Djokovic vs Federer on clay if Djokovic wins RG this year

[mattosgrant]

I think at this point it is becoming increasingly clear Djokovic would have to rank over Federer on clay if he wins the RG title this year. He will be up in Masters titles 8 or 9 vs 6, but along with that he has a way better variety with 4 Rome, 2 Madrid, and 2 Monte Carlo titles, the 3 Masters available to him (considering his final Hamburg was just after turning 21). Federer has 4 Hamburg and 2 Madrid titles but 0 at Monte Carlo and 0 at Rome, winning only 2 of the 4 available to him, while Djokovic has now won all 3 available to him multiple times. He would be only 1 behind in RG finals (barring the very unlikely event Fed is somehow in the RG final this year), with 3 RG semi final losses to Nadal (Federer has 1 of those) so basically the same thing. He now is ahead in clay titles. He has performed far better vs the hands down top clay courter of their era and clay GOAT Nadal. Actual clay head to head between Fed and Djokovic is basically a toss up. There really wouldnt be much case for Federer to be ahead, atleast achievements wise.

Considering Federer is generally believed to be the 10th best clay courter of the Open Era behind Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Vilas, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, and Muster, it would probably push him just out of the Open Era top 10 on clay as well.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yes, Novak has a clearly better clay resume besides RG and has handled Nadal better, more master's, better general level etc. etc but the 1 RG Fed has puts him ahead. Fed's obviously more accomplished than a 1-win wonder like Wawa, but still not really a close battle to ND outside of RG.

So, if Novak wins 1...he'll be ahead. Until then, Fed is ahead.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yes, Novak has a clearly better clay resume besides RG and has handled Nadal better, more master's, better general level etc. etc but the 1 RG Fed has puts him ahead. Fed's obviously more accomplished than a 1-win wonder like Wawa, but still not really a close battle to ND outside of RG.

So, if Novak wins 1...he'll be ahead. Until then, Fed is ahead.

Yes absolutely. I agree no way can Novak be over Fed on clay until he has a RG title, but if he gets it he immediately goes above IMO. Not way above, but definitely slightly ahead. It was more a toss up on that subject for me about a year ago, but now it is getting fairly clear cut.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yes absolutely. I agree no way can Novak be over Fed on clay until he has a RG title, but if he gets it he immediately goes above IMO. Not way above, but definitely slightly ahead. It was more a toss up on that subject for me about a year ago, but now it is getting fairly clear cut.

Yeah and after last year, with a win this year, he would have only 1 less final (a common argument against him), not really meaningful though when you consider RG 13 semifinal loss was de facto final.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yeah and after last year, with a win this year, he would have only 1 less final (a common argument against him), not really meaningful though when you consider RG 13 semifinal loss was de facto final.

Djokovic's Masters titles spread is far superior to Fed's at this point, regardless what happens in Rome (barring a Fed win there, yeah right) and it wouldnt surprise me if Djokovic wins there too. Easily more value than 1 less RG final (particularly with 3 semi final losses to Nadal anyway).

I will try to answer your PM tonight btw. I know you are leaving to Europe tommorow so probably wont be online much there (I hope not anyway, there is far more to do there, haha).

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Djokovic would have already had a case of being greater if he won that trophy in 2015, or even in 2014. RG has been the only thing that is keeping Federer ahead for a while now. It's simple. But Djokovic has a very tough task of winning that Slam in the future.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Another vote for yes. But only IF he wins it. I don't care how many clay 1000's he piles up - must win RG.

 

[Midaso240]

How much of a factor is it that Federer had to play grueling best of 5 set finals in clay masters up until about 2006 whereas Djokovic never had to play best of 5 outside the slams and Davis Cup?

 

[Jaitock1991]

Djokovic. No question.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

I agree with the comments. Djoko just needs that RG title and he will be above fed. Here's hoping he does it this year!

 

[mattosgrant]

How much of a factor is it that Federer had to play grueling best of 5 set finals in clay masters up until about 2006 whereas Djokovic never had to play best of 5 outside the slams and Davis Cup?

That is an interesting question. I think it might have had an affect on Fed, although I am not sure if he would have won anymore than he did even under todays format. Nadal just had his number in a huge way (ESPECIALY on clay), and considering that he did well to win 6 Masters and 1 RG.

The better question would be if it would have had a negative effect on Djokovic. That I dont know. Generally a best of 5 would actually favor Djokovic and make him harder to beat than a best of 3 since he has been the fittest guy on tour since 2011 (even over Nadal) but it could lead to making doubles or back to back Masters wins hard, or more fatigue building up through a long clay season.

