Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I won't call him out on "grandpa Fed" because I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it literally. Your post is a good example of selective argumentation though.

 

[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.

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.

First of all we are talking mostly about RG, the one that really matters. Fed wasn't losing at RG back then except to the greatest clay court player ever and in fact he was never really close to losing (closest call was Nalbs in 06).

But even if you want to go just on MS events Federer has a lot more bad losses the last 3-4 years than he did from 05-07. Gulbis, Montanes, Wawrinka, Gasquet again, Melzer.

As for 2011 I was doing a quick comparison of how they have both fared against the field. The point is that as of now that Novak >>>>>Roger against Rafa but Roger > Novak against the field on clay. 25 year old Roger couldn't play his 29 year old self but Nole did and he lost. Roger was excellent that match but it is beside the point and certainly doesn't mean the younger version of himself would have lost.

 

[calitennis127]

First of all we are talking mostly about RG, the one that really matters. Fed wasn't losing at RG back then except to the greatest clay court player ever and in fact he was never really close to losing (closest call was Nalbs in 06).

Only talking about Roland Garros? LOL....in that case, Federer post-2008 has had these results:

2009 (age 27): Won the tournament in Nadal's absence
2010 (age 28): Loses to Soderling in the quarters - Soderling proved himself to be no slouch on clay in 2009 and 2010
2011 (age 29): Loses to Nadal in the final after ending Djokovic's 40+ win streak to begin the year; in the final plays what was widely considered his best Roland Garros match against Nadal ever
2012 (age 30): Loses to the new-and-improved Djokovic in the semis

So, if we are going "mostly about RG, the one that really matters", then your case for decline is a weak one. I agree with you that Roland Garros is when the big dogs come out and really bring their best, no questions asked. If that is the case, what do Federer's results from ages 27 to 30 tell us?

Pretty simple - that his potential and his ceiling were as high as they had ever been.

How can you downplay the fact that it was CONSENSUS opinion (not just Cali's opinion or Mike's opinion) that THE BEST match Federer ever played against Nadal at Roland Garros came in the 2012 final?

Whether or not that is true is, at the very least, debatable. Federer definitely should have taken the first set of the 2012 final and he was the better player for most of sets 2 and 3.

Yet, we must remember that he was only a shell of himself because he wasn't 25 anymore. That simple. Forget the play on the court or the science of the human body. 29 automatically means you're worse than you were at 25. Case closed.

But even if you want to go just on MS events Federer has a lot more bad losses the last 3-4 years than he did from 05-07. Gulbis, Montanes, Wawrinka, Gasquet again, Melzer.

Much stronger argument here than the one with Roland Garros.

The question here is simply "WHY did he lose these matches?"

In my view, it is in large part due to factors such as focus, motivation, and distractions. Was he as hungry in these events as he was in years past? Was he as into them? Did he train as hard? Did he feel like he had as much to prove as he did in years past?

The answer to all of these questions is a pretty clear "no" if you ask me.

As for 2011 I was doing a quick comparison of how they have both fared against the field. The point is that as of now that Novak >>>>>Roger against Rafa but Roger > Novak against the field on clay. 25 year old Roger couldn't play his 29 year old self but Nole did and he lost. Roger was excellent that match but it is beside the point and certainly doesn't mean the younger version of himself would have lost.

I'd say 25-year-old Federer versus 29-year-old Federer at the French would have been a toss-up, based especially on how Federer played in the 2012 semifinal match against Djokovic and the 2012 final against Nadal.

I also would like to add that I think Djokovic is better overall on clay than Federer, but Federer can have more potent and more overwhelming stretches of offensive prowess than Djokovic. The difference is that Djokovic is far better with the Plan B stretches, due to the solid backhand, the ability to endure longer rallies when the backhand is tested, the defense, and the mindset that he will grind out long points if he must.

Federer had some awesome stretches jumping out on Nadal, such as the sets in Hamburg and Monte Carlo that he began with a 5-1 lead. But the fact that he repeatedly lost those leads against Nadal says something about his clay-court game as well - and that is a HUGE negative for him when compared to Djokovic. If his offensive game is not completely on when playing on clay, then Djokovic is clearly the better player on the surface, all factors considered. That's why Djokovic can beat Nadal on clay, while Federer can't.

