N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
On clay... the better player is?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Nadal is the true answer to both this thread and the other similar thread, for obvious reasons.
Def
Semi-Pro
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Why did you start either of the thread then?
Umm, to gauge the response of the forum perhaps. Is this why polls are made?!!!! For example: You have responded to this thread with your own opinion, and I thank you for it. It has contributed richly to the thread. The response wouldn't have existed had I not made the thread, and the poll is an added bonus. I look forward to reading more opinions regarding the topic and seeing how the polls sway.
Def
Semi-Pro
That is like you asking whether strawberries or blueberries are better, and saying that the real answer is pizza...
I am fine with the question, just confused why you would pose about a totally different person, who obviously is better, a fact that wasn't up for debate.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Career winning percentage on clay:
9) Djoko .771 - 43) Courier .685
Slams results:
Djoko: 1 RU, 4 SF, 2 QF - Courier: 2 W, 1RU, 1SF, 1QF
Masters 1000 results:
Djoko: 4W, 4RU, 4SF - Courier: 2W
This is a bit unfair because Courier skipped a lot of of clay masters 1000. They weren't mandatory and other tournaments could provide as many money or ranking points.
Years at beeing a force on the surface:
Djoko: 6 (did't count 2010) - Courier: 4
Djokovic has lost 5 time against Nadal at RG, once in a final he would have won without Nadal (2012), once in a SF he could have won without Nadal (2008). He also lost a SF against Fed that he would have won without him (2011).
Courrier lost twice against Bruguera. Once in SF, once in final. He would have had a lot of chance to win more titles without Segri. In the two editions that he won, he defeated Agassi and Korda in the finals, and avoided clay specialist in the SF (playing Edberg, Stich, etc.)
So I think Djokovic may be the better player, and will probably be at the end of his career. Courier is still ahead achievement-wise.
9) Djoko .771 - 43) Courier .685
Slams results:
Djoko: 1 RU, 4 SF, 2 QF - Courier: 2 W, 1RU, 1SF, 1QF
Masters 1000 results:
Djoko: 4W, 4RU, 4SF - Courier: 2W
This is a bit unfair because Courier skipped a lot of of clay masters 1000. They weren't mandatory and other tournaments could provide as many money or ranking points.
Years at beeing a force on the surface:
Djoko: 6 (did't count 2010) - Courier: 4
Djokovic has lost 5 time against Nadal at RG, once in a final he would have won without Nadal (2012), once in a SF he could have won without Nadal (2008). He also lost a SF against Fed that he would have won without him (2011).
Courrier lost twice against Bruguera. Once in SF, once in final. He would have had a lot of chance to win more titles without Segri. In the two editions that he won, he defeated Agassi and Korda in the finals, and avoided clay specialist in the SF (playing Edberg, Stich, etc.)
So I think Djokovic may be the better player, and will probably be at the end of his career. Courier is still ahead achievement-wise.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Ok nevermind, I see how you've confused what I said. What I mean is that the answer is the cause of Nadal, in that I voted Fed and Nole in both polls BECAUSE I think the only reason they may not have as good results on clay as Courier is because of the Nadal effect. I wasn't being facetious but now I see how it was misconstrued. I'll try be clearer next time as I know I do have a habit of being vague and obtuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Def
Semi-Pro
Courier had a RU at the French Open
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Fiji
Legend
Djokovic plays at the same time as the clay GOAT.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
*nodding..*
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Still an easy answer. Djokovic has blown about 3 chances to win RG whether he had to beat Nadal or not. He's blown chances in 2009 (losing to Kohlschreiber in 3 pretty easy sets), 2011 when he would've had his best chance to beat Nadal, and this year when he had the break and couldn't keep it (although Nadal should've finished it in 4 the point stands). He's also come very close to losing at his peak/prime (whatever you want to call it) to guys like Tsonga and Seppi, and in 2010 he lost a 2 set lead against Melzer.
Just not enough consistency for me to give him the nod over a guy with 2 RG titles regardless of the era he plays in. At some point, we can't just give guys like Federer and Djokovic extra RG titles because they play with Nadal. I don't put Federer over anyone with 3 or more RG titles for example.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
A fairly compelling argument.
