Djokovic resume too skewed on Hard courts.

Pantera

Hall of Fame
Using Federer fan logic Djokovic is not a complete player as 0.666 of his Majors are on Hard Court, the same as Nadal on clay.

Funny thing is it never gets mentioned as being 5 Majors away still, Djokovic is less of a threat to 20 Majors than Nadal.

Personally I have Nadal and Djokovic ahead of Federer anyway on all time list. Federer won 13 Majors without an ATG at his peak to deal with, Nadal and Djokovic had each other their whole careers plus Federer up to 2012.

But the contradictions of Federer fans are priceless. :)
 

Sport

Legend
Nadal and Djokovic had each other their whole careers plus Federer up to 2012.
Federer was there in 2012-2015 as well, he was just not good enough to stop Djokovic at Wimbledon (2014, 2015) or Nadal at the Australian Open (2012, 2014).

A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.

Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.

P. S.: I am not comparing Djokovic overall with Thiem, I am comparing Thiem on clay with Djokovic on grass. If not for Nadal, Thiem on clay could tie or even surpass Djokovic's grass achievements, but Nadal will stop him. On the other hand, Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon, and he should have, as he is the King of grass.
 

Sport

Legend
Yes, it is true that Djokovic has won 66% of his Slams on hard courts and Nadal 66% of his Slams on clay. Nothing wrong with that, it illustrates that Nadal is dominant on clay and so is Djokovic on hard.

Now, Federer has only won 5% of his Grand Slams on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage of Majors won on any surface. Nadal has won 11% of his Majors on grass, and 22% of his Majors on hard. Nadal also has at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay), while Federer only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 GS on each surface >> 1 GS on each surface.

Nadal has his Majors more evenly distributed by surface than Federer.
 

Pantera

Hall of Fame
Federer was there in 2012-2015 as well, he was just not good enough to stop Djokovic at Wimbledon (2014, 2015) or Nadal at the Australian Open (2012, 2014).

A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.

Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.

P. S.: I am not comparing Djokovic overall with Thiem, I am comparing Thiem on clay with Djokovic on grass. If not for Nadal, Thiem on clay could tie or even surpass Djokovic's grass achievements, but Nadal will stop him. On the other hand, Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon, and he should have, as he is the King of grass.
Spot on, and the sort of excellent analytical logic that will confuse some fanboy Federer fans.
 

Pantera

Hall of Fame
50% of Slams are on hardcourt. 25% are on clay. When you get 18 Slams it's an incredible achievement any way you look at but your comparison is apples to oranges.
So Nadal's achievement is more impressive..had he two Majors on clay he surely would be on around 23 Majors now. Even different type of clay conditions like Madrid for example.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
So Nadal's achievement is more impressive..had he two Majors on clay he surely would be on around 23 Majors now. Even different type of clay conditions like Madrid for example.
I don't know about more impressive but he's certainly the most dominant on his preferred surface, but not many players are as good on clay as they are on hardcourt since hardcourt is a neutral surface and what players play the most on year round. He's been the least dominant in Madrid (4 titles in 11 years) so he wouldn't be no where near as dominant there as he is at RG. Even so, this is the way the tour has been designed since he has been playing so it's his responsibility to adapt to it.
 

Pantera

Hall of Fame
Hard courts = 2/4 Slams, 6/9 Masters, 1/1 WTF, that's 9/13 = 70%

What is so weird about someone having 70% wins on HC (or even more)? Please explain, Parera. Kill all logic for us.
Thank you for admitting Nadal is at a disadvantage yet still has most Masters 1000's and more Majors than Federer at same age...I think that locks GOAT argument in Nadal's favour no?
 

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
Federer was there in 2012-2015 as well, he was just not good enough to stop Djokovic at Wimbledon (2014, 2015) or Nadal at the Australian Open (2012, 2014).

A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.

Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.

P. S.: I am not comparing Djokovic overall with Thiem, I am comparing Thiem on clay with Djokovic on grass. If not for Nadal, Thiem on clay could tie or even surpass Djokovic's grass achievements, but Nadal will stop him. On the other hand, Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon, and he should have, as he is the King of grass.
This is true, and I almost was going to freak at you comparing Thiem with Djoker until I read the end. But yes, in theory this is correct, however, Rafa on clay is not the same comparison as Fed on grass.
 

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
Thank you for admitting Nadal is at a disadvantage yet still has most Masters 1000's and more Majors than Federer at same age...I think that locks GOAT argument in Nadal's favour no?
If you are going to play this game, what about Fed who also only has one Grass slam and 0, I repeat, zero masters events on grass. Over 15 years, Rafa has essentially 45 chances to win a masters on his favorite surface. Over 1000 years, Fed would have zero chances on his favorite surface. Unfortunately hard courts are the norm.
 
Not to mention the fact that Nadal had to deal with 38 year old Federer on RG, an ombeleebebly difficult opponent - a beast compared to for instance Safin on HC and Roddick on grass, lol.

