Djokovic versus Federer on clay?

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Is Djokovic the second best clay player since Borg?

His clay resume is at least as good as Federer's if not better. Yes, Federer had the tremendous fortune of going through the FO without Nadal in the final. Djokovic has never been so lucky.

Current career clay win percentages on clay:
Djokovic 78.3% (9 clay titles, 0 FO)
Fed 76.2% (10 clay titles, including 1 FO)
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
It seperates 5 years between them. The stats can be a little bit skewed, like that winning percentage.

let's see who is better/greater on clay when their career finishes. Right now, Federer has better results on clay. But novak is pretty darn close and he has years left at the top. He can easily snatch 2 FO titles.
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
Second best since Borg? :lol:

What happened to Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten?

Lmao. Djokovic is a very good clay courter, and he'll definitely end up winning RG. Which will make him a great clay courter.
But :lol: at OP's post.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Lmao. Djokovic is a very good clay courter, and he'll definitely end up winning RG. Which will make him a great clay courter.
But :lol: at OP's post.

Everything in this era needs to be the best for some posters. It's laughable. Relative to their era there have been many clay courters better than Federer and Djokovic.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well Djokovic had the same opportunity in 2009 just like Federer. He only has himself to blame for losing easily to Kohlschreiber in the 3rd round.

He was well established by then. Was top 3 player in 2007 and 2008. Reached 2 slam finals (one in 2007 and one in 2008), winning 1. Reached FO semis in 2007 and 2008. He had no reason to lose early like that.

Djokovic had that luck. He just couldn't take advantage of it.
 

lud

Hall of Fame
You mentioned all these giys, but no mentioned for Robin friggin SODERLING.ONLY player in history who defeat Nadal in best of 5 match. For now. He makes top 5 easily.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Look Federer got the FO title, Djokovic didn't. And untill he does Fed remains the better clay player. End of story.
 

Aretium

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is better at playing Nadal.

That is the difference between Fed and Djok. Insert any court surface you want.

Fed is a better player on all surfaces.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
LOL second since Borg for a guy who hasn't won the FO?? :lol:

Federer isn't close to second and he has an FO and more titles on clay than Novak. Not to mention he faced Nadal at his best. Novak faces deteriorated Nadal on clay.
 

Motor city

New User
At 27 Fed's clay resume was better than Djokovic's right now.
In particular the last four years at FO Djokovic has drastically improved while Fed has declined.

Right now I would consider Fed the better but Djokovic has the opportunity to improve with Nadal in decline. Fed hit the Nadal wall at his peak.

I also think that Nishikori and an in form Wawrinka could beat Djokovic. In fact I think Fed would have a chance against Djoker, he seems to understand his game.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
Well Djokovic had the same opportunity in 2009 just like Federer. He only has himself to blame for losing easily to Kohlschreiber in the 3rd round.

He was well established by then. Was top 3 player in 2007 and 2008. Reached 2 slam finals (one in 2007 and one in 2008), winning 1. Reached FO semis in 2007 and 2008. He had no reason to lose early like that.

Djokovic had that luck. He just couldn't take advantage of it.

This 100 times :)
 
Should Djokovic win the French, and atleast 1 Masters this year, I would rate him higher. Federer's only edge would be more French open finals, but Djokovic has lost to Nadal 3 times in the semis which is basically the same as a final in my books (Federer has once). Djokovic's much better spread of Masters wins, and success vs Nadal, would give him the clear edge IMO.

Before Djokovic wins the French, Federer has the edge only for that reason though.
 
Second best since Borg? :lol:

What happened to Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten?

All of those are easily above Federer and Djokovic on clay, and probably forever. Probably about 5 others in the Open Era alone too, and atleast another 10 pre Open Era. This forum is full of nothing but Federer/Djokovic *****s though.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
All of those are easily above Federer and Djokovic on clay, and probably forever. Probably about 5 others in the Open Era alone too, and atleast another 10 pre Open Era. This forum is full of nothing but Federer/Djokovic *****s though.

No Nadal *****s?

