Best of the Big 3 on their weakest surface?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 716271
  • Start date Start date
Nadal has 14 majors having dealt with two of the greatest players to ever play the game to win the majority of them. Nothing to be butt hurt about.

He beat Federer in a Wimbledon final and Australian Open final. Federer did not beat him in an RG final.

He beat Djokovic in 2 US Open finals and was extremely close to beating him in an Australian Open final as well. Djokovic could not beat Nadal in an RG final.

This is why Federer fans hate Nadal. They can't swallow the fact that he was good enough to knock their hero off his perch but their hero could never do the same to him. It's left a bitter taste in their mouth for years LOL
 
Red Rick said:
Murray at the aussie open has better results imo. 4 finals, 1 semi and 1 quarter.

As for the whole debate, it's a tough question.

I don't think we can come to a decent answer, because I think both Rafa's and Djoko's worst surface is fast HC, which there barely is nowadays. Djokovic' worst surface definitely isn't clay, if it weren't for one player, his RG results would trump his Wimbledon results. And as for Nadal, I don't think he's ever won an indoor tournament.
Click to expand...
Rafa won an indoors Masters1000 in 2005 - when he was consider a clay-court bunny and was only 19. Madrid I think.

Murray's 4 at AO are close to Novak's FO, but that's 5 overall semis, compared to 6 for Djokovic at FO. Not to mention that Novak always won a set at FO, and was so close to beating Rafa in 2013 semis which would have meant a title against the grinder Ferrer whom he always trashes in recent years. Murray got destroyed in 2 AO finales, and only once beat anyone worthy of mention, RF in 2013 QFs, and barely in 5 sets.
 
I think there is a little confusion between surface and conditions here. Surface is either hard, clay or grass, it is the conditions that can alter things. Like indoors, those are conditions, such as no wind, it has nothing to do with what surface it.

From what I have seen, Federer is best overall across all surfaces. But Djokovic and Nadal are pretty close behind.
 
Hitman said:
I think there is a little confusion between surface and conditions here. Surface is either hard, clay or grass, it is the conditions that can alter things. Like indoors, those are conditions, such as no wind, it has nothing to do with what surface it.

From what I have seen, Federer is best overall across all surfaces. But Djokovic and Nadal are pretty close behind.
Click to expand...
You meant pretty close to leaving RF behind, right? Just helping.
 
RedFoe said:
You meant pretty close to leaving RF behind, right? Just helping.
Click to expand...

No, I meant what I said. At the moment, they are behind, of course, we will see where they end up when they put their racquets away for good.
 
Hitman said:
No, I meant what I said. At the moment, they are behind, of course, we will see where they end up when they put their racquets away for good.
Click to expand...

Federer best across all surfaces? There may be some doubt to that. Consider Nadal has multiple majors on grass and HC and Fed only has 1 on clay. Furthermore, Federer never beat Nadal to win his clay major whereas Nadal did beat Fed to win on grass and HC.

It goes back to what I just said before, Nadal overcame Fed on his conditions, on his best surface. Fed could not do the same to Nadal. He's also never beat Nadal in a HC encounter at a major, he's zero for three on that stat as well. That tells me two things, one; Nadal is better on his favorite surface than Federer is on his and two; Nadal is better on his least favorite surface than Federer is on his.

Djoker and Fed are the more consistent performers and I think Nadal's injury riddled career has definitely played its part on his consistency.
 
The_Order said:
Federer best across all surfaces? There may be some doubt to that. Consider Nadal has multiple majors on grass and HC and Fed only has 1 on clay. Furthermore, Federer never beat Nadal to win his clay major whereas Nadal did beat Fed to win on grass and HC.

It goes back to what I just said before, Nadal overcame Fed on his conditions, on his best surface. Fed could not do the same to Nadal. He's also never beat Nadal in a HC encounter at a major, he's zero for three on that stat as well. That tells me two things, one; Nadal is better on his favorite surface than Federer is on his and two; Nadal is better on his least favorite surface than Federer is on his.

Djoker and Fed are the more consistent performers and I think Nadal's injury riddled career has definitely played its part on his consistency.
Click to expand...

