

If Djokovic had made the final that year, we might talk about gassed. But he lost in the 3rd round. You are trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG, and it doesn't wash. Even Nadal fans give Roger his props for taking his opportunity. And, I'm sorry, we know who the real impediment was. I think it's embarrassing that you try to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win.

I am not trying to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win. Aren't you embarrassed to impute something like that? It is also unfair to say that i am "trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG" since I've been repeating TO YOU the same since Madrid 2009 and that is last 4 years. Someone who actually read my posts before replying in anger, may also recall that I spent 2 years repeating after the Madrid semifinal match that next time the two are playing on clay, No1e will finish what he started in Madrid semi. No one believed me about it, but No1e did win next time they played indeed, two years later in Madrid 2011 final.

No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to insinuate Novak into Roger's win, and no, it doesn't embarrass me to say so. I remember that you started hitting that note about a year ago, but not since 2009. Forgive me if you have been since then, but you would have been a voice in the wilderness, at the time.

And you say this: " No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed."


You say that "no one says Fed didn't win (RG) fair and square," and then you proceed to qualify the win. I reply, not in anger, but in the notion of fairness. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal was there to play Federer for the RG title in 2009. The reasons are not really that important. Federer still had to win the title, and he did. No slams are "gifted," they're won.

Are you now saying that I made up that I have been telling the same story since 2009. Amazing! As for voice in the wilderness remark, I think I know what you want to say. For everyone on the board but me and nehmeth to some extent, tennis was Fedal at the time. ( I think Billie joined the board towards the end of 2010)

Yes I do say that Federer won the FO 2009 fair and square and at the same time I say that should No1e didn't move the obstacle in Madrid semi 2009, Federer wouldn't won neither Madrid 2009 nor FO 2009. I don't think that the two are exclusive and I always saw the situation as gifted by No1e.

Please don't paint that picture of the 2009 FO won in usual circumstances, especially if we compare Fed and No1e on clay and if pretty much the only difference in achievement on clay between the two is in that particular slam won by Fed.

Simply put, if Nadal was there and ready, no chance Fed would win it and the one deserved for Rafa coming to the slam shaken was definitely No1e. (The same applies to Madrid 2009 final in which Rafa was so exhausted from the semi that he couldn't even run).

 

[britbox]

It seems like (most) everyone is coming to agreement on this, which is that Roger has the better results, to date, but Djokovic has the more natural game to the surface, so time will tell. They all had to play Rafa, and the question is for bragging rights over #2, in this era.

@Mastoor: You keep trying to say that Roger was "lucky" that Novak was done in by the Madrid SF with Rafa, and he "gifted" him the RG title. This is fanboy-ism, and means nothing. Roger won that title fair-and-square. And he fought for it. (Haas, for example.) Novak lost in the 3rd round. He would have had to have gotten through Robredo, and Del Potro, then Roger in the final. In 2009, that was no guarantee for him. Certainly not Fed in the final.

If Djokovic had made the final that year, we might talk about gassed. But he lost in the 3rd round. You are trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG, and it doesn't wash. Even Nadal fans give Roger his props for taking his opportunity. And, I'm sorry, we know who the real impediment was. I think it's embarrassing that you try to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win.

I am not trying to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win. Aren't you embarrassed to impute something like that? It is also unfair to say that i am "trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG" since I've been repeating TO YOU the same since Madrid 2009 and that is last 4 years. Someone who actually read my posts before replying in anger, may also recall that I spent 2 years repeating after the Madrid semifinal match that next time the two are playing on clay, No1e will finish what he started in Madrid semi. No one believed me about it, but No1e did win next time they played indeed, two years later in Madrid 2011 final.

No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to insinuate Novak into Roger's win, and no, it doesn't embarrass me to say so. I remember that you started hitting that note about a year ago, but not since 2009. Forgive me if you have been since then, but you would have been a voice in the wilderness, at the time.

And you say this: " No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed."


You say that "no one says Fed didn't win (RG) fair and square," and then you proceed to qualify the win. I reply, not in anger, but in the notion of fairness. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal was there to play Federer for the RG title in 2009. The reasons are not really that important. Federer still had to win the title, and he did. No slams are "gifted," they're won.

