Djokovic on hardcourt > Nadal on clay?

[Lew II]

Djokovic on hardcourt:

12 Slam titles
5 Slam finals
5 YEC
26 Masters

Nadal on clay:

13 Slam titles
25 Masters

Djokovic on hard has arguably a better resume than Nadal on clay. There are more tournaments on hardcourt, true, but it also means the level of competiton is higher.

 

[Backspin1183]

Well, yes but Nadal on grass > Djokovic on hard court.

 

[stray_cat]

Not yet (and maybe never will be).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic on hardcourt:

12 Slam titles
5 Slam finals
5 YEC
26 Masters

vs

13 Slam titles
25 Masters

Djokovic on hard has arguably a better resume than Nadal on clay. There are more tournaments on hardcourt, true, but it also means the level of competiton is higher.

Try again

 

[Born_to_slice]

Tbh, there's only one clay slam.

 

[Checkmate]

This thread will not sit well with @Beckerserve. He will be coming for you, Lew!

 

[helterskelter]

Also half the number of clay masters.

The answer is no.

 

[RS]

No. Djokovic may have had better competition overall but the difference is too noticeable.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Tbh, there's only one clay slam.

He's really bringing into perspective how epic and insane Nadal is on clay with this thread, and why it should never, ever be underrated or seen as a bad thing. Absolutely incredible.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Apples and oranges. However, dominating clay is way easier than dominating hardcourts.

 

[Backspin1183]

Apples and oranges. However, dominating clay is way easier than dominating hardcourts.

That explains why Federer has been so dominant on clay. It's right up there with Nadal's dominance on grass.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Apples and oranges. However, dominating clay is way easier than dominating hardcourts.

When you beat two would-be clay GOATS in Federer and Djokovic 14 times in a major, get back to me about easy.

 

[Lew II]

Tbh, there's only one clay slam.

The counter argument is competition is weaker on minor surfaces.

 

[Krish0608]

The counter argument is competition is weaker on minor surfaces.

Clay is not a minor surface.

 

[Lew II]

Clay is not a minor surface.

Compared to hardcourt, it is.

 

[Krish0608]

Compared to hardcourt, it is.

Not enough to have "weaker competition". Most players grow up playing on clay. So your point does not hold water.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Not enough to have "weaker competition". Most players grow up playing on clay. So your point does not hold water.

Most players play just fine on clay lol, he's being ridiculous bc Nadal almost never loses on it and he can't say that about Djokovic on HC.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

When you beat two would-be clay GOATS in Federer and Djokovic 14 times in a major, get back to me about easy.

The tour has no great clay court specialists besides Bull. It has been like this since forever.

 

[InsideOut900]

Tbh, there's only one clay slam.

It a response to the thread where they compared Djoko on grass with Nadal on HC, which was also a 2 Slams to 1 Slam comparison.

 

[Sunny014]

Senseless post from Mr Lew !!!!

Nadal is the GOAT on Clay, the absolute GOAT, there are no IFs and BUTs, he is God on that surface
He is so great that he reduced Federer and Djokovic to absolute nobodies on clay by giving them just 1 slam each on clay and that too in his absence.

Novak is what on HCs ? Federer himself has 11 HC Slams and more titles than Novak, Sampras himself has 7 HC Slams and maybe in the modern era that can be extrapolated to 2 more slams if he played into his 30s, so thats like a legit 9 slams. Plus Novak has been tamed by Wawrinka who himself has a 0-17 H2H on HCs to Federer despite a next gen advantage.

It is insulting to Nadal's legacy to even make such a foolish assumption that anybody can have a dominance even close to his clay one on any turf.

Put 2 Slams on Clay in an year like HCs and Nadal would have like 13*2 = 26 Slams .... Would anyone bet against him to win twice an year ? NOBODY WOULD.....

Novak on HCs is at best level with Federer on HCs...... nothing better.

 

[ADuck]

Apples and oranges. However, dominating clay is way easier than dominating hardcourts.

Wrong.

 

[Sunny014]

Novak is so mediocre that despite playing 2 slams an year on HCs he is still on 12 HC slams while Rafa is on 13 playing just 1 slam an year on clay.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Wrong.

 

[MichaelNadal]

The tour has no great clay court specialists besides Bull. It has been like this since forever.

BC he didn't allow them to be

 

[Sunny014]

Slams per Turf on avg if just 1 slam an year

Nadal - 13/1 = 13 on Clay
Federer = 8/1 = 8 on Grass
Sampras = 7/1 = 7 on Grass
Djokovic = 12/2 = 6 on HCs
Borg = 6/1 = 6 on Clay
Federer = 11/2 = 5.5 on HCs

 

[ADuck]

I help you, how many people have dominated clay and how many people have dominated hard?

 

[UnforcedTerror]

I help you, how many people have dominated clay and how many people have dominated hard?

One dominated clay because besides him there are no great clay court specialists on tour, no?