I am not talking, Federer V Nadal V Djokovic, as in that H2H, which I believe you are talking about. I am talking their careers overall, the overall consistency to be getting deep into tournaments, playing finals, winning titles, not just how they fare against each other. You and I both know that there are more tennis players than just Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And for what I have seen, across the board, Federer has been more consistent throughout the year...This isn't me saying his best is the best on that surface between the three, but when you average it out over all surfaces, in all tournaments played, against ALL players, Federer is ahead, with Nadal and Djokovic just behind him.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
I always find the "if more Slams were on x surface" argument to be inane.

Players know the score going into their professional careers and plan accordingly. Sometimes changes happen mid career such as the AO surface changing, but generally players prepare from the outset for the distribution of conditions that they are likely to be facing. So yeah, the whole well what is 3 Slams were on grass stuff and the like is nonsense (to my mind).
Click to expand...

It is, but I think it's fair to use as I did in OP just to compare relative success on HC vs on a 1 slam surface.

In general, of course you're right.
 
timnz said:
Why spoof? You don't agree with my choices of worst surface/conditions? You don't think Nadal's worst is indoor? Federer's is Clay ? Djokovic is fast court?
Click to expand...

Indoor isn't a surface. No, I don't think Djokovic's worst surface is fast hard court.
 
Djokovic to me is clearly best on slower hards... his level on grass, clay, and fast hard are all comparable imo.

He's underrated on grass particularly.

I think clay is his worst surface, shoot me.

And yeah, I do think he'll win RG
 
jm1980 said:
Rogers Cup uses the same surface as Cincy, and Djokovic has won that three times. Shanghai is also a medium-fast court; two more titles for Djoker there. He also has 4 Dubai titles.
Click to expand...

I think the only reason some are saying fast hard is Nole's weakest surface is because he's never won Cincinnati. But they're ignoring all the other faster-paced tournaments he's won multiple times. Paris is considered one of the fastest hard surfaces. Some say it's been slowed down over the years (the same is said of all tournaments), but 3-time champion Djokovic (who shares the most-titles record with Becker and Safin) first won it in 2009.

I think of the 3 players, Djokovic's game is the best suited for all surfaces. Roger struggles on high-bouncing surfaces, and Nadal low-bouncing ones.
 
Federer on clay has probably been the most consistent of the rest on his worst surface but Nadal has had the higher peaks on his weakest surface whether it is grass on HC. If clay is Djokovic's weakest then he's right there with Federer, if it's grass then he's clearly the best overall on his worst surface.
 
duaneeo said:
I think the only reason some are saying fast hard is Nole's weakest surface is because he's never won Cincinnati. But they're ignoring all the other faster-paced tournaments he's won multiple times. Paris is considered one of the fastest hard surfaces. Some say it's been slowed down over the years (the same is said of all tournaments), but 3-time champion Djokovic (who shares the most-titles record with Becker and Safin) first won it in 2009.

I think of the 3 players, Djokovic's game is the best suited for all surfaces. Roger struggles on high-bouncing surfaces, and Nadal low-bouncing ones.
Click to expand...

Probably, yeah. Very even game.
 
NatF said:
Federer on clay has probably been the most consistent of the rest on his worst surface but Nadal has had the higher peaks on his weakest surface whether it is grass on HC. If clay is Djokovic's weakest then he's right there with Federer, if it's grass then he's clearly the best overall on his worst surface.
Click to expand...

Nice summation, I agree
 
Weakest surface is more complicated because it depends who else is around at the time. Grass may be Novak's weakest but he's won Wimbledon three times and despite being decent on clay, has no FO title.
 
Hitman said:
I am not talking, Federer V Nadal V Djokovic, as in that H2H, which I believe you are talking about. I am talking their careers overall, the overall consistency to be getting deep into tournaments, playing finals, winning titles, not just how they fare against each other. You and I both know that there are more tennis players than just Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And for what I have seen, across the board, Federer has been more consistent throughout the year...This isn't me saying his best is the best on that surface between the three, but when you average it out over all surfaces, in all tournaments played, against ALL players, Federer is ahead, with Nadal and Djokovic just behind him.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Nadal has multiple majors on grass and HC and Federer only 1 on clay. That is against the field.

The argument with Fed fans is "well, that's because of Nadal, Fed was up against the clay GOAT so it's ok to lose to him at RG" but, Nadal was up against grass GOAT Federer at Wimbledon and he overcame him. He also overcame him on HC and Novak on HC twice. You know full well that Nadal had to beat 6 other guys to get to them as well. The fact is they are the greatest challenge on those surfaces and Nadal overcame them.
 