Are you now saying that I made up that I have been telling the same story since 2009. Amazing! As for voice in the wilderness remark, I think I know what you want to say. For everyone on the board but me and nehmeth to some extent, tennis was Fedal at the time. ( I think Billie joined the board towards the end of 2010)

Yes I do say that Federer won the FO 2009 fair and square and at the same time I say that should No1e didn't move the obstacle in Madrid semi 2009, Federer wouldn't won neither Madrid 2009 nor FO 2009. I don't think that the two are exclusive and I always saw the situation as gifted by No1e.

Please don't paint that picture of the 2009 FO won in usual circumstances, especially if we compare Fed and No1e on clay and if pretty much the only difference in achievement on clay between the two is in that particular slam won by Fed.

Simply put, if Nadal was there and ready, no chance Fed would win it and the one deserved for Rafa coming to the slam shaken was definitely No1e. (The same applies to Madrid 2009 final in which Rafa was so exhausted from the semi that he couldn't even run).

I'd give more credit to Soderling - the guy that actually beat Nadal than Nole.

 

[Mastoor]

It seems like (most) everyone is coming to agreement on this, which is that Roger has the better results, to date, but Djokovic has the more natural game to the surface, so time will tell. They all had to play Rafa, and the question is for bragging rights over #2, in this era.

@Mastoor: You keep trying to say that Roger was "lucky" that Novak was done in by the Madrid SF with Rafa, and he "gifted" him the RG title. This is fanboy-ism, and means nothing. Roger won that title fair-and-square. And he fought for it. (Haas, for example.) Novak lost in the 3rd round. He would have had to have gotten through Robredo, and Del Potro, then Roger in the final. In 2009, that was no guarantee for him. Certainly not Fed in the final.

If Djokovic had made the final that year, we might talk about gassed. But he lost in the 3rd round. You are trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG, and it doesn't wash. Even Nadal fans give Roger his props for taking his opportunity. And, I'm sorry, we know who the real impediment was. I think it's embarrassing that you try to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win.

I am not trying to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win. Aren't you embarrassed to impute something like that? It is also unfair to say that i am "trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG" since I've been repeating TO YOU the same since Madrid 2009 and that is last 4 years. Someone who actually read my posts before replying in anger, may also recall that I spent 2 years repeating after the Madrid semifinal match that next time the two are playing on clay, No1e will finish what he started in Madrid semi. No one believed me about it, but No1e did win next time they played indeed, two years later in Madrid 2011 final.

No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to insinuate Novak into Roger's win, and no, it doesn't embarrass me to say so. I remember that you started hitting that note about a year ago, but not since 2009. Forgive me if you have been since then, but you would have been a voice in the wilderness, at the time.

And you say this: " No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed."


You say that "no one says Fed didn't win (RG) fair and square," and then you proceed to qualify the win. I reply, not in anger, but in the notion of fairness. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal was there to play Federer for the RG title in 2009. The reasons are not really that important. Federer still had to win the title, and he did. No slams are "gifted," they're won.

Are you now saying that I made up that I have been telling the same story since 2009. Amazing! As for voice in the wilderness remark, I think I know what you want to say. For everyone on the board but me and nehmeth to some extent, tennis was Fedal at the time. ( I think Billie joined the board towards the end of 2010)

Yes I do say that Federer won the FO 2009 fair and square and at the same time I say that should No1e didn't move the obstacle in Madrid semi 2009, Federer wouldn't won neither Madrid 2009 nor FO 2009. I don't think that the two are exclusive and I always saw the situation as gifted by No1e.

Please don't paint that picture of the 2009 FO won in usual circumstances, especially if we compare Fed and No1e on clay and if pretty much the only difference in achievement on clay between the two is in that particular slam won by Fed.

Simply put, if Nadal was there and ready, no chance Fed would win it and the one deserved for Rafa coming to the slam shaken was definitely No1e. (The same applies to Madrid 2009 final in which Rafa was so exhausted from the semi that he couldn't even run).

I'd give more credit to Soderling - the guy that actually beat Nadal than Nole.