I think it's silly to say "well that's just the Nadal match-up". The reality is that the Nadal match-up tells you a great deal about their respective clay-court games generally. Federer may be capable of higher peaks when he is clicking in offensive sprees for a couple games, but the backhand and the ability to withstand long points make Djokovic the better clay court player overall. That's why Djokovic has beaten Nadal and Federer needed him to be exhausted, running on E, to get his only two wins out of fifteen attempts against Nadal (granted, the 2006 Rome final was a toss-up match, but besides that, the script was generally the same).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cali, when you argue about Federer, 2012 Djokovic becomes "new and improved" but when arguing about Nadal, you suddenly limit it to "2011 and 2013 Djokovic" implying that 2012 Djokovic was below that level. Which one is it?

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, when you argue about Federer, 2012 Djokovic becomes "new and improved" but when arguing about Nadal, you suddenly limit it to "2011 and 2013 Djokovic" implying that 2012 Djokovic was below that level. Which one is it?

Much more the "new-and-improved" Djokovic in the case of 2012, so I give Nadal credit for beating him as he did.

That said, I only take a lot from one of the three 2012 matches between Djokovic and Nadal - that being the Rome final. In the MC final, Djokovic's head just wasn't there and Nadal was DESPERATE to end the 7-match losing streak. In the case of Roland Garros, Djokovic appeared to me rather jaded by the time the final came around. He simply was not all there in either the MC final or the RG final.

That said, in the Rome final Djokovic brought some of his better stuff and Nadal met the challenge.

As all of this pertains to the RG semifinal between Federer and Djokovic, I believe Djokovic was much closer to being the post-2010 version than the pre-2011 version.

 

[DarthFed]

First of all we are talking mostly about RG, the one that really matters. Fed wasn't losing at RG back then except to the greatest clay court player ever and in fact he was never really close to losing (closest call was Nalbs in 06).

Only talking about Roland Garros? LOL....in that case, Federer post-2008 has had these results:

2009 (age 27): Won the tournament in Nadal's absence
2010 (age 28): Loses to Soderling in the quarters - Soderling proved himself to be no slouch on clay in 2009 and 2010
2011 (age 29): Loses to Nadal in the final after ending Djokovic's 40+ win streak to begin the year; in the final plays what was widely considered his best Roland Garros match against Nadal ever
2012 (age 30): Loses to the new-and-improved Djokovic in the semis

So, if we are going "mostly about RG, the one that really matters", then your case for decline is a weak one. I agree with you that Roland Garros is when the big dogs come out and really bring their best, no questions asked. If that is the case, what do Federer's results from ages 27 to 30 tell us?

Pretty simple - that his potential and his ceiling were as high as they had ever been.

How can you downplay the fact that it was CONSENSUS opinion (not just Cali's opinion or Mike's opinion) that THE BEST match Federer ever played against Nadal at Roland Garros came in the 2012 final?

Whether or not that is true is, at the very least, debatable. Federer definitely should have taken the first set of the 2012 final and he was the better player for most of sets 2 and 3.

Yet, we must remember that he was only a shell of himself because he wasn't 25 anymore. That simple. Forget the play on the court or the science of the human body. 29 automatically means you're worse than you were at 25. Case closed.

But even if you want to go just on MS events Federer has a lot more bad losses the last 3-4 years than he did from 05-07. Gulbis, Montanes, Wawrinka, Gasquet again, Melzer.

Much stronger argument here than the one with Roland Garros.

The question here is simply "WHY did he lose these matches?"

In my view, it is in large part due to factors such as focus, motivation, and distractions. Was he as hungry in these events as he was in years past? Was he as into them? Did he train as hard? Did he feel like he had as much to prove as he did in years past?

The answer to all of these questions is a pretty clear "no" if you ask me.

As for 2011 I was doing a quick comparison of how they have both fared against the field. The point is that as of now that Novak >>>>>Roger against Rafa but Roger > Novak against the field on clay. 25 year old Roger couldn't play his 29 year old self but Nole did and he lost. Roger was excellent that match but it is beside the point and certainly doesn't mean the younger version of himself would have lost.

I'd say 25-year-old Federer versus 29-year-old Federer at the French would have been a toss-up, based especially on how Federer played in the 2012 semifinal match against Djokovic and the 2012 final against Nadal.

I also would like to add that I think Djokovic is better overall on clay than Federer, but Federer can have more potent and more overwhelming stretches of offensive prowess than Djokovic. The difference is that Djokovic is far better with the Plan B stretches, due to the solid backhand, the ability to endure longer rallies when the backhand is tested, the defense, and the mindset that he will grind out long points if he must.

Federer had some awesome stretches jumping out on Nadal, such as the sets in Hamburg and Monte Carlo that he began with a 5-1 lead. But the fact that he repeatedly lost those leads against Nadal says something about his clay-court game as well - and that is a HUGE negative for him when compared to Djokovic. If his offensive game is not completely on when playing on clay, then Djokovic is clearly the better player on the surface, all factors considered. That's why Djokovic can beat Nadal on clay, while Federer can't.

