Better Clay courter: Federer or Djokovic

[valikup]

It really is hard to decide, as you said Federer clearly played a much tougher Nadal on average (on clay) than the one Djokovic has played from 2011-present. I feel Federer's peak level on the surface was up there with anyone, and he showed great consistency on it too during his prime. The only bad losses I can remember on clay during his prime are to Gasquet (who played a stunning match) and Volandri (ok, that one was bad).

Nadal totally owned peak Federer on clay so obviously his peak clay level was not up with everyone per say. Considering a way past his prime Kuerten waxed prime #1 ranked Federer at the French, that makes this even more apparent.

 

[helloworld]

Federer is in the top 5-6 all time on clay, Djokovic nowhere near at the moment. Only one RG final, even Puerta has that, LOL!

Yep, Djokovic is Puerta level at RG right now, lol!

 

[drakulie]

Federer has a way better clay court career than Joker. The End.

 

[swordtennis]

Yep, Djokovic is Puerta level at RG right now, lol!

Djokovic has 2 QF's 4 SF's and a F 36-9

Puerta has 4 2nd rounds a 3rd round and a F 12-6

Federer by far has a greater clay career especially at Roland Garros.. Look at all the SF's and F's.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

According to many (especially Nadal) fans, Nadal's clay prime ended in 2010.
I personally don't think so as the stats show 2012 as one of his best if not his best clay season.

I wouldn't say his prime ended in 2010. I would amend and say his "peak" was over after 2010.

I'm not a Nadal fan, but the guy was a total monster on clay in 2008. I haven't seen anything as absurd on clay from him than RG 2008. He broke 7 times a match on average and won 60% of his return games.

 

[abmk]

So Fernando Gonzales, Tommy Haas, Gael Monfils, and Fernando Verdasco are all not half decent CCers then? Cause those are the guys Djok beat in 06 and 07 in route to Nadal. The fact remains both Djok and Fed have the same career win % at RG and Djok's is higher on clay in general and both of them have lost every year to Nadal save 2.

tommy haas hasn't got past 4R at RG
monfils was #28 at that time
verdasco was #51

fernando gonzalez - will give you that

Soderling is a better player than Melzer, but why does it matter? Both were big underdogs, both loses should not have happened and both players became irrelevant for the rest of eternity after this tournament.

You really are delusional in this case. Soderling in those 2 matches - vs nadal in RG 09 and vs fed in RG 10 was playing at an insanely high level - arguably some of the best you would ever see on clay or in general

melzer was just playing decent tennis vs Novak. Its an absolute no-contest.
Only a person who hasn't watched those matches or is an insanely bad judge of tennis would say what you said.

Soderling wasn't irrelevant after that either. He made the QF of wimbledon & USO later that year. was #4#5. In those 2 RGs, he beat

ferrer, nadal, davydenko, gonzalez
federer , berdych

tbh that's worth 2 slams !

You make excuses for Fed's 13 loss by saying it is his worst year? Well 09 was Djok's worst year.

Why are we trying to quantify a "better loss" like I said all 4 were bad losses to dudes who have never won RG or even a Clay Masters Title.

Like I said 13 was with fed being 31+, plus being bothered by injuries

As far as 09 is concerned, again BS. Nole played very well in the masters leading upto RG, giving nadal good fight in all of them.

10 was his worst year, playing level wise since he became a top player, not 09.

Only a person who hasn't watched that soderling match vs fed in 10 or is an insanely bad judge of tennis would say that was a bad loss.

And good job cherry picking years.

Djok had 2 bad loses from 06-13
Fed had 2 bad loses from 05-13 (I didn't include his 05 before to compare direct to Nadal, thats why I only had 4 to Nadal, it says from 06 on in my post).

yeah, because djokovic retiring after 2 sets vs nadal in 06 really excuses him. He'd have mostly lost to any half-decent CCer that year. So its irrelevant.

