Djokovic is better than Federer on clay

What are the facts that show Djokovic has a better record on clay. 2 more Masters 1000's yes - but an inferior record at Roland Garros. And the masters gap softened by the fact that Federer has twice as many runner-ups at that level. What are these facts that you speak of? To mE they are extremely close - though I do concede that Djokovc's diversity of masters 1000 wins is a factor in his favour. It is very close though
Both with 1 title, 1 more final, 1 less semi, and the same number of quarters. If finals have value, so do semis and quarters. Or another way to look at it is Djokovic has 2 extra semi final showings/defeats vs Fed's 1 extra final defeat/runner up. So their RG records are a tie, and that is without even considering at all that Djokovic lost 3 times to Rafa in the semis, Federer only 1 time. I laugh how you are sure to point out Fed's extra runner ups in Masters, but completely ignore Djokovic's 2 additional semi final defeats and being 1 ahead in both semis and quarters at RG. Just more of your hypocricy which I will get into more later. Also the difference between winning and finals is always considerably more to anyone than the difference between a final and semi final (which I am sure you are fully aware even if you attempt to play dumb).

So Fed has no edge at RG really, and he is way behind in Masters, 8 titles to 6, but even more imporantly not winning Rome and Monte Carlo even once, while Djokovic has multiple titles at all 3 active Masters in his career, and Rome which is generally the most prestigious event outside of RG Djokovic leads 4 to 0. Even crediting extra finals he still is considerably behind when you factor in Djokovic winning all 3 Masters of his day multiple times vs Fed winning only 2 of 4 of his time at all (not winning at the only 2 that were in place his whole career and the 2 that are by far the oldest and most highly regarded too), and Djokovic wining the most prestigious clay event outside of RG a whopping 4 times to 0 for Fed.

He also is now slightly behind Djokovic in clay titles, although given that completely dismiss Vilas and Muster having 4 or 5 times the clay titles of Federer, apparently that is irrelevant when it goes against Federer (just as anything for you that goes against Fed or any player you prefer as your slanted arguments on Lendl vs Connors prove emphatically).

Sorry timnz, it is well known you are a Fed fanatic (not as big as you are a Lendl fanatic mind you, lol) but you lose this one. That you had to manipulate points to credit Fed with Masters runners up, yet completely ignore Roland Garros semis which are worth more points than Masters runners up (all due to knowing Djokovic has 2 more semi final defeats at RG than Fed, so it was a sneaky way to manipulate facts and stats even using your majorly flawed points = absolute value formula you had to purposely cheat to get your desired outcome) only serves as evidence you are even aware of that.
 
Last edited:
A proof of timnz's manipulation is he/she based his whole argument here around ATP points = exact value (truly bizarre, but fine as long as you are consistent). Yet keeps insisting Fed has a clear edge in his RG record to make a case for him (while conceding his Masters record is inferior even with the extra finals overemphasis) when in fact going looking at their titles, finals, and semis, Djokovic collected more points than Federer at Roland Garros:

Federer- 1 titles (1000 points), 4 runner ups (4800 points), 2 semis (1440 points) = 6240 points
Djokovic- 1 title (1000 points), 3 runner ups (3600 points), 4 semis (2880 points) - 6480 points

Now looking at only titles and finals would have been acceptable and made his claim right except he has insisted looking at Masters final while basing his entire argument around ATP points, when Masters finals are worth LESS ATP points than Slam semis, so based on his deeming Masters finals as neccessary to regard obviously Slam semis would be too if he were really basing his arguments around something consistent and sound to begin with.

The exact same type of games he tried to play in our Lendl vs Connors debate, where I spotted his obvious bias and attempt at manipulation to ensure favor for Lendl easily despite that I actually like Lendl better than Connors myself.
 

timnz

Legend
I think in the grand scheme of things people will say the guy with more clay titles overall is greater if they have the same number of RGs. But I can respect calling them basically even at this point. I also reward Djokovic for beating Nadal at RG. If Djokovic ends up with 1 more RG final or title than Federer, would you put him ahead?
Of course, all other things being equal. But at the moment he is behind Federer at Roland Garros
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
They are very similar in their clay accomplishments. Both would have multiple FO titles had they not been forced to play final upon final against the clay GOAT.

