Tennisanity
Legend
He was destroying Nadal on clay since 2011. Why didn't he win FO until 2016?
Djokovic is better than Federer on clay
- Thread starter mike danny
- Start date
He was destroying Nadal on clay since 2011. Why didn't he win FO until 2016?
mattosgrant
Banned
Thanks
But IMO, Roger is still a bit ahead on HC. But if Nole beats him WTF record and his HC slams record, he is truly ahead
Just my 2 cents. Novak is not yet there on HC.
If Novak can win the U.S Open and the WTF this year I would seriously consider putting Novak ahead on hard courts, although I would have to give it some thought still. Novak is well ahead of Roger in hard court Masters already and would have the same # of slams and WTF titles but. However 5-4 is more balanced than 6-3 and while they are essentialy equal in this day in age I rate the U.S Open slightly more prestigious than the Australian. So a tough choice at that point. If Novak gets to 10 hard court slams it would be almost impossible to argue against him, although I still might if he gets there with only 2 U.S Opens but I think that is pretty unlikely.
The ironic thing is if Novak passes Roger on 2 of 3 major surfaces he probably wont be ahead of him overall at that point (atleast not yet, could in the future sometime after that). Perhaps even nowhere close. So that just shows the past argument of Federer fans/Nadal haters against Nadal that Nadal could never be over Federer or even Pete Sampras due to being behind on 2 of 3 surfaces is hogwash. Things just don't work like that. Nadal will never pass Federer now probably ,but if he had reached 17 or 18 slams it wouldn't have mattered that he was only better on clay, and if he still gets to 15 or 16 he is better than Sampras regardless if he is only better on clay.
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
Hamburg was a Masters tournament for eight years. Federer and Nadal won the tournament and its replacement.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
Gassed either mentally or physically. Ppl are not machines u know.
In my opinion novak would have won 15 RG had he not met nadal in the quarters. He peaked in the wrong match. That took too much out of him mentally, having known he beat nadal he might have gone complacent as well.
Let's just disagree.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
the only way fed could win it was someone took out nadal. otherwise no.fed never beat nadal in paris. nole did.
Beating Nadal in Paris means nothing. SODERLING did it.... where are his clay majors?
mattosgrant
Banned
It doesn't count since the last one Djokovic played was at age 20. Had a Masters been cancelled when Federer was 20 I wouldn't hold that against him either.
Regardless 4 Rome titles, 2 Monte Carlo titles, and 2 Madrid titles is a WAY better Masters resume than 4 Hamburg titles and 2 Madrid titles. No contest.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Novak played it for 3 years, his first year being when he was 18 (he turned 19 on the day of the final, which he wasn't in). It was replaced by another tournament which Novak won. Federer hasn't won Rome in over a decade. That's a difference. If we can't agree to that, I don't know what else to say. I can't argue over something so simple.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
Lets just disagree.
Give peak fed noles draw in 15 RG, and i dont think fed has a bigger chance to win the title than novak did.
Really, there is 0 evidence he would do better.
And u forgot who peak fed faced in his slam wins. Weaker players than murray.
mattosgrant
Banned
I hope Novak wins the U.S Open more than the Australian Open in the future. I only want him to win another Australian Open so he can break clear of Emerson (who also has 6), and beyond that I don't care.
kalyan4fedever
Legend
Federer beat peak Novak in 2011 and then his decline started later in 2012 due to age...So no one can be sure, fed might as well kicked novak on clay in his prime
Incognito
Legend
2013 was not Nadal's best on clay and grass. HCs probably. Although he served better in 2010 USO.
But you said "Fed's brain gets core dump" when he sees Nadal. 2008 Wimbledon, Federer was already outside his peak, but could have won that as well. 2006/2007 proves that Federer can beat Nadal at majors. 2009? Nadal wasn't even at Wimbledon LOL. It seems it your brain that is having a "core dump".
