Better Clay courter: Federer or Djokovic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fedrer with all his greatness was useless against nadal in clay court.
Novak atleast defeated rafa two times.
Roger couldn't even had proper fight with Rafa .
 
StrongRule said:
The organizers added a roof and night sessions, which are absolutely ridiculous changes in order to help Djokovic. They turned it into DO.
Click to expand...

They added it like every other slam did, nothing to do with Djokovic. It's called evolving.

Having matches suspended because of rain or lack of sunlight in this day and age for a Grand Slam would be an embarrassment.
 
If Djokovic pulls a miracle run this year and wins it, he's only behind Nadal and Borg, he'd surpass Lendl and Wilander. I don't see it happening, though.
 
Mustard said:
Nadal might still have won, I agree. But it wouldn't have been at all surprising if Federer had beaten Nadal at the 2015 French Open had they met there. Even against Djokovic, Nadal showed some flashes when he came from 1-5 down to 5-5 in the first set.
Click to expand...
Federer wouldn't have beaten Rafa in 2015 FO. But that's not a fair enough comparison. Djokovic is six years older than Roger. Roger 2009 is the equivalent of Djokovic 2015 if we are talking about a match against Rafa 2015..
 
Gawd, this TNT coverage is *so* cringey.. they all look so uncomfortable except the clueless guy in the middle.
The McBros would be better (!).
 
Texas Tennis Fan said:
It must gall you to know you are in the very small percentage of people who are not saying Djokovic is the GOAT.
Click to expand...
oh well, the people who matter have spoken with their action on who represents sporting excellence


Zidane and Nadal




why wasn't djo selected to hold it?

Also, Laureus created a new award... Sporting Icon for Rafa.


Rafael Nadal accepts his award Monday evening in Madrid.
 
BrokenGears said:
Hilarious how people just conveniently ignore their 2012 French Open match lmao. Sorry, there's no end of debate there
Click to expand...
and it is even funnier if you compare them both on clay AND grass. and fed fans thinks that fed is better on both surfaces. BC he won in 2011 at RG and has ONE more W. nole has better W% at both W and RG (actually much better at RG)! he has 3 RG titles to feds 1 and that is 2 more but also 200% more. fed has 8 to noles 7 Ws which is 1 more but only 14% more! BUT W20 was canceled and nole was enorm favorite to win it winning 2 previously and 2 after. their h2h at RG is 1-1 and at W is 3-1 to nole and 3-0 in finals! and that is if we just compare slams not going into big titles as masters and OG that nole won at clay! so what logic fed fans use is biggest mystery of the universe!
 
GoatNo1 said:
and it is even funnier if you compare them both on clay AND grass. and fed fans thinks that fed is better on both surfaces. BC he won in 2011 at RG and has ONE more W. nole has better W% at both W and RG (actually much better at RG)! he has 3 RG titles to feds 1 and that is 2 more but also 200% more. fed has 8 to noles 7 Ws which is 1 more but only 14% more! BUT W20 was canceled and nole was enorm favorite to win it winning 2 previously and 2 after. their h2h at RG is 1-1 and at W is 3-1 to nole and 3-0 in finals! and that is if we just compare slams not going into big titles as masters and OG that nole won at clay! so what logic fed fans use is biggest mystery of the universe!
Click to expand...
More exclamation marks, please!

Who are you thinking won the French in 2011?
 
This is a rorschach test in tennis .

Never trust the Federer backers in this question if you meet in real life. Honesty is big part of life job and everything. I would say do not help them in real life as well if this dishonest.
 
There's probably not much in it. Both were denied a lot of clay success by Rafa.

What I would say is that Federer never got the opportunity to play injured Rafa at the French Open, plus he's also the only player to defeat Federer in a final there.
 
Hood_Man said:
There's probably not much in it. Both were denied a lot of clay success by Rafa.

What I would say is that Federer never got the opportunity to play injured Rafa at the French Open, plus he's also the only player to defeat Federer in a final there.
Click to expand...
Basically agree, but I give a slight edge to Djok, despite being a big Fredfan. Sure wish the latter could've won a second one..
 
BauerAlmeida said:
They added it like every other slam did, nothing to do with Djokovic. It's called evolving.

Having matches suspended because of rain or lack of sunlight in this day and age for a Grand Slam would be an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
Sure, sure. But as a Djokovic fan, you surely like these changes.
 
I'd say Peak for Peak:
RG Slight edge for Fed
Rome is Djoker
Monte Carlo Djoker
Madrid slight edge for Fed
Hamburg Fed (though Djoker didn't get to play it much...)

I think overall though, Federer was much more hurt by Nadal's clay dominance than Djoker was.
 
GrassMasters said:
I'd say Peak for Peak:
RG Slight edge for Fed
Rome is Djoker
Monte Carlo Djoker
Madrid slight edge for Fed
Hamburg Fed (though Djoker didn't get to play it much...)