The_Order said:
Like I said, Nadal has multiple majors on grass and HC and Federer only 1 on clay. That is against the field.

The argument with Fed fans is "well, that's because of Nadal, Fed was up against the clay GOAT so it's ok to lose to him at RG" but, Nadal was up against grass GOAT Federer at Wimbledon and he overcame him. He also overcame him on HC and Novak on HC twice. You know full well that Nadal had to beat 6 other guys to get to them as well. The fact is they are the greatest challenge on those surfaces and Nadal overcame them.
Click to expand...

I'm no Johnny-come-lately to this party, you already know that. This isn't just about winning titles, it is about overall consistency throughout the year, and not just at slams, since there is tennis played outside of the four majors, I have stated that already. Nadal, and Djokovic have amazing numbers across all surfaces, but Federer still trumps them both for overall consistency. What was it? 23 straight semis finals? 18 out of 19 slam finals? Overall, against the whole field, Federer has done better over the whole season encompassing all surfaces, it doesn't mean that Nadal and Djokovic don't have awesome bragging rights of their own, they just don't own the sheer numbers Federer put together.
 
Narcissist said:
Weakest surface is more complicated because it depends who else is around at the time. Grass may be Novak's weakest but he's won Wimbledon three times and despite being decent on clay, has no FO title.
Click to expand...

This, I think the peak competition on clay is just frankly tougher than on grass for the last few years. There hasn't been the equivalent of a zoning 2012 RG Nadal or 2015 RG Stan at Wimbledon for the last couple years, so Djokovic has been able to win Wimbledon twice while losing at Roland Garros.
 
Hitman said:
I'm no Johnny-come-lately to this party, you already know that. This isn't just about winning titles, it is about overall consistency throughout the year, and not just at slams, since there is tennis played outside of the four majors, I have stated that already. Nadal, and Djokovic have amazing numbers across all surfaces, but Federer still trumps them both for overall consistency. What was it? 23 straight semis finals? 18 out of 19 slam finals? Overall, against the whole field, Federer has done better over the whole season encompassing all surfaces, it doesn't mean that Nadal and Djokovic don't have awesome bragging rights of their own, they just don't own the sheer numbers Federer put together.
Click to expand...

If you value consistency, Nadal made it to 5 Wimbledon finals in a row (that he competed in) and won 2 of them. Federer made it to 5 RG finals and but won only 1 of them.

This thread is about the best of the big 3 on their weakest surface, no need to derail it with Federer records that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. What does Fed making 18/19 major finals and 23 consecutive semi finals have to do with his performance on his weakest surface? Absolutely nothing.

I'd just like to know how Federer's clay performance is greater than Nadal's on grass, given the facts that I've already brought up?
 
The_Order said:
If you value consistency, Nadal made it to 5 Wimbledon finals in a row (that he competed in) and won 2 of them. Federer made it to 5 RG finals and but won only 1 of them.

This thread is about the best of the big 3 on their weakest surface, no need to derail it with Federer records that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. What does Fed making 18/19 major finals and 23 consecutive semi finals have to do with his performance on his weakest surface? Absolutely nothing.

I'd just like to know how Federer's clay performance is greater than Nadal's on grass, given the facts that I've already brought up?
Click to expand...

Of course I value consistency, didn't I just say that Nadal and Djokovic have incredible numbers to brag about? I stated, they are impressive, just not as impressive as Federer. Take Federer out, and Nadal and Djokovic would be sitting at the top of the mountain with peak consistency across all surfaces. As for Federer's records, if he wasn't bringing it into to the slams on every surface, he wouldn't have those records, you have to be insanely good across all surfaces to attain such numbers.

I can see you are only looking at finals, and titles. I am not. And you are looking at slams only, I am not. So, we'll leave it at that.
 
How many Wimbledon titles does it take for people to start recognizing that Djokovic is actually great on grass? It's absurd how some people have such higher standard for Djokovic than everyone else. He won three Ws for god's sake.
 
Hitman said:
Of course I value consistency, didn't I just say that Nadal and Djokovic have incredible numbers to brag about? I stated, they are impressive, just not as impressive as Federer. Take Federer out, and Nadal and Djokovic would be sitting at the top of the mountain with peak consistency across all surfaces. As for Federer's records, if he wasn't bringing it into to the slams on every surface, he wouldn't have those records, you have to be insanely good across all surfaces to attain such numbers.

