Better Clay courter: Federer or Djokovic

[BringBackSV]

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)

Novak is more of a challenge for Rafa on clay than Roger is but that's partly a style matchup. Is Novak really a better overall player than Roger on clay? He's also playing a lesser version of Rafa on clay too, which doesn't hurt.

 

[Steve0904]

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).

Agree with all of this. That is what puts Federer ahead of Djokovic on clay at this time. The consistency regardless of the "Nadal effect" if you will. The fact that Federer lost to better clay players than the Melzers and Kohlscreiber's of the world and that Federer beat Djokovic at RG in 2011. Basically until Djokovic wins RG this discussion is useless. I don't care if he matches up better with Nadal on clay. No RG means Federer wins. Simple as that. If Djokovic had taken his chance and won RG in 2009 instead of Federer, then Djokovic is better, but he did not. It is not that hard.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Agree with all of this. That is what puts Federer ahead of Djokovic on clay at this time. The consistency regardless of the "Nadal effect" if you will. The fact that Federer lost to better clay players than the Melzers and Kohlscreiber's of the world and that Federer beat Djokovic at RG in 2011. Basically until Djokovic wins RG this discussion is useless. I don't care if he matches up better with Nadal on clay. No RG means Federer wins. Simple as that. If Djokovic had taken his chance and won RG in 2009 instead of Federer, then Djokovic is better, but he did not. It is not that hard.

So would you put Nole ahead of Fed if he wins RG Steve?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Novak is more of a challenge for Rafa on clay than Roger is but that's partly a style matchup. Is Novak really a better overall player than Roger on clay? He's also playing a lesser version of Rafa on clay too, which doesn't hurt.

Well Rafa is the ultimate test so even if there's a matchup factor at play, you can't just exclude the results when he is the ultimate barometer on the surface. Also, Novak has clearly been better than the field and up there at the top with Fed (and despite his 2011 RG loss you would have to consider him the fav vs Roger) and Rafa on clay for many years.

 

[BringBackSV]

Well Rafa is the ultimate test so even if there's a matchup factor at play, you can't just exclude the results when he is the ultimate barometer on the surface. Also, Novak has clearly been better than the field and up there at the top with Fed (and despite his 2011 RG loss you would have to consider him the fav vs Roger) and Rafa on clay for many years.

Who is excluding his results against Rafa? I'm not denying Novak's clay court prowess. What I am saying however is that if you were to primarily look at his ability to push Rafa vs Fed's, you'd be making a mistake.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Who is excluding his results against Rafa? I'm not denying Novak's clay court prowess. What I am saying however is that if you were to primarily look at his ability to push Rafa vs Fed's, you'd be making a mistake.

I disagree, Novak had to beat the rest of the field anyway to reach Rafa. Nadal is the best of all time on clay and results against him on the surface are very important.

 

[BringBackSV]

I disagree, Novak had to beat the rest of the field anyway to reach Rafa. Nadal is the best of all time on clay and results against him on the surface are very important.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Novak has been more successful against Rafa on outdoor HC, are you going to tell me that he's a better HC player than Roger next too?

Roger was playing Rafa in the finals at RG when Rafa was at his best, not the older and diminished version of today. Please tell me how Novak was performing in his matches at RG against Rafa during that period.

Novak is the second best on clay right now, at one point it was Roger. Roger has 1 GS on clay, Novak has zero. As of right now and quite honestly it will likely always be true, Roger has been better on the surface.

Novak was at his best in 2011 and got dismissed by an old Fed.

 

[Djokovic2011]

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Novak has been more successful against Rafa on outdoor HC, are you going to tell me that he's a better HC player than Roger next too?

Roger was playing Rafa in the finals at RG when Rafa was at his best, not the older and diminished version of today. Please tell me how Novak was performing in his matches at RG against Rafa during that peiod.

Novak is the second best on clay right now, at one point it was Roger. Roger has 1 GS on clay, Novak has zero. As of right now and quite honestly it will likely always be true, Roger has been better on the surface.

Novak was at his best in 2011 and got dismissed by an old Fed.

That's a bit unfair as one could quite easily say "how was Roger performing at the same age?" and the answer is not as well as Djokovic was. Btw Novak performed much better against Rafa at RG in his absolute peak clay year(2008)than Fed did. 3x better to be exact.