I think overall though, Federer was much more hurt by Nadal's clay dominance than Djoker was.
Click to expand...
.. and we won't talk about Nadal never showing up significantly @ USO until Fred was way past it there..
 
Friendly reminder:



And this is an out of prime Fed vs PEAK Djokovic, who, if he was truly better on clay, has absolutely no excuse to losing
 
Vincent-C said:
Basically agree, but I give a slight edge to Djok, despite being a big Fredfan. Sure wish the latter could've won a second one..
Click to expand...

Yeah, Novak clearly distanced himself from Fed at this point, the body of work is just too much. Peak for peak I still think they're close in a direct match-up in some CC tourneys (including FO).
 
GrassMasters said:
I'd say Peak for Peak:
RG Slight edge for Fed
Rome is Djoker
Monte Carlo Djoker
Madrid slight edge for Fed
Hamburg Fed (though Djoker didn't get to play it much...)

I think overall though, Federer was much more hurt by Nadal's clay dominance than Djoker was.
Click to expand...
as always hypothetical fed is best! while facts told completely different story! AND whole resume is much more important than some hypothetical peak.

but even speaking about peak for peak, as usual, all measurable methods favor nole big time. his clay ELO is much higher (2538 that is 3rd highest ever vs 2453), his seasons clay points (RG and madrid titles and rome F vs RG and madrid titles and rome SF) is higher, as W% and top5 or 10 wins or wins vs rafa! and nole had 3 seasons with 2 big titles on clay while fed had only one such season!
 
GoatNo1 said:
as always hypothetical fed is best! while facts told completely different story! AND whole resume is much more important than some hypothetical peak.

but even speaking about peak for peak, as usual, all measurable methods favor nole big time. his clay ELO is much higher (2538 that is 3rd highest ever vs 2453), his seasons clay points (RG and madrid titles and rome F vs RG and madrid titles and rome SF) is higher, as W% and top5 or 10 wins or wins vs rafa! and nole had 3 seasons with 2 big titles on clay while fed had only one such season!
Click to expand...
Even looking at games win % Federer is nowhere near nole.

This means over entire fields , nole is better than fed. The fans of fed can make Nadal excuse and think they can run away but the stats will not allow them anymore. Eg. Let's take slams semifinals count. Federer zero quarters or below run in with Nadal. Some 8 semis or so.

Djokovic 2 times lost to Nadal in quarters and beat Nadal once in quarters. But still 13 semis..

So when you don't have real numbers all fedfans can resort to is anecdotal evidences. 2011 is one such incidence where fed barely got out of the match in 4.

2012 nole beat him easily is ignored because fed fans lack analysis or honesty. It is one of the two.

2015 is same thing. Nole did not beat Stan but fed faced Stan as well and didn't even break once.

I think a member above is correct. Nole is straight up better on clay and hard. Fed only better on grass. I would add to this saying the gap is lesser on grass than on clay. Hard is just Djokovic again.
 
GoatNo1 said:
as always hypothetical fed is best! while facts told completely different story! AND whole resume is much more important than some hypothetical peak.

but even speaking about peak for peak, as usual, all measurable methods favor nole big time. his clay ELO is much higher (2538 that is 3rd highest ever vs 2453), his seasons clay points (RG and madrid titles and rome F vs RG and madrid titles and rome SF) is higher, as W% and top5 or 10 wins or wins vs rafa! and nole had 3 seasons with 2 big titles on clay while fed had only one such season!
Click to expand...
Djokovic is so clear of Fed its unreal, 3 > 1 , Novak forever better on clay than Fed. Novak might be the 3rd greatest claycourter ever.
 
xFedal said:
Yes Carlos will end up as 2nd or 3 overall when his career is done.
Click to expand...
Not sure who was asked recently if Carlos can actually enter double digit rg and the person said yes. With caveat that every year he fails ,the odds drop.

Maybe Andy Roddick said it or someone
 
You can't just say Hard Grass and Clay. It's obvious each tournament is different just with a quick glance at stats. If hard is hard then why did Novak won 10 AO and "only" 4 USO? Same for clay same for grass.
 
Also I'm sick of this crap about Fedfans living in delulu land and Novakfans being the cold facts ones. You always ignore context, age, level of competition and any other factors that don't suit you. For you it's only numbers and that's that.
Well if that's that and there's no room to discuss, why even bother having any discussion?
 
Exactly.

There is no room to discuss when the gap is that huge. Give up.

What a random agression saying it's only numbers

When we give context like games won % and non Nadal event results and then you come crying back like a kid saying but but 2011.
 