If Djok beats Nadal handing the clay GOAT his 2nd career RG loss (something Fed never did) and wins his first RG combined with having a full set of clay titles (something Fed never did), I find it very silly to say Fed is better on the basis of "but he made more finals!" when both of them lost 5 times to Nadal. The round is arbitrary when Nole would have a better RG win %, better clay win %, and the same # of non-Nadal RG loses.

nadal is much worse now than he was at his prime.
Like I said, for djokovic, I'd only count 3 losses to nadal as significant, not 5 of them.

I've already addressed the rounds part.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I think we will have to go with Djokovic when everything is said and done. As a matter of fact Djokovic's superior clay record against the CLAY GOAT tips the scales in his favor.

We all know that Federer's only FO was the result of God-mode Soderling ousting Nadal. Nole, if he achieves a FO, is very capable of going through Nadal.

 

[The-Champ]

Federer fed Rafa a bagel in 2007 which was one of Rafa's peak years on clay (2005-2008). That is worth at least 3 FOs..

 

[torpantennis]

I think we will have to go with Djokovic when everything is said and done. As a matter of fact Djokovic's superior clay record against the CLAY GOAT tips the scales in his favor.

We all know that Federer's only FO was the result of God-mode Soderling ousting Nadal. Nole, if he achieves a FO, is very capable of going through Nadal.

Yeah, but that's due to match up that actually happens to FAVOR him. His extreme grips imply that he likes high contact point, and hates low bouncing slice etc. It's clearly seen on court, and Federer can trouble him a lot with the low bounces. Rafa OTOH delivers a perfect rally ball for Nole to attack! :lol:

So a single favorable match up does NOT make player any better. It's the record against the field that matters, and there Nole seriously lacks on clay.

 

[Steve0904]

I get the impression the thread question was about if Djokovic wins RG this year, which lets face it is pretty obviously going to happen.

Ok, sorry then, but I wouldn't say it's obvious that Djoker will win RG this year. Discounting Nadal on a clay court is a cardinal sin. Don't get cocky.

 

[spinovic]

Yeah, but that's due to match up that actually happens to FAVOR him. His extreme grips imply that he likes high contact point, and hates low bouncing slice etc. It's clearly seen on court, and Federer can trouble him a lot with the low bounces. Rafa OTOH delivers a perfect rally ball for Nole to attack! :lol:

So a single favorable match up does NOT make player any better. It's the record against the field that matters, and there Nole seriously lacks on clay.

Wrong. Greatness in tennis is clearly defined by your results against Nadal.

 

[Magnetite]

Fed has a better record for now. He was almost unbeatable on clay in his prime, except for Nadal.

Djokovic (on clay) of course is up there, and by the end of his career will likely be on par with Fed's achievements, or surpass them.

It's close whichever way you look at it.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Federer easily. He has FO title, more finals. He also played prime Nadal on clay, who was twice the player on the surface he is now.

 

[Fiji]

The one with 5 RG finals, including one winners trophy.

 

[mattennis]

First thing first, clearly right now the edge goes to Fed since he won a RG title.

But I really don't understand all of these posts saying Fed reaching 5 RG finals somehow proves something.

in 06, 07, 08 Djokovic and Fed both lost to Nadal in RG each year and beat everyone else they faced. Why does it make Fed a better player simply when he got to face Nadal in a later round and had the same result? They were clearly the 2nd/3rd best players in the world on clay and didn't face at RG. If Nadal/Fed were in the same half of the draw instead of Nadal/Nole, Fed suddenly has no finals appearances in that time. Ranking finals over SF obviously makes sense in a vacuum, but not when you consider both lost every year to the exact same player.

When they finally faced at RG, Fed won in 2011 in the SF and then lost the final to Nadal, while Djok won in 2012 then lost the final to Nadal. Dead even 1-1.

In 2013 Djok had another SF loss to Nadal @ RG while clearly looking like the #2 player at the tournament, just like Fed's SF loss in 05 looking like the #2 player.