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah since both Nadal (yes even declined post prime Nadal, this is Nadal-Fed and Nadal-Fed on clay we are talking) and on fire Wawrinka (who even if he is Fed's b-tch has a 6-4, 6-1 over prime Fed on clay way before his own late career prime) would both have a real shot to beat him. Possibly even Murray considering as strange as it is Murray was a much tougher opponent for a younger Fed in 2008-2010 than old man Federer. There is no certainty Fed would have won the title that year. It isn't anymore likely than Djokovic would have been able to possibly top young Nadal of 05 or 06 at RG which Fed couldn't.
Tennisanity
Legend
No evidence? Are you kidding me? Did you miss 2011? He was a drop shot away from being up 2 sets on Nadal in that FO. And while Nadal was not at his best on clay in 2011, Nadal 2011 >>>>> Nadal 2015. And that was Fed of 2011, played great against Djoko but still not near his 2006 all round level and confidence. That is plenty of evidence that 2006 Fed would have cleaned up at FO2015.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
2013 was not Nadal's best on clay and grass. HCs probably. Although he served better in 2010 USO.
But you said "Fed's brain gets core dump" when he sees Nadal. 2008 Wimbledon, Federer was already outside his peak, but could have won that as well. 2006/2007 proves that Federer can beat Nadal at majors. 2009? Nadal wasn't even at Wimbledon LOL. It seems it your brain that is having a "core dump".
09 AO mate. 08 fed oustside of peak? Did i even say only peak fed gets core dump? Or did i just say fed? Theres not even an agreed definition of peak vs non peak. I could say fed was peak all the way till 2010.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Novak's second best surface has always been clay, not grass, but luck has given him better odds at Wimbledon. I'm not the slightest bit surprised Novak won today.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
Tennisanity
Legend
Nah, you're contradicting yourself again. You want to consider matchups in Djokovic-Nadal and Fed-Nadal, yes Djokovic is a much better matchup for Nadal than Fed. But then you also have to consider Fed-Wawa, Djoko-Wawa, Fed is a much better matchup against Wawa than Djoko, plenty of evidence for that see, FO2015, AO14, even AO15 when he lost. And sorry, but no version of Murray is ever beating peak Fed in any slam.
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
Again, who said it wasn't? I'm simply talking about Hamburg. And so what Djokovic was young. If he was good enough to win the AO, TMC, IW, Miami, Rome, Canada, and be runner-up at USO, IW, and Cincy at that age, it's silly to say he was too young to win Hamburg.
AllPlayersAreGood
Rookie
Yes, Rafa bullied Roger and Novak on clay. However, I don't think Rafa was washed up in 2011 when Novak started winning against him on clay.
mattosgrant
Banned
I personally don't think Fed's peak is better on clay since even his peak was not capable of beating Nadal really other than a very rare time he faced a fatigued and subpar Nadal. Which is very different from Djokovic. And yes I know the match up factor, but still it tells something.
I know a lot of people mention RG 2011 but that was IMO one of Federer's top 3 matches ever on clay, and while Djokovic played well, it was probably not even one of his top 5 matches on clay that YEAR, let alone in his career.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
U contradicted urself just now.
Well djok wawa is very one sided too, and wawa won..
It happens. Still chances are the better matchup guy will win. Djoko over wawa and nadal over fed. Yeah peak wawa can beat a tired nole, or for ur sake, peak fed over 15 nadal.
No evidence clayray cant beat peak fed, or at least push him to 5.
So lets disagree.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Outside of the FO but he did nothing more than Federer who also could beat Nadal in the MS but not at the FO.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
The Djokovic fans are well within their rights to the opinion that Djokovic is better now. However, I think there is still reasonable doubt that this is the case. I agree that if Djokovic wins a 2nd RG next year then you can call me crazy, but I think it depends on how you define the word "better." If better to you means more accomplished then Novak wins on the basis of his Rome and MC titles.