By that stupid logic, here is the list of players that are better than Djokovic on clay:
Gastón Gaudio
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Carlos Moyà
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Thomas Muster
Andrés Gómez
Michael Chang
Yannick Noah
Guillermo Vilas
Adriano Panatta
Ilie Năstase
Andrés Gimeno
Because 1 is hither than 0.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
No, because 2 is MUCH better than 0. 1 could ALMOST be a fluke, but Courier's second RG title removes all doubt. He's better than Djokovic on clay. The problem here is too many people are falling into the trap of thinking everything that happens these days just has to be the best. That or they're using the tried and tested, but not necessarily true "he plays with Nadal." As I've already said in another post in this thread, Djokovic could already be better than Courier on clay if he hadn't blown his opportunities. He did, but Courier at least won 2 RG. If Djokovic had won RG in 2009 I'd probably rate him even with Courier, and if he had won it by beating Nadal, I'd rate him above Courier. It's not all black and white, but it is in the case of one guy having 2 more RG titles than another guy IMO.
Last edited:
rosewallGOAT
Banned
Courier right now is for sure greater than Djokovic on clay. Is he better though? Certainly debateable. Who would play in their mutual primes on clay? Djokovic might have a good shot. His overall ground game is probably better, his return is better on any surface, he moves as well or better on clay. Other than fitness I am not sure what Courier's edge would be on clay.
Courier's career is over. Djokovic still has more to achieve. He has a good shot to win atleast 1 French before all is said and done, and possibly even 2. Probably only Nadal winning the next 6 French Opens (which I guess is possible) would prevent it. He has already won many more Masters than Courier on clay, and been far more consistent over many years at the French and on clay in general. So even 1 French would put him over Courier no problem.
Would Courier have a French in the Nadal era? When I think of past clay greats who would challenge Nadal most on clay, Courier's name never comes up, not for me anyway. I doubt he would even challenge him as much as Djokovic does either.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Feel the same way.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Fair enough, but now you're talking about the evolution of the game. If you don't mind me saying so, it sounds a bit strange coming from a person with the username "rosewallGOAT." It's the same as the people that say Nadal would suck in the 90's, meanwhile conveniently ignoring the fact that he wouldn't play anywhere close to the way he does today if he primed in the 90's. It's impossible to make such a claim, which is why I'm going on accomplishments.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
We can go on accomplishments but also context of the time. In this case, that there was no 'Nadal equivalent' back in Courier's day. You make the argument that this doesn't matter because Djokovic's record against the field doesn't at all guarantee that he'd have 1 or 2 RG titles anyway, or something like that. I think it's a reasonable and fair stance and that's what makes these discussion threads enjoyable.
Later, I will post info about the context of Courier's RG wins, the draws and the like (can't be bothered at this moment in time).
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, that is my stance. Not enough consistency. Would love to see the info about Courier though whenever you're ready. Like I said, the problem with this is that it leaks over into evolution. It's like saying prime Laver would suck today because the game has evolved, but in his day he was the best. We have no idea how Courier would fair with the advancements in nutrition and strings and such, only that he would have no choice, but to be "better" even if he was getting stomped these days. So in a sense it "looks" like Djokovic is better, but IMO it is only because he's using advancements that Courier didn't have the luxury of using. As a sidenote, maybe there was no Nadal equivalent because they were all evenly matched, and the competition was "strong." What if the competition these days is "weak" for Nadal? Of course, that just seems like troll food, and it's not something I believe in the slightest, but it's another argument.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Yeh, personally I'm not using the evolution of the game as part of my argument, but just literally imagining equivalents for the time existing or in other words, as easily as I can say Courier's era didn't have a Nadal equivalent it also didn't have a Borg equivalent. Either way, I doubt Courier wins RG if an imaginary equivalent dominant clay force happened to have existed throughout his career.