 

[President]

Federer in the form of Rome 2006 vs Djokovic of Rome 2011 would be an epic, epic match. Both of them guys are similar in level on clay IMO, a very high one. Nadal has denied both of these guys glory on this surface.

 

[eldanger25]

It's a good question, but I think Federer. He's got the RG title and is a hellcat on faster clay. It's not like Federer's RG crown came in 2003 or something - both he and Novak were in their (brief) overlapping primes (Novak was already a Rome winner, an RG semifinalist 2x over, and an MC finalist entering RG 2009) - yet it was Fed who took advantage.

I also credit Federer for taking the brunt of Nadal's best years on the surface, which to avoid controversy we'll say was roughly 2006-2012 (with 2005 and 2013 available as well). Novak has clay season 2009 and 2011 (maybe RG '08), plus clay season/RG 2012, when it was him or Nadal for all the marbles. Fed has all of clay season/RG 2006-08, Madrid '09-'10, and RG 2011 when it was Nadal or glory for him. Slight advantage to Fed.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Novak has been more successful against Rafa on outdoor HC, are you going to tell me that he's a better HC player than Roger next too?

Roger was playing Rafa in the finals at RG when Rafa was at his best, not the older and diminished version of today. Please tell me how Novak was performing in his matches at RG against Rafa during that period.

Novak is the second best on clay right now, at one point it was Roger. Roger has 1 GS on clay, Novak has zero. As of right now and quite honestly it will likely always be true, Roger has been better on the surface.

Novak was at his best in 2011 and got dismissed by an old Fed.

Why are you so reactionary? Unbelievable, sounds just like another poster I know.

This is a thread for discussion, if you want everyone to agree with you that Federer is the best in every debate go to a Roger Federer forum.

:razz::razz:

 

[mike danny]

I disagree, Novak had to beat the rest of the field anyway to reach Rafa. Nadal is the best of all time on clay and results against him on the surface are very important.

While Novak did do better against Rafa at RG, it doew help that he has a 2 hander instead of a 1 hander

 

[Steve0904]

So would you put Nole ahead of Fed if he wins RG Steve?

If we just put an extra RG on Novak's CV and nothing else then I think I would. He would still be behind Fed by a couple RG final appearances, but then again, those are kind of offset by Djokovic playing Nadal in 3 RG semis, where Federer only played him once in a RG SF. That's just seeding. The only thing that could be said against this is that I'm kind of assuming that Djokovic could beat Davydenko in 07 or Monfils in 08 if you switched Djokovic and Federer in those draws, and then not really crediting Federer for winning an extra match even if it wasn't against Nadal.

But then Nole's exploits in masters are a little better. They are 5 masters all on red clay, but Federer showed some versatility by winning the one and only on blue clay. However, Djokovic has won them all and he's also beaten Nadal at Rome, MC, and Madrid, while Federer has only done it at Madrid and Hamburg. And we all know that beating Nadal at MC and Rome is no small feat. Fair edge to Nole here.

And of course, if he managed to beat Nadal at RG, then that goes without saying. So all in all, I'd give it to Novak, yes. I guess it comes down to how much you value a couple extra RG finals for Federer, vs Djokovic beating Nadal to win all the masters. As I said, I would give it to Novak, but I can still see arguments for Federer even if Djokovic were to win RG without beating Nadal.

Honestly, I thought long and hard about this. It's very close.

 

[Djokovic2011]

While Novak did do better against Rafa at RG, it doew help that he has a 2 hander instead of a 1 hander

If Djokovic had a serve like Isner he'd have double the amount of Slams by now. See how easy it is to play that game md?

 

[mike danny]

If we just put an extra RG on Novak's CV and nothing else then I think I would. He would still be behind Fed by a couple RG final appearances, but then again, those are kind of offset by Djokovic playing Nadal in 3 RG semis, where Federer only played him once in a RG SF. That's just seeding. The only thing that could be said against this is that I'm kind of assuming that Djokovic could beat Davydenko in 07 or Monfils in 08 if you switched Djokovic and Federer in those draws, and then not really crediting Federer for winning an extra match even if it wasn't against Nadal.

But then Nole's exploits in masters are a little better. They are 5 masters all on red clay, but Federer showed some versatility by winning the one and only on blue clay. However, Djokovic has won them all and he's also beaten Nadal at Rome, MC, and Madrid, while Federer has only done it at Madrid and Hamburg. And we all know that beating Nadal at MC and Rome is no small feat. Fair edge to Nole here.