But better is more complex to me when 2 guys only have the 1 RG title each. It is too simplistic to say a guy is better just because he's more accomplished in the lesser tournaments on clay. Maybe it's Federer's fault for not capitalizing more on Rome 2006 and MC 2014. I just don't think it's that simple. I think too many people have kneejerk type reactions around here. Things are always stated like facts when they're really not. Essentially I want Djokovic to put this to bed beyond reasonable doubt with a 2nd RG title and he hasn't done that yet.
Federer still has an extra RG final and he did beat Djokovic in the SF when no one thought it was going to happen. I realize that's only one match, but it was a big match, and I'm only pointing it out to show that Djokovic doesn't have this on lock.
Again, anybody else is free to the opinion that Djokovic is better than Federer on clay using whatever definition they want, but I also don't think Djokovic has done enough to be definitively ahead of Federer on clay. This is not one of those debates where you can say "HAHAHA, ur stoopid, Novak is way better than Federer on clay LOLZ."
Maybe my Federer bias is showing. I admit that, but this is what I think.
But better is more complex to me when 2 guys only have the 1 RG title each. It is too simplistic to say a guy is better just because he's more accomplished in the lesser tournaments on clay. Maybe it's Federer's fault for not capitalizing more on Rome 2006 and MC 2014. I just don't think it's that simple. I think too many people have kneejerk type reactions around here. Things are always stated like facts when they're really not. Essentially I want Djokovic to put this to bed beyond reasonable doubt with a 2nd RG title and he hasn't done that yet.
Federer still has an extra RG final and he did beat Djokovic in the SF when no one thought it was going to happen. I realize that's only one match, but it was a big match, and I'm only pointing it out to show that Djokovic doesn't have this on lock.
Again, anybody else is free to the opinion that Djokovic is better than Federer on clay using whatever definition they want, but I also don't think Djokovic has done enough to be definitively ahead of Federer on clay. This is not one of those debates where you can say "HAHAHA, ur stoopid, Novak is way better than Federer on clay LOLZ."
Maybe my Federer bias is showing. I admit that, but this is what I think.
Tennisanity
Legend
How did I contradict myself?
Better matchup guy wins with all other things being equal. Peak Fed took prime Nadal to 4 sets almost every year at FO and 5 sets almost winning at Rome2006. So in what world where peak Fed can almost take out Nadal on clay, does he lose to 2015 Nadal when he's nowhere near his best? Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. Remember Fed had even bagelled Nadal on clay in 2007. In 2015 he would have beaten him probably in 4 sets and gotten the title on the way.
There is plenty of evidence Murray can't beat peak Fed, or even past peak Fed for that matter. He beat him what once in a slam and that went 5 sets on Murray best surface.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
If you consider them tied on HC's. In that case each player has "1.5" surfaces to their name.
Clay-Novak
HC's- tied
Grass-Federer
The way you framed your statement makes it sound like Novak leads on 2 surfaces, but he doesn't. Federer actually has one more slam title on HC's overall right now.
Omega_7000
Legend
Yeah........You have no idea is right.
dunlop_fort_knox
Professional
lol man give it up. quit living in the past. nadal has been destroyed ON Clay over last 2 years by nole and murray and he has hardly gotten any sets. that's just the facts. it would have been no different this year. for either one of them.
dunlop_fort_knox
Professional
i hope rafito is enjoying his time on the beach....
dunlop_fort_knox
Professional
again FED could not get by nadal at RG. FACT.
AllPlayersAreGood
Rookie
Yes, the FO/Nadal fenomen is something out of this world. In the slams, Roger and Novak have their "lowest" winning percentages at the FO. I wonder what those percentages would have been without the Spanish bull and how many more titles would they have at the FO?
NonP
Legend
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.
Having said that....