I think it's silly to say "well that's just the Nadal match-up". The reality is that the Nadal match-up tells you a great deal about their respective clay-court games generally. Federer may be capable of higher peaks when he is clicking in offensive sprees for a couple games, but the backhand and the ability to withstand long points make Djokovic the better clay court player overall. That's why Djokovic has beaten Nadal and Federer needed him to be exhausted, running on E, to get his only two wins out of fifteen attempts against Nadal (granted, the 2006 Rome final was a toss-up match, but besides that, the script was generally the same).

Well it goes without saying Fed's path in 2009 is a lot easier than what he dealt with in 2005-2008. Fed was the last man standing and won fair and square just like Rafa lost fair and square but Soderling in the RG final instead of Rafa...well I think we know what's tougher. A big factor throughout RG 2011 was the change in the ball from prior years (they also switched back in 2012). The balls were lighter and exploding more off the court. Even with that it was still clay and slower than any other major. And most would agree that it is now a lot more suited to Nole than Federer and it was an amazing performance by Roger to win that match. Unlike you and Mike, most people realize that someone with 1,000+ matches and 10-11 years (at the time of 2011) of top level tennis is almost always going to lose a step and endurance can become a factor as well. Again I point to Mr. Ferrer as the only real exception that I've seen at 30+

 

[Ricardo]

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!!

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.

I won't call him out on "grandpa Fed" because I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it literally. Your post is a good example of selective argumentation though.

There is nothing wrong with his nationality, don't take the cheap way out with this kind of excuse. First of all, I like Djoker and think he is a fair player with great personality. However a good look at all his fans would tell that they are the most biased bunch (self-claimed as being 'passionate'), and a guy like Mastoor is excused as being "misunderstood" (yes it's everyone's fault for not understanding him) - and then it's just language problem, really? anyone with conscience wouldn't make such mean-spirited excuse. what's it to do with language when he keeps involving Djoker as reasons why all the other players directly or indirectly benefit from? like matches that happened weeks and months after 'Djoker exhausted a certain opponent'?

I go to AO every year, and what us fans notice is the general behavior of Serbian fans. They are the group which has been involved in more fights and physical abuse than any other - FACT. They shout and disrupt other players and don't show any kind of remorse. This is all in the news, and even shown in video footage and i just don't see how it's always someone else's fault that such incident would start. There are groups of Aussies (supporting aussie players), Chinese, Koreans, Brits, Germans, Greeks, Italians..... whatever, they are all passionate fans who haven't caused nearly as much trouble.

---

Cali, when you argue about Federer, 2012 Djokovic becomes "new and improved" but when arguing about Nadal, you suddenly limit it to "2011 and 2013 Djokovic" implying that 2012 Djokovic was below that level. Which one is it?

Much more the "new-and-improved" Djokovic in the case of 2012, so I give Nadal credit for beating him as he did.

That said, I only take a lot from one of the three 2012 matches between Djokovic and Nadal - that being the Rome final. In the MC final, Djokovic's head just wasn't there and Nadal was DESPERATE to end the 7-match losing streak. In the case of Roland Garros, Djokovic appeared to me rather jaded by the time the final came around. He simply was not all there in either the MC final or the RG final.

That said, in the Rome final Djokovic brought some of his better stuff and Nadal met the challenge.

As all of this pertains to the RG semifinal between Federer and Djokovic, I believe Djokovic was much closer to being the post-2010 version than the pre-2011 version.

So out of 3 wins Nadal only gets credit for one. Djoker is given credit for all his wins against Nadal but Rafa gets one out of 3...... how about Nadal's head also wasn't there because clearly in 2011 Djoker 'took' it away? you can give full or no credit for any match, when you choose to go this path. in fact you can give no credit for anyone ever winning a match and tournament if you choose to.

 

[DarthFed]

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!!

Billie, I had missed this post. Hope you had a happy (Orthodox) Easter too!

 

[Ricardo]

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.

There is no rule saying every player should deteriorate by 29, just most players do. I agree that it should be looked case by case, for example Ferrer is doing fine but Federer isn't. If he is in top shape as you and mike claimed, why would he skip multiple MS in 2012 knowing he needed the ranking points to top the race? there were at least two MS in which both Djoker and Murray played when he didn't, and one of them (Paris?) he was the defending champion. Then in a matter of months he suddenly cut his playing schedule by 1/3? there is only one reason for this, that his physical condition isn't what it used to be, when he was one of the fittest players on tour.