And of course, if he managed to beat Nadal at RG, then that goes without saying. So all in all, I'd give it to Novak, yes. I guess it comes down to how much you value a couple extra RG finals for Federer, vs Djokovic beating Nadal to win all the masters. As I said, I would give it to Novak, but I can still see arguments for Federer even if Djokovic were to win RG without beating Nadal.

Honestly, I thought long and hard about this. It's very close.

It's simple: if Nole wins RG beating Nadal he is ahead of Fed.

If he wins RG without beating Nadal, both are on equal foot clay wise.

And by the looks of it, he'll need a Soderling miracle to win RG as well

 

[mike danny]

If Djokovic had a serve like Isner he'd have double the amount of Slams by now. See how easy it is to play that game md?

Point taken

 

[Djokovic2011]

If we just put an extra RG on Novak's CV and nothing else then I think I would. He would still be behind Fed by a couple RG final appearances, but then again, those are kind of offset by Djokovic playing Nadal in 3 RG semis, where Federer only played him once in a RG SF. That's just seeding. The only thing that could be said against this is that I'm kind of assuming that Djokovic could beat Davydenko in 07 or Monfils in 08 if you switched Djokovic and Federer in those draws, and then not really crediting Federer for winning an extra match even if it wasn't against Nadal.

But then Nole's exploits in masters are a little better. They are 5 masters all on red clay, but Federer showed some versatility by winning the one and only on blue clay. However, Djokovic has won them all and he's also beaten Nadal at Rome, MC, and Madrid, while Federer has only done it at Madrid and Hamburg. And we all know that beating Nadal at MC and Rome is no small feat. Fair edge to Nole here.

And of course, if he managed to beat Nadal at RG, then that goes without saying. So all in all, I'd give it to Novak, yes. I guess it comes down to how much you value a couple extra RG finals for Federer, vs Djokovic beating Nadal to win all the masters. As I said, I would give it to Novak, but I can still see arguments for Federer even if Djokovic were to win RG without beating Nadal.

Honestly, I thought long and hard about this. It's very close.

I never would've guessed! :razz: Great post, nothing for me to add.

 

[BringBackSV]

Why are you so reactionary? Unbelievable, sounds just like another poster I know.

This is a thread for discussion, if you want everyone to agree with you that Federer is the best in every debate go to a Roger Federer forum.

:razz::razz:

I'm pointing out that your logic is flawed, there really isn't more to it than that.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I'm pointing out that your logic is flawed, there really isn't more to it than that.

I never said it was ALL because Djokovic matches up better with Nadal. You are resorting to ad hominems and flawed analogies because you don't like the conclusion I draw. There really isn't more to it than that.

 

[BringBackSV]

That's a bit unfair as one could quite easily say "how was Roger performing at the same age?" and the answer is not as well as Djokovic was. Btw Novak performed much better against Rafa at RG in his absolute peak clay year(2008)than Fed did. 3x better to be exact.

That's the point though, you can't just look at their performances against Rafa without putting those matches into context. It's just that you can't only make that argument for Novak, it swings the other way also.

 

[BringBackSV]

I never said it was ALL because Djokovic matches up better with Nadal. You are resorting to ad hominems and flawed analogies because you don't like the conclusion I draw. There really isn't more to it than that.

If we are talking about pure results, Fed's RG title in 2009 > anything Novak has done on clay,

If we are looking at their respective levels displayed on the surface, that requires looking at more than just relative success against Rafa.

The analogy to HC is perfectly valid, whether you like it or not. Just because Novak has given an older Rafa more trouble, does not mean that he'd be win more than he lost against Roger on clay. It also doesn't mean that he'd be more competent against the various clay court players who have come through over the years.

If you want everything to be really simple, go ahead with your line of thinking but it's just severely lacking.

BTW, it's hilarious that you tried to criticize me for ad hominems when you are the guy claiming that I just want Roger to be the best at everything. You not only couldn't be further from the truth, it added absolute nothing to the discussion.

 

[Al Czervik]

Great question. In terms of career accomplishments, it has to be Roger. But, Novak's peak is better and he deserves credit for challenging Rafa better than Roger ever did at Roland Garros.

 

[mike danny]

Great question. In terms of career accomplishments, it has to be Roger. But, Novak's peak is better and he deserves credit for challenging Rafa better than Roger ever did at Roland Garros.

