Clay champions in this Nadal era

[uscwang]

Nadal has his dynasty on clay since 2005, and has won the majority of big clay titles.

From 2005 to 2020 before RG,
RG: Nadal 12, Federer/Wawrinka/Djokovic 1
MC: Nadal 11, Djokovic 2, Wawrinka/Fognini 1
Hamburg(2005-2008)/Madrid(2009-present): Nadal 5, Federer 4, Djokovic 3, Robredo/Murray/Zverev 1
Rome: Nadal 9, Djokovic 5, Murray/Zverev 1

All together:
Nadal 37! (61% of 61)
Djokovic 11 (18%)
Federer 5 (8%) (+2 Hamburg B. N., before Nadal's Era)
Stan/Murray/Zverev 2, Robredo/Fognini 1 (total 13%)

 

[ND-13]

Clay Monster.

 

[Tenacity]

Clay GOAT always and forever. Truly a beast and so epic!

 

[weakera]

Not surprising that Djokovic picked up 4 of those titles from 2015-2016

 

[The Blond Blur]

 

[SinneGOAT]

Correct me if I’m wrong but was Madrid always clay? Cause in 2005 Nadal played Davydenko on a hard court in Madrid, but now it’s clay. When was the switch? Was it just a separate location?

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Correct me if I’m wrong but was Madrid always clay? Cause in 2005 Nadal played Davydenko on a hard court in Madrid, but now it’s clay. When was the switch? Was it just a separate location?

So the indoor tournament in 2005 was replaced by Shanghai in 2009. So 'Mutua Madrid' as it was called then too replaced Hamburg as the new 1000 masters, also in 2009.

So technically same tournament but different surface and different slot on the Masters calendar

 

[Feather]

Correct me if I’m wrong but was Madrid always clay? Cause in 2005 Nadal played Davydenko on a hard court in Madrid, but now it’s clay. When was the switch? Was it just a separate location?

Madrid replaced Hamburg clay masters from 2009 onwards.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Nadal has his dynasty on clay since 2005, and has won the over majority of big clay titles.
RG: Nadal 12, Federer/Stan/Djokovic 1
MC: Nadal 11, Djokovic 2, Stan/Fognini 1
Hamburg/Madrid: Nadal 5, Federer 4, Djokovic 3, Robredo/Murray/Zverev 1
Rome: Nadal 9, Djokovic 5, Murray/Zverev 1

All together:
Nadal 37! (60%)
Djokovic 11
Federer 5
Stan/Murray/Zverev 2
Robredo/Fognini 1

Doesn't Fed have 7 titles. FO, 4 Hamburg and 2 Madrid?

 

[MeatTornado]

dae rafa clay gud?

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Doesn't Fed have 7 titles. FO, 4 Hamburg and 2 Madrid?

Exactly OP needs to be edited ASAP. Also, as @weakera mentioned, 4 of those came in 2015-16. Take that away and suddenly the truth appears that Federer and Djokovic are pretty even on clay overall.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Exactly OP needs to be edited ASAP. Also, as @weakera mentioned, 4 of those came in 2015-16. Take that away and suddenly the truth appears that Federer and Djokovic are pretty even on clay overall.

Sure, Lol

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Sure, Lol

And the Rome 250 he just won.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

And the Rome 250 he just won.

What about the 250 point GS Fed won between 2003-2007 and 2017-2018? Let's remove those too

 

[uscwang]

Doesn't Fed have 7 titles. FO, 4 Hamburg and 2 Madrid?

Not since 2005.

 

[Third Serve]

What about the 250 point GS Fed won between 2003-2007 and 2017-2018? Let's remove those too

Hardly comparable (well, except for 2017 W).

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Hardly comparable (well, except for 2017 W).

Well, if it was upto me, everything is valid. But PeoplesChamp's 'weak era' logic can and should be applied equally to 2003-07, 2014-16 and 2017-Present

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

GOATredo

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Well, if it was upto me, everything is valid. But PeoplesChamp's 'weak era' logic can and should be applied equally to 2003-07, 2014-16 and 2017-Present

This is a thread about clay. Not specifically slams or any of that. 2015-2016 was a huge opening for Djokovic there. One Federer never had during his peak. Stay on topic.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Hardly comparable (well, except for 2017 W).

Even it had Berdych.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

This is a thread about clay. Not specifically slams or any of that. 2015-2016 was a huge opening for Djokovic there. One Federer never had during his peak. Stay on topic.