 

[Tardigrade]

Another vote for yes. But only IF he wins it. I don't care how many clay 1000's he piles up - must win RG.

Do you believe Wawrinka and Gaudio are better claycourters than Djokovic?

 

[metsman]

lol Federer below Vilas, Bruguera, and Muster on clay...Honestly peak for peak only Borg/Nadal are clearly above and good arguments can be made for Kuerten/Lendl and maybe 92 Courier as well obviously. Djokovic if(when) he wins RG is more accomplished on clay given his MS accomplishments which are very impressive, but given who had to face peak Nadal more, who had more success against peak nadal despite matchup difficulties, and their respective peak levels on clay and matchups well that makes things different.

 

[tennisaddict]

Let us talk about it when it happens. Fact is Wawrinka's clay resume is better than Novak's at this time. Or for that matter even Gaudio's is better.

 

[mattosgrant]

lol Federer below Vilas, Bruguera, and Muster on clay...Honestly peak for peak only Borg/Nadal are clearly above and good arguments can be made for Kuerten/Lendl and maybe 92 Courier as well obviously. Djokovic if(when) he wins RG is more accomplished on clay given his MS accomplishments which are very impressive, but given who had to face peak Nadal more, who had more success against peak nadal despite matchup difficulties, and their respective peak levels on clay and matchups well that makes things different.

You clearly dont remember how scary Muster of 95 and 96 was to everyone on clay. Federer was never as scary or intimidating to the field on clay as Muster was those two years, despite the huge upset at RG 96. I say that as someone who detests Muster immensely and is almost certain he used massive PEDs at his brief peak (granted as a former pro athlete I am well aware PED usage is widespread so wont judge him too much for that, but he is far more obvious and blatant than most).

I do rate Vilas and Muster that highly on clay based on their achievements though, which is what I rate most players on, not subjective views on level of play which are mostly just people being biased towards their own favorites anyway. Would Federer beat Vilas and Muster on clay prime to prime? I dont know but overall he achieved less than both, especialy Vilas. So he ranks behind. Atleast against Muster, Fed has a case of a better RG record, but it is still ultimately 1 title to 1 which is what really matters, and then Muster with 40+ tournament titles would be almost impossible to not put over Fed with a mere 10 (both have 6 Masters). It is clear you tend to rate players more based on your subjective views on levels of play which is fine, but that is not how I rank them, and as I said such a method tends to lead to people being biased and favoring their own favorites by nature (you being a Fed fan, I being a Djokovic fan would probably be biased to him if I tried to rank him that way, and so on) which is why I tend to rank more by achievements and overall careers, the far more objective method, anyway.

 

[tennis_pro]

Take out Nadal and Federer is probably as high as Borg in the clay GOAT debate. Djokovic? Lol, never.

 

[mattosgrant]

Take out Nadal and Federer is probably as high as Borg in the clay GOAT debate. Djokovic? Lol, never.

Please, Djokovic is the same as Federer in that regard in that both would have 4 or 5 RG titles in the utterly crap clay era both play in if Nadal didnt exist. Djokovic would have been a lock to win RG 2012, 2013, 2014 without Nadal, and might have won 2008 too (and even 2011 considering there is no sure thing Fed would beat Djokovic in the finals just because he did in the semis). So the ridiculous and pointless "remove Nadal and award fantasy titles that dont exist to Fed" applies to Djokovic too. I dont judge Djokovic by this meaningless method, just as I dont Federer either. Probably atleast 20 guys in the Open Era could win 4 or 5 RG titles if they traded places with Federer or Djokovic and you removed Nadal, leaving jokes like Ferrer as their only remaining clay competition. So all that hypothetical proves is Djokovic and Federer are both easily top 20 on clay in the Open Era, as I rated them already.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic is the only player of his era who was a real challenger to Nadal on clay, but he doesn't have the one missing piece. He has 8 Masters on Clay (winning them all multiple times) and beat Nadal 3 times from 2011-2013, when Nadal was close to his best, and 6 times overall. Federer has only beat him twice on clay. If Djokovic is able to add RG to his trophy cabinet, he leaps over Federer regardless if Federer has more RG finals or not.

 

[metsman]

You clearly dont remember how scary Muster of 95 and 96 was to everyone on clay. Federer was never as scary or intimidating to the field on clay as Muster was those two years, despite the huge upset at RG 96. I say that as someone who detests Muster immensely and is almost certain he used massive PEDs at his brief peak (granted as a former pro athlete I am well aware PED usage is widespread so wont judge him too much for that, but he is far more obvious and blatant than most).