If he doesn't win RG it will not matter whether he challenged Rafa better on clay or not.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

If we are talking about pure results, Fed's RG title in 2009 > anything Novak has done on clay,

If we are looking at their respective levels displayed on the surface, that requires looking at more than just relative success against Rafa.

The analogy to HC is perfectly valid, whether you like it or not. Just because Novak has given an older Rafa more trouble, does not mean that he'd be win more than he lost against Roger on clay. It also doesn't mean that he'd be more competent against the various clay court players who have come through over the years.

If you want everything to be really simple, go ahead with your line of thinking but it's just severely lacking.

I already said Fed gets the nod due to an RG victory, and that only if Novak won 1 would I consider him superior on the surface.

Success against Rafa is a valuable trait to have, especially on clay where Rafa is better than anyone has ever been on any surface. The fact that Federer has a matchup issue with Rafa is quite frankly too bad, but if you want to take that into consideration...fine. It doesn't negate Novak being a fixture and far away co favorite the last several clay court seasons. He and Federer have displayed roughly equal clay court levels with Djoko I think winning the tiebreaker of level of play by being better against Nadal. Federer wins the ultimate tiebreaker in results due to the RG victory though.

Even though Federer clearly would not have won an RG if he had to face Nadal, and Djokovic likely would have if he didn't, I still value results over suppositions so I give Fed the nod.

Why can't you do the same with Djokovic's relative success vs. Rafa in contrast with Fed? It's something to take into account, it's not everything but it's something. The hard court analogy is flawed because Federer has 10 hc slams to Djoko's 5 and it's not really close in results. When the results are close, level against the best matters (and Nadal as said is the best ever on any surface on clay)

 

[Steve0904]

I get the impression the thread question was about if Djokovic wins RG this year (2014), 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.

I see the user that posted this first quote has since been banned. Not only that but he/she clearly did not listen to me. :twisted:

 

[Steve0904]

It's simple: if Nole wins RG beating Nadal he is ahead of Fed.

If he wins RG without beating Nadal, both are on equal foot clay wise.

And by the looks of it, he'll need a Soderling miracle to win RG as well

As I said, I would give a slight edge to Djokovic in the second case as I believe that Djokovic could've beat Davydenko in 07 and Monfils in 08 if the draws were switched. The amount of extra finals that Federer has are perfectly offset by the extra amount of times that Djokovic has had to play Nadal in the SF's as opposed to the final. And even if he lost both of those matches, he has still beaten Nadal at all the clay MS which Federer has not accomplished. Not to be taken lightly considering Nadal's record at Rome and particularly MC. A couple extra slam finals are great, but given the strange circumstances in this case it's hard to really put down Djokovic for not beating Nadal in the SF's where Federer made an extra round only to lose in the same fashion.

A reminder here that this is all hypothetical in assuming Djokovic wins a French Open.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

While Novak did do better against Rafa at RG, it doew help that he has a 2 hander instead of a 1 hander

That's too bad imo. It's like when people say "Team A was better... it's just that Team B had better coaching"...well coaching is a part of the game. Likewise Novak does better against Rafa the clay GOAT for whatever reason than Federer and whatever those reasons are are a part of what it means to be good on clay.

 

[sliceroni]

Past prime *******'s win over Djokovic in 2011 was pretty significant being that it was Nole's best year in his career. Didn't like the celebratory finger wave but the win itself was epic. That along with that, 5 finals and 2009 I'd give the edge to Federer. If Nole wins at RG beating Nadal I'll go with him.

 

[swordtennis]

Djokovic has 5 master titles on clay (not 4): 3 Rome, 1 Madrid and 1 M-C.
My feeling is that as long as Djoko doesn't win RG, you can't pick him over Fed but if he wins RG, then it will be a no brainer because he would have won all the big clay events (3 masters + slam) and no amount of Hamburg titles could make up for the fact that Fed never won M-C or Rome.

Good post. Summed it up perfectly.
Even if Djokovic does not win the FO and wins a Rome or MC or two he is right up there with him.

 

[BringBackSV]

I already said Fed gets the nod due to an RG victory, and that only if Novak won 1 would I consider him superior on the surface.

Success against Rafa is a valuable trait to have, especially on clay where Rafa is better than anyone has ever been on any surface. The fact that Federer has a matchup issue with Rafa is quite frankly too bad, but if you want to take that into consideration...fine. It doesn't negate Novak being a fixture and far away co favorite the last several clay court seasons. He and Federer have displayed roughly equal clay court levels with Djoko I think winning the tiebreaker of level of play by being better against Nadal. Federer wins the ultimate tiebreaker in results due to the RG victory though.