I can argue that Wawrinka is as bad a matchup for Novak as Nadal is for Federer. Apart from that, the next challengers were Murray/old Fed who were still
way better than Roddick, Gonzales, Safin etc on clay. Can't really say it was any weaker than Fed's era according to your logic

 

[PeoplesChamp]

I can argue that Wawrinka is as bad a matchup for Novak as Nadal is for Federer. Apart from that, the next challengers were Murray/old Fed who were still
way better than Roddick, Gonzales, Safin etc on clay. Can't really say it was any weaker than Fed's era according to your knowledge

Djokovic didn't beat Wawrinka for those titles. We are talking about wins. Not losses. He went through Murray, Old Fed, and Crapdal.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Djokovic didn't beat Wawrinka for those titles. We are talking about wins. Not losses. He went through Murray, Old Fed, and Crapdal.

So what, Djokovic has defeated Nadal in his prime in MC, Madrid and Rome in 2011-2013! His 2015 version could also have taken down Nadal. Fed managed good victories at Hamburg but that's it. He couldn't make his way through at MC and Rome.

It's clear that Djokovic has a better clay resume, although almost equal considering they both have only 1 RG each.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

So what, Djokovic has defeated Nadal in his prime in MC, Madrid and Rome in 2011-2013! His 2015 version could also have taken down Nadal. Fed managed good victories at Hamburg but that's it. He couldn't make his way through at MC and Rome.

It's clear that Djokovic has a better clay resume, although almost equal considering they both have only 1 RG each.

Federer had to deal with the peakiest of Nadal. Djokovic only saw that in spurts. 2011 Nadal wasn't that good and neither was 2013. He scraped by to win RG both years. 2012 Nadal was really good and Djokovic got spanked. Numvers go to Djokovic but only because of weaker competition. I'd put peak Fed up against peak Djokovic on clay any time buddy. 2011 RG is all the proof that is needed.

 

[Third Serve]

Well, if it was upto me, everything is valid. But PeoplesChamp's 'weak era' logic can and should be applied equally to 2003-07, 2014-16 and 2017-Present

Fair, but there are levels to this.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Fair, but there are levels to this.

It's not that complicated. Djokovic added extra clay titles after Fed was too old and when Nadal was sheet. End of story.

 

[Third Serve]

It's not that complicated. Djokovic added extra clay titles after Fed was too old and Nadal was ****te. End of story.

No no no, when I say there are levels to this, I mean that these weak eras aren't equal. They have different levels. 2014-2016 was fairly lackluster, but not as bad as 2017-present, etc.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Federer had to deal with the peakiest of Nadal. Djokovic only saw that in spurts. 2011 Nadal wasn't that good and neither was 2013. He scraped by to win RG both years. 2012 Nadal was really good and Djokovic got spanked. Numvers go to Djokovic but only because of weaker competition. I'd put peak Fed up against peak Djokovic on clay any time buddy. 2011 RG is all the proof that is needed.

That is debatable. Not that 2005-2008 Nadal wasn't peak, but the fact that 2010-2013 Nadal was as good. The clay competition wasn't that great in 2005-08, Federer, Coria, Davydenko and young Djokovic? Only Fed was his best opponent that too he had such a big match-up advantage with.

2010-2013 had prime Djokovic, pre-Old Fed, Soderling, Murray etc. who were a better clay competition. That is why he didn't have that many streaks as he had in 2005-2007. The levels were pretty much the same

 

[PeoplesChamp]

No no no, when I say there are levels to this, I mean that these weak eras aren't equal. They have different levels. 2014-2016 was fairly lackluster, but not as bad as 2017-present, etc.

Ok but this thread is about clay titles and its basically to try and make Djokovic look like a clear 2nd best. All that other crap is besides the point.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Ok but this thread is about clay titles and its basically to try and make Djokovic look like a clear 2nd best. All that other crap is besides the point.

Definitely not clear, at the end of the day masters are not in the league of slams and there they have 1 each. Novak is just a tad ahead because of these other achievements

 

[junior74]

Hardly comparable (well, except for 2017 W).

Federer was just too good there. Like Novak AO19. No competition...

 

[Third Serve]

Ok but this thread is about clay titles and its basically to try and make Djokovic look like a clear 2nd best. All that other crap is besides the point.

The thread is, but we were venturing off on a tangent (post 14).

Either way, I agree with the central premise that Djokovic had a very easy stretch on clay from 2014-2015. He won titles there that I believe a 2004-2007 Fed could have won as well.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Definitely not clear, at the end of the day masters are not in the league of slams and there they have 1 each. Novak is just a tad ahead because of these other achievements

Fair enough, but how he obtained the advantage is the issue. I'm just saying that the OP has to be put into perspective. That's all.

 

[Mainad]

Correct me if I’m wrong but was Madrid always clay? Cause in 2005 Nadal played Davydenko on a hard court in Madrid, but now it’s clay. When was the switch? Was it just a separate location?