 

[UnforcedTerror]

BC he didn't allow them to be

Are you telling me Roger and Nole are dirt specialist?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Are you telling me Roger and Nole are dirt specialist?

Your game is too transparent try to bait someone else

 

[Lew II]

Not enough to have "weaker competition". Most players grow up playing on clay. So your point does not hold water.

''Grow up'' is vague. Fact is 50% of Slams and 64% of Big Tournaments are on hardcourt vs 25/29% on clay.

If I were I pro or a junior wanting to become pro, I'd build my game for hardcourt as it's the main surface. Wouldn't you?

 

[Nole_King]

Djokovic on hardcourt:

12 Slam titles
5 Slam finals
5 YEC
26 Masters

Nadal on clay:

13 Slam titles
25 Masters

Djokovic on hard has arguably a better resume than Nadal on clay. There are more tournaments on hardcourt, true, but it also means the level of competiton is higher.

Wow. Including YEC in the statistics when there is no equivalent tournament on Clay is either plain stupidity or just a clickbait. Not to suggest that the other numbers in the post are any work of genius.

 

[Turning Pro]

When and ONLY when Djoker gets to 100-2 at hardcourt slams AND 13 slams on hardcourts. Only at that point can he be considered as great.

Although even then, Nadal only has 1 shot at a clay slam per year compared to Novaks 2 chances he's had on their comparative respective favoured surfaces.

 

[Lew II]

If competition doesn't matter Tilden is the statistical GOAT, not any of the Big3.

For example he won 8 Slams in a row (Djokovic 4, Nadal 3, Federer 3).

 

[StrongRule]

Lol, looks like Lew is out of ideas. We already had that same thread from him. The difference in "competition" is not even close to make up for the giant difference in titles. When Djokovic wins at least 22-23 hardcourt slams (this is if we believe your BS about competition, so we don't write 26) then you can start comparing him to Nadal on clay.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

''Grow up'' is vague. Fact is 50% of Slams and 64% of Big Tournaments are on hardcourt vs 25/29% on clay.

If I were I pro or a junior wanting to become pro, I'd build my game for hardcourt as it's the main surface. Wouldn't you?

Ask vamos br!gade to name the great dirt specialists on tour and they have no answer. Really the only good dirtballers in Bull's era are Ferrer and Thiem while 90% of the Top 100 are hardcourt specialists.

 

[itrium84]

Well yes, but actually no

 

[BeatlesFan]

He is so great that he reduced Federer and Djokovic to absolute nobodies on clay by giving them just 1 slam each on clay and that too in his absence.

Untrue. When Fed won the FO in 2009, he defeated in the final the man who had defeated Rafa. So Nadal was absent from the tournament because he lost. When Djoker won RG in 2016, Rafa was totally absent since he didn’t play that year. A clear distinction.

 

[Red Rick]

Sometimes your stats are interesting Lew, but not this one

 

[mike danny]

When you beat two would-be clay GOATS in Federer and Djokovic 14 times in a major, get back to me about easy.

Well, as good as they are on clay, they are still stronger on HC and grass.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Well, as good as they are on clay, they are still stronger on HC and grass.

Part of that is there's no one as good as Nadal they have to face on HC/Grass too, though I agree with you. Both could easily be sitting on 5 FO's without Nadal.

 

[mike danny]

To answer the question, no, nothing will ever come close to Nadal's dominance on clay.

Certainly not Djoker on HC, who has a lousy USO record.

But this also shows that not all HC are created equal.

 

[ADuck]

One dominated clay because besides him there are no great clay court specialists on tour, no?

Or, so many players dominated on hard courts because it was less difficult to dominate than clay courts.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

No. If clay had two slams and 6 ATP 1000s, can you imagine Nadal's numbers?!

 

[Born_to_slice]

The counter argument is competition is weaker on minor surfaces.

Eh, let 'em have that one, Lew.

 

[Beckerserve]

This thread will not sit well with @Beckerserve. He will be coming for you, Lew!

This is a comedy thread one assumes.

 

[CYGS]

Tbh, there's only one clay slam.

There are many more hardcourt players (more competitive field).

 

[CYGS]

Slams per Turf on avg if just 1 slam an year

Nadal - 13/1 = 13 on Clay
Federer = 8/1 = 8 on Grass
Sampras = 7/1 = 7 on Grass
Djokovic = 12/2 = 6 on HCs
Borg = 6/1 = 6 on Clay
Federer = 11/2 = 5.5 on HCs

Players will re-strategize if there are more clay slams than hard/grass.

 

[Beckerserve]

Djokovic on hardcourt:

12 Slam titles
5 Slam finals
5 YEC
26 Masters

Nadal on clay:

13 Slam titles
25 Masters

Djokovic on hard has arguably a better resume than Nadal on clay. There are more tournaments on hardcourt, true, but it also means the level of competiton is higher.

 

[Phoenix1983]

@CYGS look at the poll results. You look like such an idiot.

 

[CYGS]

@CYGS look at the poll results. You look like such an idiot.

Or I am the only genius among the mediocre.