I do rate Vilas and Muster that highly on clay based on their achievements though, which is what I rate most players on, not subjective views on level of play which are mostly just people being biased towards their own favorites anyway. Would Federer beat Vilas and Muster on clay prime to prime? I dont know but overall he achieved less than both, especialy Vilas. So he ranks behind. Atleast against Muster, Fed has a case of a better RG record, but it is still ultimately 1 title to 1 which is what really matters, and then Muster with 40+ tournament titles would be almost impossible to not put over Fed with a mere 10 (both have 6 Masters). It is clear you tend to rate players more based on your subjective views on levels of play which is fine, but that is not how I rank them, and as I said such a method tends to lead to people being biased and favoring their own favorites by nature (you being a Fed fan, I being a Djokovic fan would probably be biased to him if I tried to rank him that way, and so on) which is why I tend to rank more by achievements and overall careers, the far more objective method, anyway.

Fed was never that scary because Nadal was there. 95 started the weak clay field after Bruguera and Courier both declined and Muster took advantage. No coincidence that Muster had all this success right after Courier/Bruguera and right before Kuerten/Moya came onto the scene starting 97 as well. Regardless, Federer had a similar record on clay as Muster in 95-96 against non-Nadal foes from 05-08 anyways (only lost 3 matches to non-Nadal opponents in that span and, besides Estoril 08, that was all in tier 1 events unlike Muster). That and Federer's far superior RG record clearly give him the edge. Federer did far better against Nadal than Vilas did against Borg. You are right I am more subjective in that I value level of play over achievement in some cases but in this case I think it is justified because of the Nadal factor which clouds things heavily.

You are right that the clay field without Nadal is extremely weak but that wasn't the case until around 06 anyways and from 03-05 Fed proved his worth against top clay courters like Coria, Ferrero, Moya so that I think gives some merit to the argument that he win at least 3 RG titles in the 90's or 80's (in Lendl or Wilander's place, say). So while it isn't fair to say "WIthout Nadal Fed and Djoker have 4-5 RG and are therefore better than Kuerten/Lendl" but I think it is fair to say that they would have at least 2-3 and be considered above Courier/Bruguera/Muster/Vilas.

Djokovic hasn't really played any top clay courters besides Federer and Nadal but his success against post-peak Nadal on clay also suggests he would do fine in other eras without Nadal. And I agree that the deeper clay field would make it tougher for them to rack up the finals and masters wins but at RG when they were focused and motivated I think it wouldn't make a ton of difference.

 

[mattosgrant]

Fed was never that scary because Nadal was there. 95 started the weak clay field after Bruguera and Courier both declined and Muster took advantage. No coincidence that Muster had all this success right after Courier/Bruguera and right before Kuerten/Moya came onto the scene starting 97 as well. Regardless, Federer had a similar record on clay as Muster in 95-96 against non-Nadal foes from 05-08 anyways (only lost 3 matches to non-Nadal opponents in that span and, besides Estoril 08, that was all in tier 1 events unlike Muster). That and Federer's far superior RG record clearly give him the edge. Federer did far better against Nadal than Vilas did against Borg. You are right I am more subjective in that I value level of play over achievement in some cases but in this case I think it is justified because of the Nadal factor which clouds things heavily.

You are right that the clay field without Nadal is extremely weak but that wasn't the case until around 06 anyways and from 03-05 Fed proved his worth against top clay courters like Coria, Ferrero, Moya so that I think gives some merit to the argument that he win at least 3 RG titles in the 90's or 80's (in Lendl or Wilander's place, say). So while it isn't fair to say "WIthout Nadal Fed and Djoker have 4-5 RG and are therefore better than Kuerten/Lendl" but I think it is fair to say that they would have at least 2-3 and be considered above Courier/Bruguera/Muster/Vilas.

Djokovic hasn't really played any top clay courters besides Federer and Nadal but his success against post-peak Nadal on clay also suggests he would do fine in other eras without Nadal. And I agree that the deeper clay field would make it tougher for them to rack up the finals and masters wins but at RG when they were focused and motivated I think it wouldn't make a ton of difference.

Again I ultimately rank players predominantly by achievements. I might factor in views on level of play or head to heads, etc.. a bit but the bulk of my ranking of players will always be on achievements. Now if you choose to rank players differently that is fine, but that is not me. And on achievements both Vilas and Muster belong over Federer on clay. I dont think Federer would have the level of intimidation Muster had in 95-96 on clay btw even without Nadal, even if he would have won most of the titles for a few years. That despite that the overall clay field in 95-96 is light years beyond the 05-06 one for instance. Guys were literally terrified to death to play Muster on clay those 2 years, and as someone who never could stand Muster that reality as a young observer was amplified, and I remember that sinking feeling all too well.