Madrid was played on indoor hardcourt from 2002-2008 in the autumn/fall following the US Open. In 2009 it became a spring claycourt event in place of Hamburg with Shanghai takng its former spot as an autumn hardcourt event.

Nadal won the title in 2005 when it was still played on hardcourt beating Ljubicic in a 5 set thriller. It remains to this day his only indoor hardcourt title.

 

[daggerman]

Well, if it was upto me, everything is valid. But PeoplesChamp's 'weak era' logic can and should be applied equally to 2003-07, 2014-16 and 2017-Present

I agree that everything should be considered valid, but why are we in the business of calling every era that isn't literally the strongest era of all time (08-13) a "weak era?" Why are we this cynical?

 

[itrium84]

Exactly OP needs to be edited ASAP. Also, as @weakera mentioned, 4 of those came in 2015-16. Take that away and suddenly the truth appears that Federer and Djokovic are pretty even on clay overall.

Yeah, also - when you take away 4 GS titles from Fed, suddenly the truth appears that Djokovic is in front of Fed in GOAT race.

 

[itrium84]

Federer had to deal with the peakiest of Nadal. Djokovic only saw that in spurts. 2011 Nadal wasn't that good and neither was 2013. He scraped by to win RG both years. 2012 Nadal was really good and Djokovic got spanked. Numvers go to Djokovic but only because of weaker competition. I'd put peak Fed up against peak Djokovic on clay any time buddy. 2011 RG is all the proof that is needed.

2011/12 Nadal was the peakiest Nadal ever. He basically won everybody and anybody everywhere, on every surface - except BOATing Novak that blocked him from winning 5 GS in a row, overcoming Laver and becoming undisputed GOAT.

 

[itrium84]

Ok but this thread is about clay titles and its basically to try and make Djokovic look like a clear 2nd best. All that other crap is besides the point.

It's clear as day.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

 

[Djokovic2011]

Ok but this thread is about clay titles and its basically to try and make Djokovic look like a clear 2nd best. All that other crap is besides the point.

Djokovic is clear 2nd best on clay. Has been for some time now.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Djokovic is clear 2nd best on clay. Has been for some time now.

Statistically yeah. In reality, no.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Statistically yeah. In reality, no.

Reality is overrated.

 

[mike danny]

Not since 2005.

This logic is so faulty. Nadal was as much of a threat in 2015 as in 2004 and 2002.

 

[itrium84]

Statistically yeah. In reality, no.

Nadal is statistically no1 on clay. But, is that reality? Maybe not.

 

[Third Serve]

This logic is so faulty. Nadal was as much of a threat in 2015 as in 2004 and 2002.

Nah, he was a little better. But only a little.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Exactly OP needs to be edited ASAP. Also, as @weakera mentioned, 4 of those came in 2015-16. Take that away and suddenly the truth appears that Federer and Djokovic are pretty even on clay overall.

Ok , If Djokers 2015- 16 clay titles are removed then Feds 2009 clay titles also gets removed .

 

[WildRevolver]

Who has the most blue clay titles? That is the real argument!

 

[duaneeo]

The clay competition wasn't that great in 2005-08, Federer, Coria, Davydenko and young Djokovic?

2010-2013 had prime Djokovic, pre-Old Fed, Soderling, Murray etc. who were a better clay competition.

Djokovic didn't hit his stride until 2011 (and, he didn't meet Rafa on clay in 2010), so 2011-2014 is a better comparison to 2005- 2008.

Djokovic was just barely 'better' clay competition to Rafa than Roger was those years. He won consecutive clay Masters against Nadal (in 2011), but suffered 3 consecutive losses to him at the big kahuna. Had he made the final in 2011, he may have suffered 4 consecutive losses (like Roger did to Nadal from 2005 - 2008). Those other players you named as "better clay competition"? Soderling was going-gone; peak/prime Fed wasn't competition, so no need to mention pre-old Fed; and Murray?? LOL!!

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Ok , If Djokers 2015- 16 clay titles are removed then Feds 2009 clay titles also gets removed .

Why would we remove Fed's 2009 titles after he stopped a 33 match clay winning streak from Nadal in Madrid?

 

[maratha_warrior]

Why would we remove Fed's 2009 titles after he stopped a 34 match clay winning streak from Nadal in Madrid?

lol
Djoker did all the hard work for fed and tired out Nadal isn't it . Madrid is still the longest 3 set clay match and one of the greatest matches .
Jumping over fed breaking Nadal's 34 match win streak is like Djoker ending Nadal's 5 RG streak in 2015 , it's versus a tired or out of form Nadal

Also , at RG both Novak in 2016 and fed at 2009 didn't face Nadal . cancel both .