2/4 slams being on HC doesn't change the fact that they are HC.
I had that avi before. Repoarted. :p

Yes, beating 38 yo Fed and then fully match ready Thieminator made this FO Nadal's greatest triumph.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Yes, it is true that Djokovic has won 66% of his Slams on hard courts and Nadal 66% of his Slams on clay. Nothing wrong with that, it illustrates that Nadal is dominant on clay and so is Djokovic on hard.

Now, Federer has only won 5% of his Grand Slams on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage of Majors won on any surface. Nadal has won 11% of his Majors on grass, and 22% of his Majors on hard. Nadal also has at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay), while Federer only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 GS on each surface >> 1 GS on each surface.

Nadal has his Majors more evenly distributed by surface than Federer.
By surface yes, but as 4 individual slams he doesnt. You always say Nadal is 2-1 vs Djokovic at the USO instead of quoting the HC h2h which is 3-2 to Djokovic, this implies that there is a difference between the surfaces of the 2 hc slams
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Using Federer fan logic Djokovic is not a complete player as 0.666 of his Majors are on Hard Court, the same as Nadal on clay.

Funny thing is it never gets mentioned as being 5 Majors away still, Djokovic is less of a threat to 20 Majors than Nadal.

Personally I have Nadal and Djokovic ahead of Federer anyway on all time list. Federer won 13 Majors without an ATG at his peak to deal with, Nadal and Djokovic had each other their whole careers plus Federer up to 2012.

But the contradictions of Federer fans are priceless. :)
Federer actually played Djokovic the same year Nadal first played him (before I think) so if you're saying Nadal had to deal with Djokovic his whole career then Federer did as well for pretty much the same amount of time, plus Djokovic is better on Fed's best surfaces.

Also if we talk about fed having weak competition then what about Nadal's weak competition on clay?

To the original point though, yes Djokovic's slams are heavily tilted towards HC, though there are 2 different hc slams so it makes sense for it to be more weighted towards that. He has more Wimbledon's than USO titles so maybe if there were 2 grass slams he'd have most on grass

With Nadal even if you halved his clay slams he'd not have more than 6 on another surface. This is not a criticism of Nadal though, he's just amazing in a different way from Fed and Djokovic
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
I don't know about more impressive but he's certainly the most dominant on his preferred surface, but not many players are as good on clay as they are on hardcourt since hardcourt is a neutral surface and what players play the most on year round. He's been the least dominant in Madrid (4 titles in 11 years) so he wouldn't be no where near as dominant there as he is at RG. Even so, this is the way the tour has been designed since he has been playing so it's his responsibility to adapt to it.
and its your responsibility to acknowledge (if you want to be seen as fair) how disadvantaged Nadal is in this discussion due to "the way the tour has been designed" as you put it, yet he is still in contention for GOAT.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
and its your responsibility to acknowledge (if you want to be seen as fair) how disadvantaged Nadal is in this discussion due to "the way the tour has been designed" as you put it, yet he is still in contention for GOAT.
How is he disadvantaged? This is the way the tour has been since the late 80's so as a player, you train to be your best in the conditions that were already set. The tour didn't suddenly changed after he developed as a player.
 

Pantera

Hall of Fame
How is he disadvantaged? This is the way the tour has been since the late 80's so as a player, you train to be your best in the conditions that were already set. The tour didn't suddenly changed after he developed as a player.
Fact is Nadal has won the most at his age of all time and has less events on his best surface. Hence he has locked down GOAT argument now.
 

Pantera

Hall of Fame
Federer actually played Djokovic the same year Nadal first played him (before I think) so if you're saying Nadal had to deal with Djokovic his whole career then Federer did as well for pretty much the same amount of time, plus Djokovic is better on Fed's best surfaces.

Also if we talk about fed having weak competition then what about Nadal's weak competition on clay?

To the original point though, yes Djokovic's slams are heavily tilted towards HC, though there are 2 different hc slams so it makes sense for it to be more weighted towards that. He has more Wimbledon's than USO titles so maybe if there were 2 grass slams he'd have most on grass

With Nadal even if you halved his clay slams he'd not have more than 6 on another surface. This is not a criticism of Nadal though, he's just amazing in a different way from Fed and Djokovic
You think Thiem, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Federer are weak on clay?
 

Pantera

Hall of Fame
If you are going to play this game, what about Fed who also only has one Grass slam and 0, I repeat, zero masters events on grass. Over 15 years, Rafa has essentially 45 chances to win a masters on his favorite surface. Over 1000 years, Fed would have zero chances on his favorite surface. Unfortunately hard courts are the norm.
Federe ris disadvantaged, ive argued that for years..but fact is since Nadal and Djokovic peaked he has never won a US Open..the biggest HC event.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Yes, it is true that Djokovic has won 66% of his Slams on hard courts and Nadal 66% of his Slams on clay. Nothing wrong with that, it illustrates that Nadal is dominant on clay and so is Djokovic on hard.