Both would also be ATGs on the surface if Nadal hadn't made them look bad.
I think Djokovic gets a slight edge for a better resume at Masters 1000 and for a much better record against Nadal on the surface.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Achievement wise yes.
Peak wise, no.
Please see 2011 for further information.
Merci :giggle:
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
2011 was prime Nole. He can’t beat Federer on clay in prime? Ok.
I just find it funny how people use one very close match as total proof of peak superiority from one player, when the very next year Djokovic beat Federer in straights in a year the swiss was much more accomplished.

Obviously, a circumstance of a barely moving Kuerten beating Federer in straights in one of his peak years or Nadal beating Federer in Wimbledon and Australian Open would make theirs a higher peak. Things like that disregard that matches between great players many times boil down to how one or two key points are played or a slightly higher or lower serving percentage from one of them can make all the difference.
 

Kralingen

Legend
I just find it funny how people use one very close match as total proof of peak superiority from one player, when the very next year Djokovic beat Federer in straights in a year the swiss was much more accomplished.

Obviously, a circumstance of a barely moving Kuerten beating Federer in straights in one of his peak years or Nadal beating Federer in Wimbledon and Australian Open would make theirs a higher peak. Things like that disregard that matches between great players many times boil down to how one or two key points are played or a slightly higher or lower serving percentage from one of them can make all the difference.
look man, you really need to calm down on the sensible, circumspect posts driven by logic. That kind of stuff just doesn’t fly around here.
 

Turing

Rookie
Federer was better. Djokovic got lucky playing a weaker Nadal and not having BO5 clay masters. Not to mention weaker overall clay field (Murray in an RG final lol).
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I mean even when Djoko won in 2016, voices about one match came to everybodies attention suddenly and accomplishments got disregarded. I can see that hasn't changed one bit still despite Djokovic's career and ability he has showcased to win everything there is on the surface not once but multiple times. A match in the summer of 2011 is the be end all despite this player having several holes in the resume. Lets push the narrative some more.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Federer was better. Djokovic got lucky playing a weaker Nadal and not having BO5 clay masters. Not to mention weaker overall clay field (Murray in an RG final lol).
10 clay court masters -> 6 Clay court masters
2 French Opens -> 1 French Open (In the final...against Soderling, who bend his knee before his master, cuz he didn't want to disappoint him and gladly lost so he could achieve career grand slam! At least Murray actually fought for a while! LOL)
6 French Open finals -> 5 French Open finals
17 clay court titles -> 11 clay court titles
2 victories over Nadal at RG -> not a single one
Any more arguments?...
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
10 clay court masters -> 6 Clay court masters
2 French Opens -> 1 French Open (In the final...against Soderling, who bend his knee before his master, cuz he didn't want to disappoint him and gladly lost so he could achieve career grand slam! At least Murray actually fought for a while! LOL)
6 French Open finals -> 5 French Open finals
17 clay court titles -> 11 clay court titles
2 victories over Nadal at RG -> not a single one
Any more arguments?...
But did you see what happened in 2011? Lol.

Your post should pinned at the top (except the Soderling part) and end the convo for good. It's a straight knockout.
 

Turing

Rookie
10 clay court masters -> 6 Clay court masters
Weak field, none BO5
2 French Opens -> 1 French Open (In the final...against Soderling, who bend his knee before his master, cuz he didn't want to disappoint him and gladly lost so he could achieve career grand slam! At least Murray actually fought for a while! LOL)
Weak field
6 French Open finals -> 5 French Open finals
Weak field
17 clay court titles -> 11 clay court titles
Weak field
2 victories over Nadal at RG -> not a single one
Worst versions of Nadal with 1/10th of the speed, athleticism, and ballstriking he had in his prime
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
10 clay court masters -> 6 Clay court masters
2 French Opens -> 1 French Open (In the final...against Soderling, who bend his knee before his master, cuz he didn't want to disappoint him and gladly lost so he could achieve career grand slam! At least Murray actually fought for a while! LOL)
6 French Open finals -> 5 French Open finals
17 clay court titles -> 11 clay court titles
2 victories over Nadal at RG -> not a single one
Any more arguments?...
Yes.
80.5% win percentage > 76.1% win percentage.
45-32 against the top 10 > 32-29 against the top 10
 