Yeah I am sure Federer would be fine and do well on clay and any era, but that doesnt mean on any planet he would win 4-5 French Opens in any era (just because he probably would have won that in this era without Nadal) which is the implication some seem to suggest should be the real barometer of Fed's clay abilities which IMO is a joke. Plus you could play those games for alot of people, Vilas could also win 4-5 French Open titles if Borg didnt exist, it doesnt mean I think he is the uncrowned clay GOAT or a top 3 clay courter all time. Whether he would do better or worse than say Muster or Bruguera overall in the 90s I dont know, but ultimately since that isnt clear either way I go with the player who achieved more and that is those guys.

As for the people you mention I think you are exagerrating things. Federer didnt really start becoming a consistent top clay courter until 2005. Even 2004 he crashed out early in most of the big clay events he played. In 2005 Moya was already well past his prime (yes 2004 he was still quite good althogh even then not truly prime anymore), Coria had already dipped significantly in confidence compared to 03-04 after that gutting RG defeat (and 05 is truly the last year he was even pretty good), Ferrero was done after his injury at the 2004 Australian Open so he in no way whatsoever was ever direct competition during Fed's glory years on clay. The best of the rest were Nalbandian and Davydenko, both clearly hard court/carpet specialists before clay, and Ferrer. Until Djokovic began challenging in 2008 or so, and even then it seemed he and Federer were almost never in the same half at events mysteriously so barely played in that 2008-2010 period they were pretty equal in abilities on clay.

 

[sliceroni]

King of Clay denied Fed 4 RG titles. But on paper Nole, if he wins RG.

 

[metsman]

Again I ultimately rank players predominantly by achievements. I might factor in views on level of play or head to heads, etc.. a bit but the bulk of my ranking of players will always be on achievements. Now if you choose to rank players differently that is fine, but that is not me. And on achievements both Vilas and Muster belong over Federer on clay. I dont think Federer would have the level of intimidation Muster had in 95-96 on clay btw even without Nadal, even if he would have won most of the titles for a few years. That despite that the overall clay field in 95-96 is light years beyond the 05-06 one for instance. Guys were literally terrified to death to play Muster on clay those 2 years, and as someone who never could stand Muster that reality as a young observer was amplified, and I remember that sinking feeling all too well.

Yeah I am sure Federer would be fine and do well on clay and any era, but that doesnt mean on any planet he would win 4-5 French Opens in any era (just because he probably would have won that in this era without Nadal) which is the implication some seem to suggest should be the real barometer of Fed's clay abilities which IMO is a joke. Plus you could play those games for alot of people, Vilas could also win 4-5 French Open titles if Borg didnt exist, it doesnt mean I think he is the uncrowned clay GOAT or a top 3 clay courter all time. Whether he would do better or worse than say Muster or Bruguera overall in the 90s I dont know, but ultimately since that isnt clear either way I go with the player who achieved more and that is those guys.

As for the people you mention I think you are exagerrating things. Federer didnt really start becoming a consistent top clay courter until 2005. Even 2004 he crashed out early in most of the big clay events he played. In 2005 Moya was already well past his prime (yes 2004 he was still quite good althogh even then not truly prime anymore), Coria had already dipped significantly in confidence compared to 03-04 after that gutting RG defeat (and 05 is truly the last year he was even pretty good), Ferrero was done after his injury at the 2004 Australian Open so he in no way whatsoever was ever direct competition during Fed's glory years on clay. The best of the rest were Nalbandian and Davydenko, both clearly hard court/carpet specialists before clay, and Ferrer. Until Djokovic began challenging in 2008 or so, and even then it seemed he and Federer were almost never in the same half at events mysteriously so barely played in that 2008-2010 period they were pretty equal in abilities on clay.

federer beat ferrero in rome in 03(ferrero wasn't 100% that match but still a convincing performance until Ferrero retired and that was very green Federer vs peak Ferrero), Coria in Hamburg 04 (peak Coria in 04) and 05 (still very good Coria), and Moya in Hamburg 04 (04 was one of his best years on clay) and RG 05 (I agree he was pretty much done then), all those wins with the loss of just a set. Pretty impressive.

I was just referring to those wins to show that Federer does have wins over other quality clay courters as those guys besides Kuerten were the best clay courters from 97-04. I didn't mean that they were consistent competition for Fed because obviously from 05 on they weren't and Federer wasn't really in his clay prime till 05 either which makes some of those wins even more impressive.