Even though Federer clearly would not have won an RG if he had to face Nadal, and Djokovic likely would have if he didn't, I still value results over suppositions so I give Fed the nod.

Why can't you do the same with Djokovic's relative success vs. Rafa in contrast with Fed? It's something to take into account, it's not everything but it's something. The hard court analogy is flawed because Federer has 10 hc slams to Djoko's 5 and it's not really close in results. When the results are close, level against the best matters (and Nadal as said is the best ever on any surface on clay)

I agree that Novak's success against Rafa should be taken into account, I just said that it should not be the primary basis by which we judge these two players.

 

[abmk]

As I said, I would give a slight edge to Djokovic in the second case as I believe that Djokovic could've beat Davydenko in 07 and Monfils in 08 if the draws were switched. The amount of extra finals that Federer has are perfectly offset by the extra amount of times that Djokovic has had to play Nadal in the SF's as opposed to the final. And even if he lost both of those matches, he has still beaten Nadal at all the clay MS which Federer has not accomplished. Not to be taken lightly considering Nadal's record at Rome and particularly MC. A couple extra slam finals are great, but given the strange circumstances in this case it's hard to really put down Djokovic for not beating Nadal in the SF's where Federer made an extra round only to lose in the same fashion.

A reminder here that this is all hypothetical in assuming Djokovic wins a French Open.

I think davydenko had more than decent chance of beating djokovic in RG 07 ...

2008 yeah, djokovic takes down monfils for sure ...

 

[90's Clay]

Neither are all time greats on the surface but probably Fed if only for 2011 and clay is definitely a weak spot in both their games. (Nole's footing on clay is shaky at times) and when Fed went up against guys who knew how to play on clay (Kuerten, Nadal) we saw what happened.

Still gotta go with Fed at this point.. Unless Nole can somehow start racking up RG titles.

 

[Steve0904]

I think davydenko had more than decent chance of beating djokovic in RG 07 ...

2008 yeah, djokovic takes down monfils for sure ...

Absolutely. I never said Davydenko wouldn't have his chances. Even in this scenario though, how much do you value 1 extra RG final vs what Novak has done in winning Madrid, MC and Rome and beating Nadal to win all of them.

To me, it doesn't mean all that much because both guys would have already proven they can play on the surface. Djokovic winning MC and Rome where Federer has not been able to trumps that IMO.

If I could make an analogy about the finals thing it's kind of like this. It's like if your friend had 1 piece of cake and you had 0, you'd complain because you were hungry and didn't get any cake, but if your friend had 10 pieces of cake and you had 9 it's not a big deal because it's highly unlikely that this person will eat 10 pieces of cake or that you will eat 9. Or something like that.

 

[Steve0904]

Good post. Summed it up perfectly.
Even if Djokovic does not win the FO and wins a Rome or MC or two he is right up there with him.

No he's not. The big players win the big titles. No exceptions.

 

[Djokovic2011]

No he's not. The big players win the big titles. No exceptions.

The Masters aren't big titles Steve? :|

 

[Steve0904]

The Masters aren't big titles Steve? :|

They are, but they are still nowhere near RG titles. You know what I meant.

No amount of masters replaces a RG title. None.

 

[Djokovic2011]

They are, but they are still nowhere near RG titles. You know what I meant.

No amount of masters replaces a RG title. None.

You know that I know that you know that I know!! :razz:

 

[kandamrgam]

Now I have seen it all. You know who whine "beyond age 26 is post prime years" crap? Fans of Federer, the guy who is supposed to have ageless, most efficient game. Isn't it Nadal and Djokovic, the physical beasts who should have burnt out by now? Yet I dont see Nadal and Djoker fans cry about it.

And now the funny thing. Djoker pushes Nadal to the very brink in RG 2013 SF. Djoker fans use that as a claim for Novak to be the better clay courter. Federer fans counter saying it was "post prime Nadal" and not the peak Nadal Federer had to face. Guess who is playing the age card for Nadal? Federer fans again. I have seen it all

 

[Steve0904]

There is a misconception about Federer's prime anyway. Rational fans of Federer will always concede that his prime was from his first Wimbledon or perhaps the start of 2004 to about mid 2010. His absolute peak tennis being the years 2004 to 2007. Just like Nadal's prime is from about 2005 to probably the end of 2013 (since 2014 hasn't been great, and has seen perhaps a slight decline), with his peak years probably being from 2008 to 2011 (inclusive, and injuries included in a general sense).