Hayole

Rookie
I love the "he beat a weak Nadal "arguments from Federer fans

Only man to heat Nadal in a Rome final, Madrid final, Monte Carlo final and at Roland Garros

No one has even achieved 2/4 so if it was that easy.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZYW

ompluscator

New User
All of those stats, titles and h2h are irrelevant, as we all know that the most important fact for measuring who is better of them two is actually ho had more beautiful backend on their match on RG 11.
 

Tennisfan339

Professional
All of those stats, titles and h2h are irrelevant, as we all know that the most important fact for measuring who is better of them two is actually ho had more beautiful backend on their match on RG 11.
All jokes aside, that 2011 Seminfinal was the best Fedovic match ever, in terms of level of tennis. Some matchs (BO3, like the Montreal final or BO5, like the USO Semifinal) were more dramatic and/or longer, but no other Fedovic reached this level, intensity and amount of long and spectacular rallys.

The 2012 SF was one of their worst matchs on the other hand. Even Djokovic's level (who won in 3) was not as good. He was playing the same way he did against Tsonga and Seppi in his previous matchs, but Federer was beyond garbage that way.
 

Ovie

New User
All jokes aside, that 2011 Seminfinal was the best Fedovic match ever, in terms of level of tennis. Some matchs (BO3, like the Montreal final or BO5, like the USO Semifinal) were more dramatic and/or longer, but no other Fedovic reached this level, intensity and amount of long and spectacular rallys.

The 2012 SF was one of their worst matchs on the other hand. Even Djokovic's level (who won in 3) was not as good. He was playing the same way he did against Tsonga and Seppi in his previous matchs, but Federer was beyond garbage that way.
What did I just read?
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Came across this infallible analysis of mine from 2016 while digging thru my old dissertations:

Even before this FO final I suspected Novak is the better clay-courter for the simple reason he's the better grinder. Now I know some Fed supporters will point to that '11 SF meeting between the two, but the thing is anyone can have a hot serving day and string together an enough number of winners even on the slowest surface (see Verkerk at '03 RG). Clay-court tennis rewards patience over anything else and while neither is an old-school grinder with exceptionally high shot tolerance (forget Borg or Nadal, the likes of Lendl, Wilander, Courier and Bruguera would've driven them crazy) the fact of the matter is Novak is just a tad better at this thing than Fed, and certainly has enough firepower to fall back on when necessary. And I do think today's result tips the scales more towards Djoko.
Now the longer version. Some of you jokers may have perused my closer look at Novak's seasonal GW%s on clay, but since this is a more appropriate thread for those #s let's reproduce 'em here, including TBs but excluding DC stats and updated with last and this year's %s:

2004 - 44.9%
2005 - 54.5%
2006 - 58.0%
2007 - 54.4%
2008 - 61.4%
2009 - 60.3%
2010 - 58.7%
2011 - 63.0%
2012 - 57.6%
2013 - 59.2%
2014 - 60.6%
2015 - 62.2%
2016 - 60.0%
2017 - 56.8%
2018 - 56.8%
2019 - 59.6%
2020 - 61.9%
2021 - 61.5%
Career - 59.2%

So Djoker's career average almost suffices for lifetime admission to the 60% Club. Apart from Rafa, Borg and probably Lendl I doubt any of the other multi-FOers comes close, which reinforces my observation that Nole's day-to-day reliability is 2nd to none.