Yes, if you don't spend some time thinking of the situation you would credit Soderling. But have a look at this

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=SA49&oId=N409

Soderling and Nadal played against each other at FO 4 times and the other 3 times Soderling was unable to win a single set.

Or even better, in Rome 2009 Soderling lost 6-1 6-0 to Rafa and then 3 weeks later, probably whole new and improved Soderling beat Rafa at FO? I'd say what happened in between in Madrid has something to do with the change in Soderling's luck.

 

[Front242]

I am not trying to insinuate Novak's loss onto Roger's win. Aren't you embarrassed to impute something like that? It is also unfair to say that i am "trying to retro-fit 2011 Novak onto that 2009 RG" since I've been repeating TO YOU the same since Madrid 2009 and that is last 4 years. Someone who actually read my posts before replying in anger, may also recall that I spent 2 years repeating after the Madrid semifinal match that next time the two are playing on clay, No1e will finish what he started in Madrid semi. No one believed me about it, but No1e did win next time they played indeed, two years later in Madrid 2011 final.

No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to insinuate Novak into Roger's win, and no, it doesn't embarrass me to say so. I remember that you started hitting that note about a year ago, but not since 2009. Forgive me if you have been since then, but you would have been a voice in the wilderness, at the time.

And you say this: " No one says that Fed didn't win the title fair and square, however if the Madrid semi final wasn't played the way it was, Federer would never win 1. Madrid title 2. Roland Garros that year. The winner would be the usual one. By taking Rafa (or as you call him impediment) out of the picture, by making him [Nadal, but also himself] exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally, No1e gifted the titles to Fed."


You say that "no one says Fed didn't win (RG) fair and square," and then you proceed to qualify the win. I reply, not in anger, but in the notion of fairness. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal was there to play Federer for the RG title in 2009. The reasons are not really that important. Federer still had to win the title, and he did. No slams are "gifted," they're won.

Are you now saying that I made up that I have been telling the same story since 2009. Amazing! As for voice in the wilderness remark, I think I know what you want to say. For everyone on the board but me and nehmeth to some extent, tennis was Fedal at the time. ( I think Billie joined the board towards the end of 2010)

Yes I do say that Federer won the FO 2009 fair and square and at the same time I say that should No1e didn't move the obstacle in Madrid semi 2009, Federer wouldn't won neither Madrid 2009 nor FO 2009. I don't think that the two are exclusive and I always saw the situation as gifted by No1e.

Please don't paint that picture of the 2009 FO won in usual circumstances, especially if we compare Fed and No1e on clay and if pretty much the only difference in achievement on clay between the two is in that particular slam won by Fed.

Simply put, if Nadal was there and ready, no chance Fed would win it and the one deserved for Rafa coming to the slam shaken was definitely No1e. (The same applies to Madrid 2009 final in which Rafa was so exhausted from the semi that he couldn't even run).

I'd give more credit to Soderling - the guy that actually beat Nadal than Nole.

Yes, if you don't spend some time thinking of the situation you would credit Soderling. But have a look at this

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=SA49&oId=N409

Soderling and Nadal played against each other at FO 4 times and the other 3 times Soderling was unable to win a single set.

Or even better, in Rome 2009 Soderling lost 6-1 6-0 to Rafa and then 3 weeks later, probably whole new and improved Soderling beat Rafa at FO? I'd say what happened in between in Madrid has something to do with the change in Soderling's luck.

You still maintain Djokovic drained Nadal's energy so much that's why he lost? Come on. Nadal back then was the fittest guy on tour. Look at the AO '09 final after that mammoth semi with Verdasco. I think he can handle a best of 3 at Madrid somehow. And Soderling's win was borne out of pure dislike at the time. As in, I'll teach you a lesson on your beloved RG centre court after humiliating me at Rome. and guess what? He did. No luck was needed there. He beat Federer fair and square the following year by playing incredible.

 

[huntingyou]

Nadal's knee deteriorated through the clay season, which culminated pulling out of SW19. He actually went to the hospital a couple times in Madrid for check ups and came very close to withdrawing from the tournaments. The Novak match was perhaps the nail in the coffin.

Regardless, Nadal got what he deserved and all his scheduling decisions and subsequent injuries are a product of his own doing.