Over-all both Djok and Fed are 0-5 at RG vs Nadal, with Fed winning a total of 4 sets and Djok winning 3 sets. It just happened to be that 5/5 of Fed's losses to Nadal have been in the F, and for Djok it is 1 F, 3 SF, 1 QF. I don't really think it is a good argument at all that this situation gives Fed an edge considering their over-all and RG clay court win % are identical.

You make too much sense to be in this forum.

If Djokovic wins the FO this year (and beats Nadal while doing it) he should be considered the better clay court player considering his history of clay wins over Nadal and being the only person to beat the clay GOAT for the biggest clay title.

I would posibly agree with this.

If Nadal goes out early and Djok wins, I'd still say Djok should pass Fed because of his having won every major clay tournament there showing versatility and completeness even if he is 1 Masters 1000 behind Fed, since Fed is missing that.

In this case they'd be basically equal.

 

[kandamrgam]

Anyone who says professional sport is all about what happened is seriously delusional. The myriad variables involved are so random that I don’t even think concepts like law of averages etc do justice. The chances and the challenges are so varied. Human intervention is very necessary to weed out the unfairness of sport or anything in life in general.

1. Roger made to 5 finals of RG and Nole lesser, so Roger has a superiority there? Isn't it pretty obvious the seeding worked against Nole? Ok wait. Roger's better seeding is his own credit right? But we are comparing clay here. Roger didn't get the better seeding at RG based on his performance on clay, but for his overall performance everywhere.

2. I also find Nole's superior clay record against Rafa a very weak argument for Nole's case. In tennis greatness, h2h doesn't matter. Period.



I will solve it this way:

1. Though there are few more parameters to look at, I will just see the win % of Roger and Nole on clay biggies (Slam as well as those mandatory tournaments - masters, tour finals, davis cup, olympics etc) for now.

2. There are a few corner cases that can bias the results. I will include another metric that corrects the following:

a. Since Rafa is a much superior player to both on the surface, there shouldn't be a situation where one player gets too many easy matches while the other always lost to Rafa. In other words, both Roger and Nole should meet Rafa equally in Slams and outside Slams. In Slams they both met Rafa 4 times during their respective periods, so that's fine. In Masters 1000, Nole unfortunately had two meet Rafa two more times than Roger did, so I have ignored results of Nole's matches and two from Roger's additionally to compensate that.

b. In tournaments where both players met Rafa, the player who met in earlier round is in an unfair position. In such cases I will exclude their results against Rafa. The problem doesn't end there. Let’s take RG 2008 for example. Nole met Rafa in semis, so if I ignore it, Nole’s record will be 5/5 (5 wins in 5 matches). But since Roger met Rafa in the final and by the same measure Roger’s record is 6/6. This skews the result in favour of Roger since he gets one more non-Rafa match and hence his "overall" percentage improves. So I count Roger’s record too as 5/5. In other words, in a tournament where both participated and one happened to meet Rafa in Round X, then I will include results of both players only up to X – 1. The two other cases are Hamburg 2008 and Madrid 2009.

c. DNP in a mandatory tournament is counted as 1R loss. Roger hasn't played 3 Masters during 04-06. Nole hasn't played 2 Masters (one in 2010, another in 2014). Both has skipped one non-mandatory Masters each.

d. I excluded Davis cup matches as well since the two have played unevenly there. So in essence they have to play 7 Slams, 20 Masters and 0 Davis cup matches on clay.

e. Before 2007, top players played R64 which today is "bye". This skews the result in favour of Roger. I have ignored the result of 6 R64 matches Roger played from 04-06.

2. I will consider their prime years to be from 2004-2010 for Roger and 2008-2014 for Nole, on clay. In any greatness analysis, measuring for equal time period is really important regardless of for what duration the players were really at their best.