I can see you are only looking at finals, and titles. I am not. And you are looking at slams only, I am not. So, we'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Federer's records and consistency are unbelievable, probably never will be matched, but again I ask what has that got to do with the topic of this thread? Furthermore, how do they prove that his clay performance is greater than Nadal's on grass?
 
CYGS said:
How many Wimbledon titles does it take for people to start recognizing that Djokovic is actually great on grass? It's absurd how some people have such higher standard for Djokovic than everyone else. He won three Ws for god's sake.
Click to expand...

What's your beef? There isn't a single post in this thread saying Djokovic is not great on grass.
 
Nadal is certainly the only to dominate the others on their best surface/one of his weakest surfaces in slam finals.

Beat Fed on grass in Wimbledon in 2008.
Beat Djokovic on hard in USO in 2010/2013.

He's yet to lose on his best surface in a slam final, even though both Fed and Djokovic had multiple tries.
 
RedFoe said:
Rafa won an indoors Masters1000 in 2005 - when he was consider a clay-court bunny and was only 19. Madrid I think.

Murray's 4 at AO are close to Novak's FO, but that's 5 overall semis, compared to 6 for Djokovic at FO. Not to mention that Novak always won a set at FO, and was so close to beating Rafa in 2013 semis which would have meant a title against the grinder Ferrer whom he always trashes in recent years. Murray got destroyed in 2 AO finales, and only once beat anyone worthy of mention, RF in 2013 QFs, and barely in 5 sets.
Click to expand...
Yes Madrid 2005 remains his only indoor title. It is therefore clear that indoor is his least favoured conditions to play on.
 
Rusty Shackleford said:
Nadal is certainly the only to dominate the others on their best surface/one of his weakest surfaces in slam finals.

Beat Fed on grass in Wimbledon in 2008.
Beat Djokovic on hard in USO in 2010/2013.

He's yet to lose on his best surface in a slam final, even though both Fed and Djokovic had multiple tries.
Click to expand...
Indoor is Nadal's weakest - hence the need to pull in WTF results for a fair comparison
 
timnz said:
Yes Madrid 2005 remains his only indoor title. It is therefore clear that indoor is his least favoured conditions to play on.
Click to expand...
Still, not bad for a 19 year-old?

How many relevant clay or hardcourt or indoor or grass titles did RF have at 19?

Exactly.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
But what's Nadal's excuse for not winning any more big indoor titles in the last ten years?
Click to expand...
He doesn't need an excuse. "Indoor" isn't a surface, hard is. And he won 3 hard slams, more than enough.

We can also argue about why Novak didn't win more in windy conditions but there is no "wind statistics".
 
RedFoe said:
He doesn't need an excuse. "Indoor" isn't a surface, hard is. And he won 3 hard slams, more than enough.

We can also argue about why Novak didn't win more in windy conditions but there is no "wind statistics".
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about the surface specifically, I just wondered why he hasn't gone on to win more indoor titles over the years. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I wasn't talking about the surface specifically, I just wondered why he hasn't gone on to win more indoor titles over the years. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
He is exhausted by October, mentally and physically, unlike RF who has his team of peRFectly legal special Swiss doctors that get him ready for every WTF without him ever being even faintly exhausted at that event despite playing an entire season - every season, with so many matches.
 
Rusty Shackleford said:
WTF is not a slam, and indoor as a surface has been largely irrelevant for a long time, much like blue clay.
Click to expand...
How is the WTF not being a slam relevant? The terms of this thread were a comparison of the big 3 on the weakest surface , it didn't mention anything about slams only. The WTF, which is played indoor, is the fifth biggest event - hardly irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
timnz said:
How is the WTF not being a slam relevant? The terms of this thread were a comparison of the big 3 on the weakest surface , it didn't mention anything about slams only. The WTF, which is played indoor, is the fifth biggest event - hardly irrelevant.

Hence
Click to expand...

Valid point. This is exactly what I have been stating, the thread is not about who is best or worst at what slam, it is across each surface, and that goes beyond just the four slams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn
timnz said:
How is the WTF not being a slam relevant? The terms of this thread were a comparison of the big 3 on the weakest surface , it didn't mention anything about slams only. The WTF, which is played indoor, is the fifth biggest event - hardly irrelevant.