But what about Fed, you ask? Here are Fed's GW%s, again including TBs but excluding DC #s:

1998 - 40% (his very 1st tour-level match!)
1999 - 32.4%*
2000 - 45.1%
2001 - 51.0%
2002 - 54.2%**
2003 - 59.8%
2004 - 59.8%
2005 - 60.9%
2006 - 59.1%
2007 - 58.0%
2008 - 58.3%
2009 - 58.4%
2010 - 57.0%
2011 - 56.6%
2012 - 58.0%
2013 - 56.5%
2014 - 57.0%
2015 - 57.1%
2016 - 54.5%
2017 - N/A
2018 - N/A
2019 - 56.9%
2020 - N/A
2021 - 55.2%
Career - 56.7%

*An atypical error from @slice serve ace when he said the ATP counted aces and DFs twice for Slam matches from 1992-99. In fact the '92 AO was spared this double counting and '98 was the last year with distorted service/return stats for each of the four majors (hat tips to krosero). For '99 only the AO and Wimby were subjected to this bastardization, so what you see on the ATP site for Fed's Slam debut (excluding qualifying rounds) vs. Rafter matches RG's official stats shown at the end of this Eurosport coverage:


**Match stats for Fed's 1st round vs. Zabaleta at '02 MC are missing from the ATP database (I've tried several other sites including TA and TennisLive.net, but no cigar), and while I was able to fill in the overall GW% and get the correct seasonal % this lacuna is preventing moi from putting together a 100% complete overview of Fred's career. If you happen to be a die-hard fan with recorded footage of this match and willing to gather the service/return stats or just share the video, let me know. (Ditto his 2nd-rounder vs. Popp at '99 Basel and his Olympic matches at '00 Sydney and '04 Athens. I actually have most of his DC stats but choose to exclude them from these player comparisons for consistency's sake.)

So Fed actually cracks the all-important 60% only once without rounding up, and even his career-high of 60.9% in '05 just barely eclipses Pistol's, Rios' and Murray's and falls short of Coria's and Ferrer's. Now the latter's lack of size and firepower does render this comparison rather moot, but at the very least it's fair to say Novak edges out Fed vs. the rest of the field.

Of course this is where the Federer camp point to the '11 FO SF and claim checkmate, and it also must be acknowledged that '15 and '21 were easily the worst versions of Nadal. But we all know anyone can get hot for one match, or what happened in the '12 rematch. A more instructive comparison must surely be based on a bigger sample size, no?

So let's look at their deep runs at RG, defined here as SF or beyond. Novak's 1st (again the GW%s include TBs):

2007 - 54.9%
2008 - 58.7%
2011 - 60.1%
2012 - 59.5%
2013 - 59.0%
2014 - 60.7%
2015 - 60.9%
2016 - 64.9%
2019 - 63.0%
2020 - 62.1%
2021 - 62.2%

As you can see Nole's best %s have come mostly in his 30s, which does support the idea that we're stuck with a truly godawful men's field at the moment, but then he has flirted with the 60% mark before so you know the guy was a legit FO contender at least since '08.

Now Fed's #s:

2005 - 61.1%
2006 - 59.9%
2007 - 59.0%
2008 - 57.1%
2009 - 58.4%
2011 - 58.7%
2012 - 57.3%
2019 - 57.3%

As you can see the one big outlier here is '16 Djoker vs. a gimme draw, why I keep telling y'all that Fed or even Nole ain't beating peak Bruguera or Courier most of the time on terre battue. That said Novak still holds the edge at RG, if perhaps not big enough to withstand Fed firing on all cylinders a la '06 Rome or '11 RG.

Hence the party line about Fed having a higher "peak," but as I like to say what really matters especially on clay is not how high but how often/long, and it's clear Novak's superior grinding game makes him the better dirtballer. I do think these two would be close peak to peak, but against the whole field you'd be wise to pick Djoker.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
1 more RG
Won all the clay masters multiple times, defeating peak Nadal at each event
2 wins over Nadal at RG
1-1 in RG meetings
 

Vanilla Slice

Professional
There is ZERO argument to be made that Federer was/is better on clay than Djokovic over the course of their careers.

Federer fans will always have 2011 - which was perhaps the best overall quality Fed-Djoker match I have witnessed.
 
Top