It's only numbers when we compare someone like bil tilden usopen vs Federer. Not just numbers when fed and our nole faced nadal at nadal's peak. And in fact nole faced him more till 2022 where Nadal was winning rg. Unlike your fed who went AWOL for many times in his career on clay.
 
N

Thread 'Big 3 game win rates in absence of other guys'

Federer on clay overall - 56.97%
Federer on clay without Nadal - 57.89%
Federer on clay without Djokovic - 57.21%
Federer on clay without Rafole - 58.17%

Djokovic on clay overall - 58.8%
Djokovic on clay without Nadal - 59.99%
Djokovic on clay without Federer - 58.95%
Djokovic on clay without Fedal - 60.199%

Nadal on clay overall - 63.7%
Nadal on clay without Federer - 63.98%
Nadal on clay without Djokovic - 64.36%
Nadal on clay without Fedkovic - 64.71%

Federer on clay lost close to 1% games more just because of Nadal , 0.24% games due to Djokovic and 1.2% of games due to Rafole...
  • Like

Games won percentage in absence of Nadal

Federer on clay overall - 56.97%
Federer on clay without Nadal - 57.89%

Djokovic on clay overall - 58.8%
Djokovic on clay without Nadal - 59.99%


Over 2% more games won for Djokovic than Federer on clay with and without Nadal in the field.
 
A normal Federer fan will probably already have forgotten such match exists. Fed was number 2. Played Rome finals and Istanbul or some 250 win. Stan in great form thrashes fed. His only slam win.




Showing that losses are part of tennis. No one is unbeatable but context should be that while losses eventually happen, the wins is what matters in tennis. Unlike a normal fed fan saying only 2011 match matters and nothing else.
 
Tennis fans often fixate on a single match or event as a player's "peak" because these moments are emotionally charged and memorable, overshadowing broader statistical analysis. A standout performance—like a dramatic Grand Slam final or an upset against a top rival—can create a narrative of brilliance that resonates more than consistent excellence over time. These iconic moments, amplified by media and fan discussions, become shorthand for a player's greatness.

Statistically, a player's peak is better judged over a sustained period, like a dominant season or multiple titles, but fans are drawn to singular, vivid displays of skill, heart, or clutch performance. For example, a player might have a career-best year in 2015, winning multiple titles, but fans might point to a single epic Wimbledon match as their "peak" because it’s more visceral and easier to rally around.

This tendency is reinforced by:
- **Emotional Impact**: Fans connect with moments of triumph or adversity, like Federer’s 2007 Wimbledon final or Nadal’s 2008 Roland Garros dominance, over abstract stats like win percentages.
- **Media Narratives**: Highlight reels and commentary often elevate single matches, cementing them in collective memory.
- **Recency Bias or Nostalgia**: Fans may overemphasize recent matches or iconic ones from the past, sidelining consistent performance.
- **Rivalries**: Matches between giants like Djokovic-Nadal or Federer-Nadal are often seen as defining peaks due to their competitive intensity, even if they’re outliers.

Stats like career win-loss ratios, titles, or weeks at No. 1 paint a fuller picture but lack the storytelling punch of a single match. Fans prioritize what feels legendary over what’s empirically dominant.
 
In short what AI says is , when fans say peak, these are emotionally charged moments.

Eg. Fed toppling nole on 41 matches streak is matter of pride for fedfans. Just like Nadal toppling fed in Wimbledon 2008 is matter of pride for Nadal fans.

Both matches don't prove that the winner is better player.

But the emotional arguments did exist back in 2010s that peak Nadal would beat peak fed on grass. It's only in recent times after Federer went 6-1 non clay did Nadal fans agree fed best on grass is better than Nadal. What this shows is fans are reactionary in general.
 
Djoker the better clay player over whole careers, no doubt. Really underrated longevity considering he was already making deep RG runs in 2006 and 2007 (fair play to Fed for 2019 ofc). Has the career win % as well which is brilliant for his “worst” surface

Federer has the better prime (fewer losses and issues with mugs) and got the fun of ruining Djoker’s peak clay level season in 2011, that’s pretty much it
 
Last edited:
Fans often focus on specific losses of great tennis players as evidence of a lower peak because these moments stand out emotionally and narratively, overshadowing the broader context of their numerous wins. Here’s why this happens:

- **Emotional Weight of Losses**: High-profile losses, especially in big matches like Grand Slam finals or against rivals, are more memorable because they disrupt expectations. For example, Federer’s loss to Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final is iconic due to its drama and length, even though Federer won five Wimbledons before it. Fans latch onto these moments as they evoke strong reactions.

- **Narrative Bias**: Losses in key matches are often framed by fans and media as defining flaws. A single upset, like Djokovic losing to Wawrinka in the 2015 Roland Garros final, can be used to argue a player’s peak wasn’t “perfect,” despite Djokovic’s 11 titles that year. Stories of failure are stickier than consistent success.