Result:

What happened:

1. In Slam

Federer 85.00%
Djokovic 82.50%

2. Combined result in Slam, Masters and Davis Cup

Federer 84.21%
Djokovic 81.97%

What could have happened (correcting various anomalies and disparities as described in point 2):

1. In Slam

Federer 86.84%
Djokovic 84.62%

2. Combined result in Slam, Masters and Davis Cup

Federer 82.00%
Djokovic 83.04%



My take is that Federer wins if Slam alone is considered. Otherwise Djokovic has the edge. In the end Federer wins for me, because he has the most important clay title, RG. Not merely for the fact that he has an RG title, but because he made the most out of the lone opportunity, an opportunity even Djoker could have snatched. Both of them suffered at the hands of Nadal equally, but when Nadal was absent it was Federer who won, so advantage Federer. If Djoker wins at RG, then I will tip Djoker as the winner.

Djoker is amazing. He has a "claim" for the second best player on all surfaces - clay, hard and grass - among the Big3!!

 

[Vensai]

More likely than not, Roger Federer.

 

[Tony48]

I will wait to answer the question when Novak reaches the FO final 5 times.

The ONLY reason this happened is because he had the luxury of avoiding Nadal until the final. Has nothing to do with "who is better" and has more to do with "who avoided Nadal the most often"

In the first 6 years of their careers, here's how often each player lost to someone other than Nadal:
Federer: 6
Djokovic: 3

In their first 6 years, Djokovic had a higher win percentage, and even though Federer has a RG title, Djokovic still has a higher win percentage than Federer at the French.

 

[helloworld]

Federer is in the top 5-6 all time on clay, Djokovic nowhere near at the moment. Only one RG final, even Puerta has that, LOL!

Top 20 Maybe. Top 5 on clay? Give me a break!

 

[Vensai]

The ONLY reason this happened is because he had the luxury of avoiding Nadal until the final. Has nothing to do with "who is better" and has more to do with "who avoided Nadal the most often"

In the first 6 years of their careers, here's how often each player lost to someone other than Nadal:
Federer: 6
Djokovic: 3

In their first 6 years, Djokovic had a higher win percentage, and even though Federer has a RG title, Djokovic still has a higher win percentage than Federer at the French.

A French Open title is a significant accomplishment. I would need Djokovic to win one first before I consider placing him above Federer on clay.

 

[Russeljones]

Anyone who says professional sport is all about what happened is seriously delusional. The myriad variables involved are so random that I don’t even think concepts like law of averages etc do justice. The chances and the challenges are so varied. Human intervention is very necessary to weed out the unfairness of sport or anything in life in general.

1. Roger made to 5 finals of RG and Nole lesser, so Roger has a superiority there? Isn't it pretty obvious the seeding worked against Nole? Ok wait. Roger's better seeding is his own credit right? But we are comparing clay here. Roger didn't get the better seeding at RG based on his performance on clay, but for his overall performance everywhere.

2. I also find Nole's superior clay record against Rafa a very weak argument for Nole's case. In tennis greatness, h2h doesn't matter. Period.



I will solve it this way:

1. Though there are few more parameters to look at, I will just see the win % of Roger and Nole on clay biggies (Slam as well as those mandatory tournaments - masters, tour finals, davis cup, olympics etc) for now.

2. There are a few corner cases that can bias the results. I will include another metric that corrects the following:

a. Since Rafa is a much superior player to both on the surface, there shouldn't be a situation where one player gets too many easy matches while the other always lost to Rafa. In other words, both Roger and Nole should meet Rafa equally in Slams and outside Slams. In Slams they both met Rafa 4 times during their respective periods, so that's fine. In Masters 1000, Nole unfortunately had two meet Rafa two more times than Roger did, so I have ignored results of Nole's matches and two from Roger's additionally to compensate that.