Or you actually think he is doing this so he can validate the excuse of 'getting old'? a winner like him would do that? the past two years he has been exhausted in many extended matches, can you look in the past and see how fit he was in his younger days? do that and tell us if 'he is as fit as ever'......

 

[calitennis127]

So out of 3 wins Nadal only gets credit for one. Djoker is given credit for all his wins against Nadal but Rafa gets one out of 3...... how about Nadal's head also wasn't there because clearly in 2011 Djoker 'took' it away? you can give full or no credit for any match, when you choose to go this path. in fact you can give no credit for anyone ever winning a match and tournament if you choose to.

I only give him much credit for one of those three because there were other factors clearly at work when in the two losses. If Nadal's grandfather died the week of a tournament and he was close to him, then I would understand Nadal not being completely in it. I also won't shy away from pointing out the obvious that Djokovic was often dragging at the French Open last year (something which two five-set matches didn't ameliorate), and he wasn't as energetic or primed in the Roland Garros final as he was in 2011 or in the 2013 Monte Carlo final. Likewise, I have repeatedly stated that Federer's two wins over Nadal on clay (Hamburg 2007 and Madrid 2009) came in large part because Nadal was highly fatigued. In fact, I have very recently said that.

 

[Moxie]

So out of 3 wins Nadal only gets credit for one. Djoker is given credit for all his wins against Nadal but Rafa gets one out of 3...... how about Nadal's head also wasn't there because clearly in 2011 Djoker 'took' it away? you can give full or no credit for any match, when you choose to go this path. in fact you can give no credit for anyone ever winning a match and tournament if you choose to.

I only give him much credit for one of those three because there were other factors clearly at work when in the two losses. If Nadal's grandfather died the week of a tournament and he was close to him, then I would understand Nadal not being completely in it. I also won't shy away from pointing out the obvious that Djokovic was often dragging at the French Open last year (something which two five-set matches didn't ameliorate), and he wasn't as energetic or primed in the Roland Garros final as he was in 2011 or in the 2013 Monte Carlo final. Likewise, I have repeatedly stated that Federer's two wins over Nadal on clay (Hamburg 2007 and Madrid 2009) came in large part because Nadal was highly fatigued. In fact, I have very recently said that.

Everyone understands about 2012 MC. But to try to take "credit" away from Nadal's win in last year's RG is bogus. Djokovic was "dragging?" By which you're saying he didn't play a particularly fine tournament. He nearly lost to Seppi early. And to Tsonga. (OK, Jo-Will was a very fine opponent, that day.) He beat Roger in straights in the SF, but only because Fed played worse than he did in an ugly one. Rafa, on the other hand, played a very fine tournament, only dropping one set, in the final to Novak, when they were playing with mud-balls.

 

[BalaryKar]

Everyone understands about 2012 MC. But to try to take "credit" away from Nadal's win in last year's RG is bogus. Djokovic was "dragging?" By which you're saying he didn't play a particularly fine tournament. He nearly lost to Seppi early. And to Tsonga. (OK, Jo-Will was a very fine opponent, that day.) He beat Roger in straights in the SF, but only because Fed played worse than he did in an ugly one. Rafa, on the other hand, played a very fine tournament, only dropping one set, in the final to Novak, when they were playing with mud-balls.

Stop being emotional Rafa is simply a 7-time lucky fluke FO champion and luck only stretches itself that much. Are you not happy that it happened 7 times over. Just imagine Nole 2.0 in FO 2005, or Nalbandian 07 Madrid+Paris at FO 2005? Be happly and your 7 times flukes will be soon exposed

 

[Asmodeus]

Everyone understands about 2012 MC. But to try to take "credit" away from Nadal's win in last year's RG is bogus. Djokovic was "dragging?" By which you're saying he didn't play a particularly fine tournament. He nearly lost to Seppi early. And to Tsonga. (OK, Jo-Will was a very fine opponent, that day.) He beat Roger in straights in the SF, but only because Fed played worse than he did in an ugly one. Rafa, on the other hand, played a very fine tournament, only dropping one set, in the final to Novak, when they were playing with mud-balls.

Stop being emotional Rafa is simply a 7-time lucky fluke FO champion and luck only stretches itself that much. Are you not happy that it happened 7 times over. Just imagine Nole 2.0 in FO 2005, or Nalbandian 07 Madrid+Paris at FO 2005? Be happly and your 7 times flukes will be soon exposed

Whoa! Take another hit on the bong pipe why don't ya.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Is Djokovic a better clay court player than Federer

He wasnt a better clay court player tonight than "baby" Federer(Dimitrov)