 

[Gary Duane]

Taken from:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2016578-breaking-down-roger-federers-clay-court-legacy
"He was a colorful, exotic bird swooping into a foreign land for the pleasure of those who will not see his likeness again."

I thought that was a bit much.

 

[ibbi]

I think you can look at Novak's game and see that it's probably better suited to a clay court, but I tend to side with Federer in this (very close) contest. I'm one of those maybe misguided people who tends to think that the quality of clay courters has taken a bit of dip in the past decade. In those Hamburg victories Federer had some super impressive victories against some properly legit clay courters playing in something close to their pomp. 5 Roland Garros finals also tells its own story (though if he had been lucky enough to avoid Nadal prior to the final, Novak could conceivably have 6 to his name already).

That 2011 Roland Garros semi final is no small thing either, and though it probably is silly to bring Rafa into the equation, I do think that though Novak has more (and more legit) clay court victories over Nadal, Federer had to deal from 2005 to 2008 with a far more clay comfortable Rafael Nadal, than the older slightly more aggressive Nadal making a conscious effort to shorten points that Novak has had his most recent battles with. That Roger against this Rafa? That might be something to see.

 

[Gary Duane]

There is a misconception about Federer's prime anyway. Rational fans of Federer will always concede that his prime was from his first Wimbledon or perhaps the start of 2004 to about mid 2010.

Fed played some of the best tennis of his career - and maybe THE best of his career - in 2003. The reason is that he started that year at #6, never got better than #4 until July, when he finally hit #3. But he made it to #2 by the end of the year, then clicked over to #1 in Feb. of 2004.

We all know that being ranked lower means not making to as many finals. A ranking of #2 or #1 means not having to face the other until the finals. Once he finally hit #2 he could cruise more, which helped him get to #1 and stay there.

It was that year where he started to learn how to play he big points better. But to get there he won 58% of all points that year, which is ridiculous. Most champions, including him, hit about 55% in the peak years.

And on HCs that year he was at 60%, which is God-like. The big thing that happened between 2003 and 2004 is that in 2004 he boosted his serve from 87% in all service games to 92%. But many of his other stats in 2003 were higher, for the year, and if we could just look at stats for the second half of the year, they would probably be even more scary.

On the Fed/Novak issue - I see them as so close that I think we should wait until the are both finished. The story is not over.

I think it is a valid point that as #3 and #4 Novak had to face either Fed or Nadal before finals, and as the youngest of the three and a later bloomer it held down his stats until he mostly got past his #3 ranking.

 

[smoledman]

1 RG title vs 3 Rome/1 Monaco?

Tough call.

 

[smoledman]

There is a misconception about Federer's prime anyway. Rational fans of Federer will always concede that his prime was from his first Wimbledon or perhaps the start of 2004 to about mid 2010. His absolute peak tennis being the years 2004 to 2007. Just like Nadal's prime is from about 2005 to probably the end of 2013 (since 2014 hasn't been great, and has seen perhaps a slight decline), with his peak years probably being from 2008 to 2011 (inclusive, and injuries included in a general sense).

How can 2014 be a decline for Nadal when he won a slam? Winning the French Open is all Nadal lives for these days.

 

[Gary Duane]

How can 2014 be a decline for Nadal when he won a slam? Winning the French Open is all Nadal lives for these days.

2014 is definitely not a decline for Nadal before injuries took him out of the game. But it has to be a legitimate concern. 2013 was a miracle year, but at two year older he MAY not be able to do it again. So the real decline will be 2015, if he can't reestablish dominance.

 

[kandamrgam]

There is a misconception about Federer's prime anyway. Rational fans of Federer will always concede that his prime was from his first Wimbledon or perhaps the start of 2004 to about mid 2010. His absolute peak tennis being the years 2004 to 2007. Just like Nadal's prime is from about 2005 to probably the end of 2013 (since 2014 hasn't been great, and has seen perhaps a slight decline), with his peak years probably being from 2008 to 2011 (inclusive, and injuries included in a general sense).