Disagree with this. IMO Fed's and Pete's best beats any version of Novak on any HC, because their serve-FH combo is a bigger weapon than anything that Djoko can muster to neutralize it. Now I know the conventional wisdom says Novak is better on "slower" HCs as evidenced by his success Down Under, but as I've painstakingly documented the stats really don't support this idea that the AO is all that much slower than the USO. Rather I suspect the discrepancy of these guys' results at the two HC majors has to do more with the timing: the AO is held at the beginning of the year, when players are returning from the long off-season and still trying to find their groove, which means consistency tends to be rewarded more than patches of brilliance that one is unlikely to sustain throughout an entire fortnight (exceptions like Fed's '07 AO notwithstanding). Of course Fed is plenty consistent himself, but Novak even more so, and certainly more than Pete, hence their respective AO results. Put another way, have them play on DecoTurf Down Under early in the season or on Plex close to Labor Day weekend up here, and I expect their results wouldn't change all that much.
So yes, one could certainly argue that Novak would get the better of Pete and even Fed on Plex in their imaginary matchups and fend them off enough on "faster" HCs to prevail in the end, but to me such setup ignores the seasonal/circumstantial dynamics that are an integral part of the sport. How they fare against each other and other contenders could depend on what sort of criteria and variables you assign to the matchups. Are we talking about GS finals, earlier rounds or the old-fashioned H2H tours that the likes of Kramer, Gonzales, Hoad and others used to play? And what time of the year or kind of weather? The possibilities are endless.
Having said that....
Disagree with this. IMO Fed's and Pete's best beats any version of Novak on any HC, because their serve-FH combo is a bigger weapon than anything that Djoko can muster to neutralize it. Now I know the conventional wisdom says Novak is better on "slower" HCs as evidenced by his success Down Under, but as I've painstakingly documented the stats really don't support this idea that the AO is all that much slower than the USO. Rather I suspect the discrepancy of these guys' results at the two HC majors has to do more with the timing: the AO is held at the beginning of the year, when players are returning from the long off-season and still trying to find their groove, which means consistency tends to be rewarded more than patches of brilliance that one is unlikely to sustain throughout an entire fortnight (exceptions like Fed's '07 AO notwithstanding). Of course Fed is plenty consistent himself, but Novak even more so, and certainly more than Pete, hence their respective AO results. Put another way, have them play on DecoTurf Down Under early in the season or on Plex close to Labor Day weekend up here, and I expect their results wouldn't change all that much.
So yes, one could certainly argue that Novak would get the better of Pete and even Fed on Plex in their imaginary matchups and fend them off enough on "faster" HCs to prevail in the end, but to me such setup ignores the seasonal/circumstantial dynamics that are an integral part of the sport. How they fare against each other and other contenders could depend on what sort of criteria and variables you assign to the matchups. Are we talking about GS finals, earlier rounds or the old-fashioned H2H tours that the likes of Kramer, Gonzales, Hoad and others used to play? And what time of the year or kind of weather? The possibilities are endless.
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
Yeah federer still hasn't won 2 of the clay masters! No discussion who the greater clay court play is now!
Incognito
Legend
Easy enough to bagel him in Hamburg in 07 and thrash him Madrid in 09. C'mon man, Peak Fed would have no problem beating Nadal of 2014-2015, 2011 and 2013.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, got to agree with this now - taking into account achievements and average level of play
The Fedfather
Legend
[
Of course you'd think that. Let's look at some stats, shall we?
Djokovic in RG 2011 SF hit 40 winners and 41 UE, for the 2016 final the numbers are 41 and 37 respectively. The 1st serve percentage is very close too, 67% in the SF and 69% in the final today. However, when you consider the fact that in the RG 2011 SF Federer and Djokovic played a total of 309 points, and in the final today only 219 points were played, it puts the numbers into perspective. Besides, Djokovic almost choked the 4th set lead against Murray who was really poor. The only thing Djokovic did significantly better in today's final is net play. Novak approached a lot more and won a much higher percentage at the net (78% vs 53%). But all in all, there's not much between Djokovic's performance in 2011 and his performance today. At least not as much, as you make it out to be.