Robin played an incredible match, he was at a level where a sub-par Rafa couldn't handle............

We all saw what happened the following year in the final; you all saw the greatest display of Movement on a clay court.

 

[Billie]

Huntingyou, thank you for the above post. And what Broken said, yeah I am a girl. I thought everybody could tell that.:blush: I love Nole like no other sports person before (and I had many heroes in the past). I think that what he has been able to do, overcome such difficulties in life to become such a force in tennis is something remarkable.

As to the posts and being passionate and personal about him, if I want to be completely honest, most of the time I just "play my part" of being a nutty Nole fan. There are very rare cases when I sense that somebody is taking cheap shots at him and his nationality so sometimes I do object. But as far as being better than other player in this and that, that is so funny to me. I never take it personally and frankly most of the time I laugh at some of the posts. This is a tennis board after all and a bit of passion about a tennis player can just spice things up. Especially in the board dominated by Rafa and Fed fans.

Mastoor: You are absolutely right. It has happened over and over again, something is not understood in your posts and you get screamed at without first checking what exactly you meant. It just goes to show you how people think on this board: what is he trying to say? Oh it's Mastoor, must be something bad....it is a bit childish to me.
You know that already you are my brother and I support you always even when I don't agree with your opinions and even when I don't post enough in your defence. We just have to remember that people usually are not as frank as two of us, and most of the time we post what we really think, which is not really how the world works.

@Darth - I am glad I got you to post something. I think about you and wish you all the best. Hopefully you are celebrating today's holiday in happiness. Hugs!!

 

[Moxie]

Nadal's knee deteriorated through the clay season, which culminated pulling out of SW19. He actually went to the hospital a couple times in Madrid for check ups and came very close to withdrawing from the tournaments. The Novak match was perhaps the nail in the coffin.

Regardless, Nadal got what he deserved and all his scheduling decisions and subsequent injuries are a product of his own doing.

Robin played an incredible match, he was at a level where a sub-par Rafa couldn't handle............

We all saw what happened the following year in the final; you all saw the greatest display of Movement on a clay court.

As you say, Nadal's deterioration of the knees, (in this case, it was both knees,) was not down to one match with Djokovic, but a series of tough matches, and, yes, at least one poor scheduling decision. Rafa never should have gone to Rotterdam after the AO win. He basically couldn't move in the 3rd set v. Murray in the final.

And yes, Soderling not only played incredibly well v. Nadal in RG that year, he brought a lot of anger and vinegar, which helped.

To Mastoor, I would say this: if Roger owes thank you cards and flowers to anyone for winning the FO in 09, (and I don't think he does,) but then it's not just Djokovic, who, as someone said, was just the nail in the coffin. There've gotta be roses for Verdasco, Federer himself, Murray, and the huge bouquet to Soderling. It's one thing to say that Djokovic is the reason that Fed won Madrid that year. It goes more than a mile too far to says he's the reason he won RG.

 

[huntingyou]

Huntingyou, thank you for the above post. And what Broken said, yeah I am a girl. I thought everybody could tell that.:blush: I love Nole like no other sports person before (and I had many heroes in the past). I think that what he has been able to do, overcome such difficulties in life to become such a force in tennis is something remarkable.

Yes I could tell; maybe :angel:.............it's just there is a movie that I don't remember the name that calls a character named Billie "Billie boy"

Novak is a remarkable athlete and person! Knowing the history of his country and the difficulties the people of that region have went through....it's obvious the strong identification his own blood feels towards him.

You are Canadian though, that's why I asked you if it was that "personal" or I may say......that close to home.

---

As you say, Nadal's deterioration of the knees, (in this case, it was both knees,) was not down to one match with Djokovic, but a series of tough matches, and, yes, at least one poor scheduling decision. Rafa never should have gone to Rotterdam after the AO win. He basically couldn't move in the 3rd set v. Murray in the final.

And yes, Soderling not only played incredibly well v. Nadal in RG that year, he brought a lot of anger and vinegar, which helped.

One poor scheduling decision?

After the Rotterdam debacle; both IW and Miami were poor decisions.....but Madrid took the cake knowing the condition he was in.

I do agree with your take on Federer not owning flowers to Novak alone but a host of other players...especially Robin.