b. In tournaments where both players met Rafa, the player who met in earlier round is in an unfair position. In such cases I will exclude their results against Rafa. The problem doesn't end there. Let’s take RG 2008 for example. Nole met Rafa in semis, so if I ignore it, Nole’s record will be 5/5 (5 wins in 5 matches). But since Roger met Rafa in the final and by the same measure Roger’s record is 6/6. This skews the result in favour of Roger since he gets one more non-Rafa match and hence his "overall" percentage improves. So I count Roger’s record too as 5/5. In other words, in a tournament where both participated and one happened to meet Rafa in Round X, then I will include results of both players only up to X – 1. The two other cases are Hamburg 2008 and Madrid 2009.

c. DNP in a mandatory tournament is counted as 1R loss. Roger hasn't played 3 Masters during 04-06. Nole hasn't played 2 Masters (one in 2010, another in 2014). Both has skipped one non-mandatory Masters each.

d. I excluded Davis cup matches as well since the two have played unevenly there. So in essence they have to play 7 Slams, 20 Masters and 0 Davis cup matches on clay.

e. Before 2007, top players played R64 which today is "bye". This skews the result in favour of Roger. I have ignored the result of 6 R64 matches Roger played from 04-06.

2. I will consider their prime years to be from 2004-2010 for Roger and 2008-2014 for Nole, on clay. In any greatness analysis, measuring for equal time period is really important regardless of for what duration the players were really at their best.



Result:

What happened:

1. In Slam

Federer 85.00%
Djokovic 82.50%

2. Combined result in Slam, Masters and Davis Cup

Federer 84.21%
Djokovic 81.97%

What could have happened (correcting various anomalies and disparities as described in point 2):

1. In Slam

Federer 86.84%
Djokovic 84.62%

2. Combined result in Slam, Masters and Davis Cup

Federer 82.00%
Djokovic 83.04%



My take is that Federer wins if Slam alone is considered. Otherwise Djokovic has the edge. Djoker is amazing. He has a "claim" for the second best player on all surfaces - clay, hard and grass - among the Big3!!

Important to emphasize that, to avoid a ****-storm

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I think both of them are amazing clay courters, who would have without a doubt a top 10 ever clay court resume if Nadal was only a little less amazing.

They are too close in achievements to really rank one ahead of the other, both of them have been stopped by Nadal so many times.

In general rule, I think 2004-2007 is a bit better than Djokovic on all surfaces.

 

[Picolo]

In general rule, I think 2004-2007 is a bit better than Djokovic on all surfaces.

Federer defeated Djokovic in RG-11 semis, but we know how shaky that win was. Nole was serving for 5th set and failed to keep his serve, that happens to Djokovic very rarely. Next year Novak had victory over Roger in straights.

Federer of 2004 was easily outclassed by Kuerten, no way that he beats Djokovic of 2011-2013. As for Federer of 2005-2007 vs Djokovic of 2011-2013 it's totally 50/50, but Djokovic's natural claycourt ability is a little bit higher than Roger's due to superior movement and better point construction.

 

[Edgecrusher]

1: Federer
3: Federer. He played close to his peak level in the RG 2011 SF and beat absolute peak Djokovic quite comfortably.

You must be kidding ... Federer played CLOSE to his peak level? He played far beyond his peak Level like he never played before and after.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic may very well surpass Fed in clay masters. But if he doesn't win RG, he will always be below Federer on clay.

 

[Steve0904]

You must be kidding ... Federer played CLOSE to his peak level? He played far beyond his peak Level like he never played before and after.

Ahhhh. Clearly you have not watched Rome 2006 Final, have you?

 

[BringBackSV]

Djokovic is better claycourter.
Federer has achieved more though, since Djokovic had to face Nadal earlier in slams, and of course due to Pascal Maria in 2013, and the bad luck in the last three years.

What did Pascal Maria do in 13?

 

[Fiji]

Roger Federer. He won the biggest title there is on clay.

 

[NatF]

Hopefully Federer will soon win the Davis cup final on clay to add to his achievements on the surface.

 

[La_Para]

I was thinking about Federer on clay a while ago and something struck me. Despite Federer having more of a match-up issue with Nadal on clay and Djokovic having more of an advantage, both have done about the same vs Nadal most of the time.