Djokovic in the RG 2011 SF didn't play a bad match. In fact, he was playing pretty damn well. The thing is, when you're facing that Federer across the net, playing well is not enough to win. Though it was enough to completely dominate Murray, who served 50% of 1st and made 39 UE to 23 winners (10 of which he hit in the 1st set), so no wonder you're impressed.
In other words, Federer had to be at his absolute best to beat Djokovic, who wasn't at his best, in 4.
Of course you'd think that. Let's look at some stats, shall we?Djokovic in RG 2011 SF hit 40 winners and 41 UE, for the 2016 final the numbers are 41 and 37 respectively. The 1st serve percentage is very close too, 67% in the SF and 69% in the final today. However, when you consider the fact that in the RG 2011 SF Federer and Djokovic played a total of 309 points, and in the final today only 219 points were played, it puts the numbers into perspective. Besides, Djokovic almost choked the 4th set lead against Murray who was really poor. The only thing Djokovic did significantly better in today's final is net play. Novak approached a lot more and won a much higher percentage at the net (78% vs 53%). But all in all, there's not much between Djokovic's performance in 2011 and his performance today. At least not as much, as you make it out to be.
Djokovic in the RG 2011 SF didn't play a bad match. In fact, he was playing pretty damn well. The thing is, when you're facing that Federer across the net, playing well is not enough to win. Though it was enough to completely dominate Murray, who served 50% of 1st and made 39 UE to 23 winners (10 of which he hit in the 1st set), so no wonder you're impressed.
mattosgrant
Banned
You are delusional. Peak Fed would have no problem with Nadal of 2013 or even 2011 on clay, ROTFL!!! Rafa was probably better those years than kiddie Nadal of 2005 or 2006 where Federer could never score a win over Rafa on clay, not even Rome 2006 for probably his best ever match on clay.
ibbi
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, if you want to be that cut and dry about it then sure. I wasn't talking about stat sheets, what I said was that given his game is not as naturally suited to the surface as Novak's is, what Federer has accomplished on clay is pretty damn impressive, and worthy of comparison with most.
Djokovic might have a better clay winning percentage, but when calculating that you have to take into account that Federer is 34, so his abilities on the surface have sunk, you also have to take into account that he began his career as a serve and volleying tennis player, so his record early in his career was dire too.
As for the other two points, they can be pretty simply explained by the fact that Federer has this glaringly massive match up disadvantage against the most dominant clay court player that ever lived. Djokovic does not.
I'm not saying Federer is better than Djokovic is, I'm just saying that to suggest one victory for the Serb has suddenly turned this into a black and white issue is absurd.
mattosgrant
Banned
I believe so but obviously that isn't the major barometer to greatness. Unless you think Federer is a greater clay courter than Borg since he has won more matches at RG. It also is fully expected a top player 6 years older would have won more matches at a particular slam.
mattosgrant
Banned
I am not sure I get that part. It is pretty clear to me Novak's game is build for hard courts, not really clay. I wouldn't say there is any real difference in that regard.
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
Let's leave other players out of it for now. The question is Roger vs Novak on clay.
Since both of them have 1 RG win, how else can we evaluate their accomplishments?
Incognito
Legend
That "kiddie" Nadal had 81-match winning streak. A much better version than than post 2010 Nadal who lost speed, footwork, stamina and lost to all sort of mugs on clay.
mattosgrant
Banned
Who did Nadal lose to on clay besides Djokovic in 2011? Nobody.
As for 2013 that was one of Nadal's all time best years. Did you know he went undefeated on hard courts up to and including the U.S Open. On HARD COURTS, so just imagine what it was like facing a Nadal on clay who went undefeated for most of the year on hard courts and did the Cincinnati-Canada-U.S Open triple.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Was Murray that mediocre on clay in 2011? Results seem to suggest he was unusually good that year, considering that Nadal was undoubtedly better in 2011 than in 2016.