 

[Moxie]

Huntingyou, thank you for the above post. And what Broken said, yeah I am a girl. I thought everybody could tell that.:blush: I love Nole like no other sports person before (and I had many heroes in the past). I think that what he has been able to do, overcome such difficulties in life to become such a force in tennis is something remarkable.

Yes I could tell; maybe :angel:.............it's just there is a movie that I don't remember the name that calls a character named Billie "Billie boy"

Novak is a remarkable athlete and person! Knowing the history of his country and the difficulties the people of that region have went through....it's obvious the strong identification his own blood feels towards him.

You are Canadian though, that's why I asked you if it was that "personal" or I may say......that close to home.

---

As you say, Nadal's deterioration of the knees, (in this case, it was both knees,) was not down to one match with Djokovic, but a series of tough matches, and, yes, at least one poor scheduling decision. Rafa never should have gone to Rotterdam after the AO win. He basically couldn't move in the 3rd set v. Murray in the final.

And yes, Soderling not only played incredibly well v. Nadal in RG that year, he brought a lot of anger and vinegar, which helped.

One poor scheduling decision?

After the Rotterdam debacle; both IW and Miami were poor decisions.....but Madrid took the cake knowing the condition he was in.

I do agree with your take on Federer not oweing flowers to Novak alone but a host of other players...especially Robin.

---

Rotterdam was the colossal mistake. After the semi with Verdasco, and 5 sets with Roger, at the AO, he should have been in good shape to reasonably bow out of Rotterdam. He didn't. After that, you can complain about one decision or another, but it started to become a house of cards.

What Nadal has said, subsequently to that period, and in the wake of his knee problems, was that he believed that an athlete plays with pain. What he underestimated was how much pain he was in, and how much damage he was doing. I think. now he's trying to listen to his body better, and manage discomfort without doing damage.

 

[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.

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.

I'm sorry but some points in here are ridiculous. "Grandpa Fed"? Really? I'd like to see Broken, for example, call you out on this if he really believes that Federer has just fallen off a little bit and is still capable of playing his best tennis, as he asserts.

Let's get some facts right about this supposedly amazing Federer who in his mid-20s was so much better than he is today. LOL

In 2005, he lost to Gasquet, just a 16-year-old at the time, in the quarterfinals at Monte Carlo. This was one of those tight 3-set losses that - when they occur in 2012 or 2013 - are proof positive of Federer's immense "decline" as a tennis player.

In 2006, Almagro took him to the brink in the Rome quarterfinals (7-5 in the third) before he ever-so-narrowly escaped against Nalbandian in the semis (7-5 in the 3rd set tiebreak).

In 2007, he lost to Volandri in the third round at Rome, in straights without even a 7-5 set.

Now, let's fast forward to 2012. It's funny how the ONLY two losses Federer had were to Djokovic, in the semis of Rome and Roland Garros.

But, you see, he's just a grandpa. He beats everyone except a new and improved Novak Djokovic, but now he's a "grandpa". I'd love to know what you're smoking Darth.

As for the point about Seppi and Tsonga, I think that really misses a couple key things here. First of all, Djokovic is not the same kind of imposing shotmaker (the majority of the time) that Federer is. For this reason, he is more vulnerable to a player like Seppi who catches fire - and let's admit, Seppi had a strong clay season last year, was playing well, and showed that he could do some damage. But, what is possibly most significant, is how Djokovic dug himself out of the hole against Seppi. He did it with rock-solid consistency, particularly because of his two-handed backhand. When has Federer really ever had the back-up in his game?

As for Tsonga - that is very unfair to Djokovic. The post-2007 Tsonga at the top of his game can trouble anyone and could have given 2004-2007 Federer great difficulty. There is no shame in having a tough quarterfinal against Tsonga in front of his home crowd at Roland Garros.

And for you to dismiss Federer's level against Djokovic in the 2011 Roland Garros semifinal (arguably the BEST match Federer ever played on clay) as "losing to a player going on 30 who hadn't won a Slam in 18 months" simply because Federer was 29 is not logic, it is just fixing your perception with an erroneous belief about the body prematurely deteriorating for athletic purposes.