If you remove one match for each player(Djokovic-->RG 2013, Federer-->RG 2008 ) I believe on every other instance both have taken Nadal to four sets every time they met in finals.

It was surprising to see Federer doing about as well as Djokovic most of the time, despite him having far more of a liability in his game(vs Nadal) than Djokovic does.
Perhaps I've been underrating Federer's clay prowess?

I'm curious to hear from Nadal fans who they think made Nadal's life more difficult when taking him to four sets, or who 'scared' them the most when doing so.

 

[kandamrgam]

I was thinking about Federer on clay a while ago and something struck me. Despite Federer having more of a match-up issue with Nadal on clay and Djokovic having more of an advantage, both have done about the same vs Nadal most of the time.

If you remove one match for each player(Djokovic-->RG 2013, Federer-->RG 2008 ) I believe on every other instance both have taken Nadal to four sets every time they met in finals.

It was surprising to see Federer doing about as well as Djokovic most of the time, despite him having far more of a liability in his game(vs Nadal) than Djokovic does.
Perhaps I've been underrating Federer's clay prowess?

I'm curious to hear from Nadal fans who they think made Nadal's life more difficult when taking him to four sets, or who 'scared' them the most when doing so.

Good point. That thought struck me as well. But as a Nadal fan I can tell you if its post 2011 Djokovic in contention here then its easily Djokovic who gives Nadal more trouble. In fact the worst scare for any Nadal fan would have been 2011 RG final against Djokovic which fortunately didnt happen. Against Fed, I never felt Nadal was not in complete control of the match. Even when Fed played his best against Nadal at RG in 2011. In the 2012 final when Djokovic came back winning a set and had the momentum Nadal looked vulnerable.

But as a fan my "observation" need not be very objective as far as Federer's and Djokovic's game itself are concerned. And also be easily influenced by past results. But that's the feeling I get. Relatively speaking, Nadal looked more relaxed against Federer.

 

[abmk]

Ahhhh. Clearly you have not watched Rome 2006 Final, have you?

or hamburg 2004 SF or F, or hamburg 2002 F or RG 09 final ..........

 

[kandamrgam]

When I think about it I get two thoughts:

1. Nadal is actually too good at RG (even more than he is on clay generally). Even Djokovic's pressure is not enough to push Nadal to brink.

2. And then there is RG 2013. Where Djoker did make a big difference compared to efforts of Federer.

So its not a complete mystery actually.

 

[booson]

Djokovic. This is one clear example where the most common numbers (slams, runner-ups, titles) don't yield the correct result.

 

[kandamrgam]

or hamburg 2004 SF or F, or hamburg 2002 F or RG 09 final ..........

From my observation, RG '11 was the best Federer played in Roland Garros. As a whole tournament. I would put RG '08 in the second place till SF (except for the final which he completely flunked).

 

[torpantennis]

Djokovic is better claycourter.
Federer has achieved more though, since Djokovic had to face Nadal earlier in slams, and of course due to Pascal Maria in 2013, and the bad luck in the last three years.

Way post-prime Federer beat absolute peak Djokovic, 2011 RG SF. That proved everything!

/thread

 

[Djokovic2011]

Way post-prime Federer beat absolute peak Djokovic, 2011 RG SF. That proved everything!

/thread

Word to the wise torpan. Always focus on the performance of the player, not their age.

 

[Egoista]

I would say roger hands down

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Federer by a whisker.

 

[abmk]

From my observation, RG '11 was the best Federer played in Roland Garros. As a whole tournament. I would put RG '08 in the second place till SF (except for the final which he completely flunked).

RG 06 and RG 07 were just as good or arguably slightly better than RG 11 ....

RG 08 was poor by his standards and worse than 05,06, 07, 09, 10, 11 ...

he didn't all that well vs montanes, gonzalez and monfils in RG 08 ....

 

[coloskier]

Nope. There is NO way to argue that winning a bunch of Hamburg (a lot of which the best clay players did not participate in) + RG once is superior to winning ALL major clay events. Forget about finals. Achievements > consistency when it comes to evaluating success on a surface.