Murray's 2011 clay results:
MC SF - got to the SF losing merely 5+6+3=14 games, lost to Nadal 4-6, 6-2, 1-6 - the only player to take a set off him in the tournament (Djok absent);
Madrid 3R - losing 4 & 2 is a downer, but at least it was against peak Bellucci, who game Djokovic a scare in the SF.
Rome SF - choked when serving for the match against Djokovic in the SF (DFed on BP, IIRC) and ended up losing the tiebreak.
RG SF - lost to Nadal in straights (6-4 7-5 6-4), but according to stats he created 18 BPs and still managed to break Nadal thrice, only Nadal broke one more time each set for six breaks total out of 13 BP opportunities. So that was a hard-fought match despite ending in straights - closer than today's final after the 1st set, which Djokovic would have won 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-2 if he didn't choke trying to serve it out for the first time.
xFedal
Legend
My Bro Danny, Next is Feds YE#1 Advantage which shall be eliminated in few months after that at the end of the year Feds WTF titles advantage will also be eliminated... Many records will be broken soon/Sorry Roger
Incognito
Legend
Murray got injured in MC, otherwise he would have won. The best Nadal on clay doesn't get pushed to a 5th set by someone like Isner in RG LOL.
2013 Nadal on HCs I agree was his best overall performance on the surface, but that doesn't really correlate to how he performs on clay. Nadal peaked a lot later on HC than Clay/grass.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
[
In other words, Federer had to be at his absolute best to beat Djokovic, who wasn't at his best, in 4.
Djokovic in RG 2011 SF hit 40 winners and 41 UE, for the 2016 final the numbers are 41 and 37 respectively. The 1st serve percentage is very close too, 67% in the SF and 69% in the final today. However, when you consider the fact that in the set st 11 SF Fedehadn't nd Djokovic played a tota. l of 309 points, andup n the final today onlyover. . . points were playetrying puts the numbers into perspective. Besides, Djoevery almost choked the 4th set lead against Murray who . was really poor. The only thing Djokovic did significantly better in today's final is net play. Novak approached a lot more and won a much higher percentage at the net (78% vs 53%). But all in all, there's not much between Djokovic's performance in 2011 and his performance today. At least not as much, as you make it out to be.
Djokovic in the RG 2011 SF didn't play a bad match. In fact, he was playing pretty damn well. The thing is, when you're facing that Federer across the net, playing well is not enough to win. Though it was enough to completely dominate Murray, who served 50% of 1st and made 39 UE to 23 winners (10 of which he hit in the 1st set), so no wonder you're impressed.
You seem a bit bothered that in my opinion, Djokovic was more impressive today. When you dug up the stats, you supported my opinion more so than your own. He hit 41 winners and 37 ues in 90 less points. That shows how much more intense his offense game was today. Granted, Murray was not at his best but he had played nearly 5 more hours on court than Djokovic and showed all his cards in the first set. Murray played as well as he could play in that first set and Djokovic hadn't quite found his gears yet. Once Djokovic rose up to that level, it was over. Murray made more errors trying to do more because he was just outmatched from every part of the court and he was feeling it in his legs.
Last edited:
mattosgrant
Banned
A well thought out and reasoned post that makes a lot of sense.
I do rate Djokovic higher on clay than Federer now, but yes I agree it isn't crazy if one wants to makes a case for Federer being atleast equal still.
You are definitely one of the most rational minded and intelligent Federer fans on this site.
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah 2011 was a very good year for Murray on clay. It was his 3rd best year on clay but IMO 1 of only 3 years he was a real top player and genuine threat on clay, the others being 2015 and 2016.
Still there is no question 2016 Murray > 2011 Murray on clay, and Murray lost in a 3rd set tiebreak and served for the match vs Djokovic in the 2011 Rome semis. So no way can you just say "no way 2011 Djokovic loses to Murray" when a weaker Murray could have easily beaten him that year (and at the same event).
Similar threads