Now, Federer has only won 5% of his Grand Slams on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage of Majors won on any surface. Nadal has won 11% of his Majors on grass, and 22% of his Majors on hard. Nadal also has at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay), while Federer only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 GS on each surface >> 1 GS on each surface.

Nadal has his Majors more evenly distributed by surface than Federer.
Go to statistics class please to learn variance and standard deviation
 

Grampa

Semi-Pro
So the VB is using Lewesian stats to bunch up the hardcourt slams together as if it helps Rafa's GOAT cv. They have gone cuckoo, people here just go batsh1t crazy after a slam ends.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Using Federer fan logic Djokovic is not a complete player as 0.666 of his Majors are on Hard Court, the same as Nadal on clay.

Funny thing is it never gets mentioned as being 5 Majors away still, Djokovic is less of a threat to 20 Majors than Nadal.

Personally I have Nadal and Djokovic ahead of Federer anyway on all time list. Federer won 13 Majors without an ATG at his peak to deal with, Nadal and Djokovic had each other their whole careers plus Federer up to 2012.

But the contradictions of Federer fans are priceless. :)
Who did Djokovic have from 2014-2016? Which peak ATG?
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
You think Thiem, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Federer are weak on clay?
When did Wawrinka first win a slam? 2014. He wasnt even a factor for most of Nadal's RG wins.

Thiem is the same. Besides Thiem is not even at the level of A Safin/Nalbandian/Roddick/Hewitt on hard and grass but those guys are supposed to be weak players.

In the early years of Nadal's wins all he had was Federer, who I keep hearing from posters like you was not even that good even on his BEST surfaces, so why is he all of a sudden a great opponent on his worst surface?

Djokovic is a good clay player but he's better on HC, and fed has had to play Djokovic a load on HC.

The point is the competition has been stronger on HC than clay for the entire time Nadal and Fed have been winning slams. If 03 to 07 was weak, it was weakest on clay
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
and its your responsibility to acknowledge (if you want to be seen as fair) how disadvantaged Nadal is in this discussion due to "the way the tour has been designed" as you put it, yet he is still in contention for GOAT.
Why is he disadvantaged? He built he game for clay. He's actually got some very good skills for HC and Grass and I tbi k he could have built his game for HC if he had wanted to. But then if he'd done that he may not be the clay best he is... he knew there was only one clay slam when he started playing. I get that his natural style is suited to clay but maybe that's because he tailored his game for it and he could have been as amazing on HC if he had chosen to focus on that. it's a trade off. Federer has the game to be the best on 2 surfaces. Djokovic is kind of an all rounder in a different way. They're all good in different ways, I dont see any if them being disadvantaged since the conditions have largely remained the same since they started playing and all 3 adapted as they saw fit
 

kar_katch

Rookie
Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.
Untestable hypothesis so complete bull. We dont have a time machine. What we do have is the reality that Thiem is a 0 slam 0 even clay masters yes ZERO clay masters mug. He is literally a mug and you are comparing him to Djokovic? Djokovic is one the greatest grass court players (objectively with titles and subjectively) and overall tennis players ever.

Also 2 losses to Djokovic at wimbeldon for fed? Isn't that the same number of losse a certain Nadal has to Mueller at wimbeldon? In your own words: "if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33" Nadal wasn't even age 33 in those loses!! Mueller is the superior player on grass to Nadal?
 

kar_katch

Rookie
Using Federer fan logic Djokovic is not a complete player as 0.666 of his Majors are on Hard Court, the same as Nadal on clay.

Funny thing is it never gets mentioned as being 5 Majors away still, Djokovic is less of a threat to 20 Majors than Nadal.

Personally I have Nadal and Djokovic ahead of Federer anyway on all time list. Federer won 13 Majors without an ATG at his peak to deal with, Nadal and Djokovic had each other their whole careers plus Federer up to 2012.

But the contradictions of Federer fans are priceless. :)
Agreed Djokovic resume not balanced enough to put him ahead of Federer and is why federer is clearly better. Glad you agree too. Could have just ended the thread there really. And what contradictions of fed fans are you referring to? It is agreed feds all time records on HC (most slams currently) + grass (most slams currently) + clay are better. You agree too? Good

You also seem to be confused. Nadal's clay skew is irrelvant as he doesn't even have the records (even with the clay skew) for slams, WTF, has M1000 but not for long, olympics (murray), h2h (djokovic is best h2h player), weeks no 1, ye no 1 etc etc etc. He will finish with none of these records so the clay skew between federer and nadal is irrelevant. The clay skew may have some relevance for djokovic vs nadal as djokovic may finish a slam or two behind nadal (may not too) but for federer nadal clay skew is not even releavnt as nadal holds no records
 
Last edited:

hipolymer

Professional
>too skewed on the tennis surface with the most competition and the most financial investment and training academies
>meanwhile Rafuh dominates RG which hasn't had a clay specialist reach the finals since coincidentally his very first slam win
>and Frehd dominates Wimby which hasn't had a grass specialist in even longer

Nice try OP but epic fail
 
Top