Hence
Click to expand...
If you think indoor is relevant, then I suppose it's a valid point of view. The fact indoor is hardly played on doesn't matter as much either, given that the grass season is extremely short as well.

I wouldn't be talking about surfaces though, but about environments, since indoor is not really a surface.
 
Rusty Shackleford said:
If you think indoor is relevant, then I suppose it's a valid point of view. The fact indoor is hardly played on doesn't matter as much either, given that the grass season is extremely short as well.

I wouldn't be talking about surfaces though, but about environments, since indoor is not really a surface.
Click to expand...
Yes indoor relates to conditions. Every top player is aware that things are different indoor.

Best performances on weakest surface or conditions :

Federer on Clay - French open 1 win, 4 runner-ups
Nadal indoor - WTF 2 runner-ups
Djokovic - fast surfaces - (very hard to see because fast court tennis doesn't exist anymore) - Cincinatti - 5 runner-ups
 
125downthemiddle said:
I think it's strange a lot of people think he is better on clay at this point.
Click to expand...

I don't. There's no question that Djokovic has been better at Wimbledon than Roland Garros. But his results outside of the slams have to be factored in, and Nole has been extremely good at the clay Masters (which is why in spite of having no FO titles, his career win/loss percentage on clay (79.6) isn't significantly lower than his percentage on grass (81.7).

Of course, it's difficult to factor in his grass results outside of Wimbledon because of the fewer tournaments, and because Nole no longer even plays at them. But of his appearances, he's never won Halle or Queens Club, and didn't medal at the 2012 grass court Olympics.
 
duaneeo said:
I don't. There's no question that Djokovic has been better at Wimbledon than Roland Garros. But his results outside of the slams have to be factored in, and Nole has been extremely good at the clay Masters (which is why in spite of having no FO titles, his career win/loss percentage on clay (79.6) isn't significantly lower than his percentage on grass (81.7).

Of course, it's difficult to factor in his grass results outside of Wimbledon because of the fewer tournaments, and because Nole no longer even plays at them. But of his appearances, he's never won Halle or Queens Club, and didn't medal at the 2012 grass court Olympics.
Click to expand...

I think you have to factor in the prestige though when considering results. For instance, no one really cares who wins the grass lead ups to Wimbledon. If there isn't a masters 1000 event at least, it's really hard to judge the results or lack thereof as being so meaningful. Those events are truly "tuneups"
 
125downthemiddle said:
If there isn't a masters 1000 event at least, it's really hard to judge the results or lack thereof as being so meaningful.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that's just it. How does one compare grass court results with those of clay and hard when there is only one big tournament on grass? I think this is why there isn't a clear consensus as to which surface is the "weakest" for Djokovic (clay or grass) and Nadal (hard or grass).
 
duaneeo said:
Exactly, and that's just it. How does one compare grass court results with those of clay and hard when there is only one big tournament on grass? I think this is why there isn't a clear consensus as to which surface is the "weakest" for Djokovic (clay or grass) and Nadal (hard or grass).
Click to expand...

Well Wimbledon is a huge litmus test, it's considered the biggest prize in tennis. I see what you're saying. But a B05 grand slam is enough evidence in my view.

Wimby results vs RG results tells us enough imo
 
125downthemiddle said:
Well Wimbledon is a huge litmus test, it's considered the biggest prize in tennis. I see what you're saying. But a B05 grand slam is enough evidence in my view.

Wimby results vs RG results tells us enough imo
Click to expand...

It's not like Djokovic loses to scrubs at RG. There is no one around these days at Wimbledon who can play at the same level a zoning Stan or Nadal can play at on clay. Federer is just too old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Who is strongest on their weakest Surface or Conditions?
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
stringertom
stringertom
beard
Big 3 slam distribution by surface .... v11.0
2
Replies
62
Views
5K
SonnyT
S
T
Best on their worst surface
2
Replies
84
Views
9K
timnz
T
nadalfan2013
Analysis: The Big Three: % of Slams by surface
2
Replies
92
Views
5K
dh003i
D
Y
  • Poll Poll
Who is best player ever on their best surface
Replies
23
Views
3K
Sentinel
Sentinel
Back
Top