Are you saying the same thing when it comes to GOAT???? ;-)

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Federer has won French Open, Djokovic hasn't (and he lost to Federer at the FO in his best clay season ever).
Federer has reached FO final five times, Djokovic twice.
Federer has won six Masters on clay, Djokovic five.
Federer has won 10 titles on clay overall, Djokovic 9.

And some people still ask themselves who is better player on clay.

They both have lost fair number of matches to Nadal, Djokovic more semifinals at RG, Federer more finals (although he lost SF in 2005), but the fact is that Djokovic was more inconsistent than Federer. After winning his first Major in 2008, he lost to Nadal (2008 ), Kohlschreiber (2009), Melzer (2010), Federer (2011 - his best season), Nadal (2012, 2013, 2014).
Federer, on the other hand, lost to Guga (2004 - to a three time champion), Nadal (2005-2008, 2011), Soderling (2010 - to a two time finalist) and then to Djokovic (2012). Overall, Federer has been more consistent. Not to mention that he had lost tones of finals against that beast mode Nadal during 2006-2008 (when he set that crazy record of 81 consecutive wins on clay).

 

[mike danny]

I was thinking about Federer on clay a while ago and something struck me. Despite Federer having more of a match-up issue with Nadal on clay and Djokovic having more of an advantage, both have done about the same vs Nadal most of the time.

If you remove one match for each player(Djokovic-->RG 2013, Federer-->RG 2008 ) I believe on every other instance both have taken Nadal to four sets every time they met in finals.

It was surprising to see Federer doing about as well as Djokovic most of the time, despite him having far more of a liability in his game(vs Nadal) than Djokovic does.
Perhaps I've been underrating Federer's clay prowess?

I'm curious to hear from Nadal fans who they think made Nadal's life more difficult when taking him to four sets, or who 'scared' them the most when doing so.

Well as much as I like Fed, it is foolish to rule out RG 2013 for Novak. He did something Fed never managed to do: push Nadal to a 5th set and almost win.

 

[jrs]

I would say Federer till now, but in the future Dojokovic as ND seems to have a better chance at beating Nadal at FO than RF.
RF - although still performing well is past his prime.

 

[torpantennis]

Well as much as I like Fed, it is foolish to rule out RG 2013 for Novak. He did something Fed never managed to do: push Nadal to a 5th set and almost win.

Federer did it: Rome 2006!

 

[TMF]

Until Nole can be considered in the top 10 greatest clay courter of all time, then we can talk.

 

[mike danny]

Federer did it: Rome 2006!

It wasn't RG though...

 

[mike danny]

Nope. There is NO way to argue that winning a bunch of Hamburg (a lot of which the best clay players did not participate in) + RG once is superior to winning ALL major clay events. Forget about finals. Achievements > consistency when it comes to evaluating success on a surface.

And who were these best clay courters? Only Nadal and Coria were the best clay courters during Fed's peak period. And he beat both for 3 of his Hamburg titles

 

[kandamrgam]

RG 06 and RG 07 were just as good or arguably slightly better than RG 11 ....

RG 08 was poor by his standards and worse than 05,06, 07, 09, 10, 11 ...

he didn't all that well vs montanes, gonzalez and monfils in RG 08 ....

We will have to disagree. Even though results dont show, his clay game was very different that year having hired Higueras. I liked his clay game better that year with drop shots, return drop shots, improved bh, running around bh (which may have backfired).

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Federer is clearly more accomplished....


however...


Novak is quite accomplished on clay and has obviously pushed Rafa further at RG and has shown a dominating level (Madrid '11 Rome '11 MC '13 even parts of RG '12, 13, 14) that Federer has only matched at Hamburg on fast clay and the 1st set of RG 2006

I'd give Fed the nod now, but I would clearly give it to Novak with an RG victory, even if it's a cheapo one (like Fed's)