I'd add Vilas and Muster above them for sure. I'm in two minds about Courier and Bruguera.
 
No Nadal *****s?

I'd add Vilas and Muster above them for sure. I'm in two minds about Courier and Bruguera.

Not sure on Vilas. I think he is an overrated clay courter who vultured the tiny clay tournaments. He went down much more easily on clay to Borg than Federer does to Nadal, and Borg is weaker than Nadal.

Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Laver, Rosewall, I would rate higher amongst Open Era players though. Even after Djokovic wins the French (if he does). Should Djokovic win the French twice I might reconsider some of those. Federer will always be behind them.
 
And before it is said I know Muster vultured tiny clay events too but he was undisputably THE MAN on clay both 1995 and 1996, despite his huge upset loss at the 96 French. Vilas never really was, even in 1977 he had the best results aided by Borg being largely absent (getting spanked when they did play as always). Federer too never really was, despite his 09 RG title.
 
One advantage Djokovic has though is he has been facing a MUCH weaker Nadal on clay than Fed had too. Since 2011 really, and even with that he has still failed to win a RG title yet.

Despite that reality I would put Djokovic slightly above if he wins RG. Especialy as he will probably have passed Federer in Masters and tournament titles on clay by then, and already has a much more balanced clay resume (once he has the RG title hypothetically).
 
Should Djokovic never win RG, Federer is forever better on clay. Just as the moment Djokovic wins RG (if he does which is no sure thing), the reverse is true.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not sure on Vilas. I think he is an overrated clay courter who vultured the tiny clay tournaments. He went down much more easily on clay to Borg than Federer does to Nadal, and Borg is weaker than Nadal.

Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Laver, Rosewall, I would rate higher amongst Open Era players though. Even after Djokovic wins the French (if he does). Should Djokovic win the French twice I might reconsider some of those. Federer will always be behind them.

Laver and Rosewall are not higher than Federer in the Open Era. Rosewall definitely all time - not sure about Laver.
 
Laver and Rosewall are not higher than Federer in the Open Era. Rosewall definitely all time - not sure about Laver.

IMO Laver and Rosewall were each the worlds best clay courter 2 different years in the Open Era. Laver in 69 and 71, Rosewall in 68 and 70. IMO Federer never was (even in 2009 when he won RG, I think nearly everyone would still say worlds best clay courter = Nadal at that point). That is the main reason I rate both above even in just the Open Era. It is also why I rate both above Vilas, and Muster above Vilas. Like I said Muster was not only the best on clay, but absolutely dominant two straight years- 95 and 96. Vilas was never really the best on clay, even in 77 while I think he deserved the official #1 ranking (which IMO is different than truly best) for the year largely by his clay performances, you never felt he would beat Borg if they played.

Laver and Rosewall each won the French once and made back to back finals despite skipping/missing it almost every year in the first half of the 70s due to WTT. Both would have spanked eventual winner Kodes in both 70 and 71, had they played. Federer and Vilas managed only 1 French despite playing every year, and Vilas probably only since Borg skipped altogether (atleast Nadal was in the draw when Federer won).
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
IMO Laver and Rosewall were each the worlds best clay courter 2 different years in the Open Era. Laver in 69 and 71, Rosewall in 68 and 70. IMO Federer never was (even in 2009 when he won RG, I think nearly everyone would still say worlds best clay courter = Nadal at that point). That is the main reason I rate both above even in just the Open Era. It is also why I rate both above Vilas, and Muster above Vilas. Like I said Muster was not only the best on clay, but absolutely dominant two straight years- 95 and 96. Vilas was never really the best on clay, even in 77 while I think he deserved the official #1 ranking (which IMO is different than truly best) for the year largely by his clay performances, you never felt he would beat Borg if they played.

Laver and Rosewall each won the French once and made back to back finals despite skipping/missing it almost every year in the first half of the 70s due to WTT. Both would have spanked eventual winner Kodes in both 70 and 71, had they played. Federer and Vilas managed only 1 French despite playing every year, and Vilas probably only since Borg skipped altogether (atleast Nadal was in the draw when Federer won).