I wasn't questioning the existence of concepts like peak and prime (btw, you will be hard-pressed to see many Nadal fans who would admit his prime started from 2005. Clay prime yes, but not otherwise. My pick is 2007). I do get that part, and you make sense when you say that. A lot of good fans do.

What I do mean is that Nadal fans very rarely (even that is I being generous) make up the age excuse. You wouldn't see Nadal or Djoker fans saying "Davydenko beat washed up Djokovic" or "Soderling beat over the hill Nadal" or more commonly "XYZ started to beat past peak Nadal" etc. What I mean is we dont play the age card for losses during prime years by saying peak Nadal wouldn't have lost. In other words, the dip from peak to prime serves no excuse really. Beyond prime that's ok. I can see where all this is coming from, but that's a different topic for now.

Tell you what, not many Nadal fans would even agree Nadal's prime has ended in 2013. May be his peak. The problem arises from assigning peak and prime taking cue from Federer's career. Nadal didn't have peak like Federer, his career goes more or less stable and steady winning 1 to 2 slams a year. This year, he had one of his best shows in AO, below par clay season, his best Wimbledon in recent years, and as usual the injury period at the end of the season. All in all a comparable year to 2011 in win %. Nothing unusual I see.

Yet it's funny to see Federer fans having concern of Nadal aging, not us

 

[kandamrgam]

though Novak has more (and more legit) clay court victories over Nadal, Federer had to deal from 2005 to 2008 with a far more clay comfortable Rafael Nadal, than the older slightly more aggressive Nadal making a conscious effort to shorten points that Novak has had his most recent battles with.

Regardless of whether the "better defense, worse offense" version of Nadal of yore would do better against Djoker today or not, Nadal is very much in prime, a version Federer would have had trouble on clay any time. Let's be honest, Nadal didn't face a defensive giant like post 2011 Djokovic during all those years (2005-2009). Adding offense to his arsenal was imperative to deal with improved Djoker. I don't think Nadal's clay game those years would have been enough to outdo Djoker in 2013 Semi. The only exception may be RG 2008. It was quite a sight to see how attacking Nadal played to break Djoker in 2013. I don't know if Nadal of 2005-2009 could have hung with Djoker 2013 (or '11 in general), not to forget Djoker has a better offense than 2005-2009 Nadal. The task in front of 2005-2009 Nadal is to outlast Djokovic 2011-2013 with defense, a task he never had up front during that time. While technically he can hang with Djoker, Djoker's superior offense will outdo Nadal imo.

That Roger against this Rafa? That might be something to see.

I think we did see it in RG 2011. 2011 Nadal is closer to today than his 2005-2008 period. Nadal outdid one of the best performances of Federer against him. Hardly mattered to the scoreline in the end.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic of 2013 wasn't even that good. His level was up and down in that SF. Nadal should of closed him down in 4.

You should check Nadal's clay stats from 2007, they were really high. His 4th best clay season after 08/10/12.

 

[kandamrgam]

Djokovic of 2013 wasn't even that good. His level was up and down in that SF. Nadal should of closed him down in 4.

That's what I call nitpicking. Ok tell me one match where Federer's level was not up and down against Rafa on clay? Leave it, I have known of few of the matches in tennis. AO '09 SF, AO '05 SF, WC '08 F, TMC '05 F etc. I still hear all sorts of "one player choked, the other should have won easily" theories. Bound to happen in a match. The important part is, Djokovic was very very high level in 4th and 5th set, when it mattered. And that is central to discussion.

You should check Nadal's clay stats from 2007, they were really high. His 4th best clay season after 08/10/12.

Ok tell me one player who did test Nadal during that time like Djoker 2011+ ? A similar defense Nadal outlasted? May be Coria, and then add Djoker's offense to it? Ok tell me how is Nadal of that time going to win against this Djoker? By putting balls back? The only capable version is RG 08 one, a time he got his offense and super defense to a perfect balance.

 

[staceyliving]

This one is pretty simple.

While Djokovic doesn't have a French Open. Federer

When/if Djokovic wins a French Open. Djokovic. Especialy factoring in Djokovic is almost certain to pass Federer in Masters and tournament titles on clay, and at worst would probably be 1 behind in French Open finals which is really more like tied or ahead anyway when he lost 3 semis to Nadal and Federer only 1. A semi to Nadal and a final are basically the same thing.

So it all depends if Djokovic wins a French or not. Until he does the answer is Federer, but once Djokovic wins a French it almost certainly is Djokovic.