Yeah, I'll probably post them up tonight or tomorrow, because I think it's an important part of analysis -- context in conjunction with numbers and actual achievements. This is also a part of moving into more complicated lines of argumentation, of which the end result may or may not be a collective awareness that a GOAT simply can't be adequately attributed.
Yeah, I'll probably post them up tonight or tomorrow, because I think it's an important part of analysis -- context in conjunction with numbers and actual achievements. This is also a part of moving into more complicated lines of argumentation, of which the end result may or may not be a collective awareness that a GOAT simply can't be adequately attributed.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
It certainly is and this also should be discussed and considered. It's on my hit list and that's where the stats and draws come in later, to help us discuss these other very worthy considerations, true or not.
abmk
Bionic Poster
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I did wonder...
rosewallGOAT
Banned
Djokovic was a far more consistent clay courter than Courier. He has only failed to make the RG quarters once since his first time in 2006 now. 7 of 8 years making atleast the quarters. Courier never managed something close to that. Not to mention the other clay tournaments where Djokovic has been going deep into of nearly everyone he ever plays for a good 6 years atleast now.
The only thing Courier has over Djokovic are those 2 French Opens to 0 for Djokovic. That is a huge thing and the only reason Courier probably should be ahead now. Aside from that one huge issue though Djokovic has him beat everywhere, which is why just 1 French would comfortably put him ahead.
kragster
Hall of Fame
I'm a big Joker fan but not a fan of what if scenarios. I agree with Steve that 2 RGs is too much of a gap to overcome with hypotheticals.
I expect Djoker to win at least 1 RG and some more clay Masters and then be considered better than Courier, but for now he is not. Just like Murray seemed like a better player than Delpotro even before he won USO 2012, but it was only confirmed after he did win.
I wouldn't put Federer ahead either of those who have won 3 RGs although I would put him firmly ahead of those who have won 2.
I expect Djoker to win at least 1 RG and some more clay Masters and then be considered better than Courier, but for now he is not. Just like Murray seemed like a better player than Delpotro even before he won USO 2012, but it was only confirmed after he did win.
I wouldn't put Federer ahead either of those who have won 3 RGs although I would put him firmly ahead of those who have won 2.
No, Nole is not better than Courier on clay, 2-0. Nole wasn't decent on clay until 2011. His 3 years are not more dominant, and quite frankly that's his résumé on clay for any dominance.
Nole was lucky it rained last year or Nadal would have won in 3. This year Nole was lucky it went to 5 given Nadals return, and that Nadal blipped in set 4, when he should have won it.
I think this was the worst form Nadal had in a RG win, so it says more about Nadal's determination, than Novak's ability.
Nole was lucky it rained last year or Nadal would have won in 3. This year Nole was lucky it went to 5 given Nadals return, and that Nadal blipped in set 4, when he should have won it.
I think this was the worst form Nadal had in a RG win, so it says more about Nadal's determination, than Novak's ability.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
If one expects Nole to win RG and more 1000s on clay and can then say in hindsight, Nole is better than Courier on clay, then he was better than Courier on clay beforehand as well on the assumption that Nole's clay level stays about the same, and that he just needed time to affirm what was already true.
You are talking in the future, and Nole shouldn't be awarded future wins. Just like its stupid to give Nadal future slams, or anyone else for that matter.
When Nole gets 2 FO, the debate is worth revision.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
The debate is already worthy now as the mixed responses in this thread allude to. Also as to me talking in the future and Nole shouldn't be awarded future wins, this isn't actually relevant to my philosophical angle in the first place.
Given the history of both players, I say Courier.
NatF
Bionic Poster
you do realise that is the new profile of nadalagassi aka davey25 aka ...?
I can see it now...
On topic: Courier is greater, Djokovic has a higher level but no arguing with 2-0.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
If one believes Nole will indeed at least be equal to or surpass Courier in terms of achievements on clay, and that should they, they will be better, then they are already saying Nole is better.
Better but not greater.
If the prediction is wrong then they can look back on it in the future and readjust their opinion accordingly.
Better but not greater.
If the prediction is wrong then they can look back on it in the future and readjust their opinion accordingly.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Perfectly reasonable standpoint too, I may add.