Those are fair points. Though I feel Federer reaching 5 FO finals edges out the 2 finals each of Laver and Rosewall made - even with them being the top dogs on clay in 2 years.

By similar logic do you rate YE #1's very highly then?
 
Those are fair points. Though I feel Federer reaching 5 FO finals edges out the 2 finals each of Laver and Rosewall made - even with them being the top dogs on clay in 2 years.

By similar logic do you rate YE #1's very highly then?

In the mens game I rate YE #1 highly since the rankings tend to be quite legit. It is one reason I can accept the arguments Djokovic has a case to be compared to Nadal even with fewer slams in the future. It is also IMO Sampras's strongest case against Nadal and Borg.

In the womens I value them much less since the ranking system since 1999 has been too much of a farce to give it much value. That is another reason I don't readily accept the "lack of #1 time" arguments against Serena some make, not just since I am a Serena fan. I value them when comparing female players from 1999 and earlier, but not regarding any players since then.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
LOL second since Borg for a guy who hasn't won the FO?? :lol:

Federer isn't close to second and he has an FO and more titles on clay than Novak. Not to mention he faced Nadal at his best. Novak faces deteriorated Nadal on clay.

Novak also faces Nadal at his best. Otherwise how do you explain his not beating him there yet?
 

Fiji

Legend
Novak also faces Nadal at his best. Otherwise how do you explain his not beating him there yet?

For the same reason Murray is not beating declining Nole at the AO...

Let's face it, Nole is not the same player from 2011 anymore. Murray still cant beat him at the AO. Why? Because Nole owns the AO these days....
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The same sub par Federer who went back to #1 the next month?

Subpar in the match. If you watch it back you'll see I'm right, Federer didn't even want to win that match IMO. He wanted the points from the SF but wanted no part of Nadal in that form.

I don't expect you to be able to admit it though ;)
 
After their tennis careers are over, Djokovic will be regarded as a better and a more accomplished clay courter than Federer. For now, Federer is ahead.......albeit slightly.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Subpar in the match. If you watch it back you'll see I'm right, Federer didn't even want to win that match IMO. He wanted the points from the SF but wanted no part of Nadal in that form.

I don't expect you to be able to admit it though ;)

Novak was the better player in the match. He deserved the win.
 
Novak also faces Nadal at his best. Otherwise how do you explain his not beating him there yet?

Since Nadal not at his best is better on clay than Novak at his best. What would you expect when comparing the undisputed runaway clay GOAT to someone currently not even top 30 all time on clay. You claim Novak not at his best is better than Nadal at his best on hard courts (eg- how you talk about the 2012 Australian Open final) and if that is true on hard courts, it sure as heck is true on clay where the gap in abilities is only a good 5 times bigger than hard courts peak to peak.

Imagine putting the much slower and beat up with injuries Nadal of today vs the Nadal of 2006-2008 or 2010 on clay. Todays Nadal would struggle to get more than 9 games, and you know it even if you are in denial.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
After their tennis careers are over, Djokovic will be regarded as a better and a more accomplished clay courter than Federer. For now, Federer is ahead.......albeit slightly.

So you are working on the assumption that Djokovic will eventually win RG yes? I'm only asking, it's not a trick question.
 
Since Nadal not at his best is better on clay than Novak at his best. What would you expect when comparing the undisputed runaway clay GOAT to someone currently not even top 30 all time on clay. You claim Novak not at his best is better than Nadal at his best on hard courts (eg- how you talk about the 2012 Australian Open final) and if that is true on hard courts, it sure as heck is true on clay where the gap in abilities is only a good 5 times bigger than hard courts peak to peak.

Imagine putting the much slower and beat up with injuries Nadal of today vs the Nadal of 2006-2008 or 2010 on clay. Todays Nadal would struggle to get more than 9 games, and you know it even if you are in denial.

Peak Nole <<<<<<< Peak Nadal on clay. Who can even question this? :confused:
 
Top