- **Rivalries Amplify Losses**: Losses against arch-rivals (e.g., Federer vs. Nadal, Djokovic vs. Federer) are scrutinized heavily because they fuel fan debates about who’s better. A loss in a head-to-head, like the 2011 Roland Garros match you mentioned where Federer beat Djokovic, can be overemphasized to downplay Djokovic’s streak, even though he won far more matches overall.

- **Selective Memory and Context**: Fans cherry-pick losses that fit their biases or narratives. For instance, a fan might highlight Federer’s 2019 Wimbledon final loss to Djokovic (despite saving match points) to argue he was past his peak, ignoring his 20 Grand Slam titles and consistent excellence.

- **Wins Are Expected**: For greats like Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic, winning is the norm, so victories blend into the background. Losses, especially rare or dramatic ones, stand out as anomalies and get disproportionate attention. For example, Nadal’s 2009 Roland Garros loss to Soderling is often cited to question his clay dominance, despite his 14 titles there.

- **Human Nature**: Fans are drawn to imperfections because they humanize legends. A loss exposes vulnerability, making it easier to critique a player’s peak than to celebrate their overwhelming win count, which can feel abstract or expected.

Statistically, the greats’ peaks are defined by their win percentages, titles, and consistency over years. For instance, Djokovic’s 2015 season (82-6 record, 11 titles) or Federer’s 2006 (92-5, 12 titles) show dominance that far outweighs individual losses. But fans prioritize vivid, emotional moments over data, so a single loss can loom larger than dozens of wins in their perception.
 
GrassMasters said:
You can't just say Hard Grass and Clay. It's obvious each tournament is different just with a quick glance at stats. If hard is hard then why did Novak won 10 AO and "only" 4 USO? Same for clay same for grass.
Click to expand...
fine... take all big tournaments tournament for tournament nole is greater at more than fed or rafa! despite all obstacles (cancellations, deportations, bans)!

in OE nole is
top4 at all 4 slams in titles!
top2 at all 4 slams in finals!
top3 at all 4 slams in W%!

1st at WTF in titles!
2nd at OG (muzza 1st)

masters titlesno1efedrafa
IW553
miami640
MC2011
madrid/hamburg365
rome6010
canada425
cinci371
shanghai/madrid421
paris710
total402836
golden masters200

so nole is greater than fed at 6 while fed is greater at 2 out of 9 masters and they are tied at 1!
nole is greater than rafa at 5 while rafa is greater than nole at 4 out of 9 masters!
fed is greater than rafa at 6 while rafa is greater than fed at 3 out of 9 masters!
 
Last edited:
Texas Tennis Fan said:
You are really going to end the debate because of one match?

Maybe Federer was better than Djokovic at his peak for a year or two on clay but the overall work doesn't support it.

Federer won his only RG when someone else took out Nadal. He never took Nadal to even 5 sets at RG despite multiple opportunities. He never won MC or Rome on clay.

Djokovic took out Nadal twice, took him to five sets at RG once, and has won 3 times at all the Masters 1000s other than MC where he only has two.

For a career, it is not even close.
Click to expand...
Nadal post 2014 was.nothing like pre 2011 that's a bad comparison
 
messiahrobins said:
Federer was even further from his peak lol
Click to expand...
so fed was in his peak on clay only in 2009 i supposed. when he was 28 YO. AND rafas peak was at the same time as feds peak but not as noles despite that rafa is 5 years younger than fed and peer with nole! but noles peak was even when fed and rafa had decline, when he (and rafa) was 29, 34 and 36! so fed was greater than nole because he was always spanked very ugly by greater version of rafa than the version that nole actually won over! and he has more hypothetical RG titles than nole has real ones. Hmm... :unsure: . .. looks very logical and accurate!
 
messiahrobins said:
This. That 2011 match between Federer and Djokovic literally ended any debate. The guy to ask this question to in a few years time is in fact Nadal.
Click to expand...

Not only Federer beat peak Djokovic on clay, but he snapped Djokovic's 41-match winning streak that year.

federer%20finger%20wag.gif.opt273x181o0,0s273x181.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Poll Poll
Nadal Indoors vs Murray on Clay
Replies
12
Views
1K
Djokovic2011
Djokovic2011
Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
[POLL] Is Djokovic better on clay or Nadal on hard outdoor?
2 3
Replies
149
Views
7K
Winner Sinner
Winner Sinner
clout
  • Poll Poll
Better clay courter: Thiem or Murray?
2 3
Replies
124
Views
7K
AnOctorokForDinner
AnOctorokForDinner
Winner Sinner
How competitive Fedkovic was on clay compared to other surfaces
2
Replies
95
Views
4K
thrust
T
3fees
A Select few Career Titles/Finals 2011-13
Replies
2
Views
781
Def
Def
Back
Top