 

[mattosgrant]

King of Clay denied Fed 4 RG titles. But on paper Nole, if he wins RG.

He could have denied Djokovic 4 too (2012, 2013, 2014 for sure, maybe 2008). I dont understand this constantly being brought up for Federer, but almost never for Djokovic.

 

[Chadillac]

Nah, fed had to compete with the clay goat nadal, djok has to deal with a 34 yr old version of rafa's (and every other player on clay) whipping boy. Not exactly the same.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nah, fed had to compete with the clay goat nadal, djok has to deal with a 34 yr old version of rafa's (and every other player on clay) whipping boy. Not exactly the same.

Please Nadal of the 2011-2014 period was overall roughly the same as the Nadal of the 2005-2008 period. By year from best to worst it would probably be something like:

2008
2012 (only at RG, overall on clay 2012 Rafa > every Rafa including 2008)
2007
2013
2006
2011
2014
2005

Djokovic is dealing with 34 year old Fed on clay!?!? What kind of BS is that, Fed hasnt been one of the top 4 or 5 contenders on clay since 2011 now really. I guess you are living in some fantasy planet I dont know about that 34 year old Federer has been Djokovic's main competition on clay, but I live on earth.

 

[beast of mallorca]

I think at this point it is becoming increasingly clear Djokovic would have to rank over Federer on clay if he wins the RG title this year. He will be up in Masters titles 8 or 9 vs 6, but along with that he has a way better variety with 4 Rome, 2 Madrid, and 2 Monte Carlo titles, the 3 Masters available to him (considering his final Hamburg was just after turning 21). Federer has 4 Hamburg and 2 Madrid titles but 0 at Monte Carlo and 0 at Rome, winning only 2 of the 4 available to him, while Djokovic has now won all 3 available to him multiple times. He would be only 1 behind in RG finals (barring the very unlikely event Fed is somehow in the RG final this year), with 3 RG semi final losses to Nadal (Federer has 1 of those) so basically the same thing. He now is ahead in clay titles. He has performed far better vs the hands down top clay courter of their era and clay GOAT Nadal. Actual clay head to head between Fed and Djokovic is basically a toss up. There really wouldnt be much case for Federer to be ahead, atleast achievements wise.

Considering Federer is generally believed to be the 10th best clay courter of the Open Era behind Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Vilas, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, and Muster, it would probably push him just out of the Open Era top 10 on clay as well.

Definitely Djokovic, if he wins the FO this year. Absolutely

 

[NatF]

Please Nadal of the 2011-2014 period was overall roughly the same as the Nadal of the 2005-2008 period. By year from best to worst it would probably be something like:

2008
2012 (only at RG, overall on clay 2012 Rafa > every Rafa including 2008)
2007
2013
2006
2011
2014
2005

Djokovic is dealing with 34 year old Fed on clay!?!? What kind of BS is that, Fed hasnt been one of the top 4 or 5 contenders on clay since 2011 now really. I guess you are living in some fantasy planet I dont know about that 34 year old Federer has been Djokovic's main competition on clay, but I live on earth.

Nadal of 2005 on clay is probably about equal with 2013 IMO or at least only just below it. It was certainly better than 06, 11 and 14.

As far as the topic goes if Djokovic wins the FO he will have the better resume on clay. Absolute top level of play I would go for Federer, consistent level of play maybe Djokovic - so obvious edge to Djokovic overall. He's got to win the FO first though.

 

[abmk]

Please Nadal of the 2011-2014 period was overall roughly the same as the Nadal of the 2005-2008 period. By year from best to worst it would probably be something like:

2008
2012 (only at RG, overall on clay 2012 Rafa > every Rafa including 2008)
2007
2013
2006
2011
2014
2005

Djokovic is dealing with 34 year old Fed on clay!?!? What kind of BS is that, Fed hasnt been one of the top 4 or 5 contenders on clay since 2011 now really. I guess you are living in some fantasy planet I dont know about that 34 year old Federer has been Djokovic's main competition on clay, but I live on earth.

2008
2012
2007
2006
2005~2011~2013
2014

rafa who's losing to ferrer/almagro/nearly nishikori in 14 is not better than 05 rafa

so hell yeah, 2005-08 rafa > 2011-14 rafa by a distance ...

 

[Russeljones]

I think at this point it is becoming increasingly clear Djokovic would have to rank over Federer on clay if he wins the RG title this year. He will be up in Masters titles 8 or 9 vs 6, but along with that he has a way better variety with 4 Rome, 2 Madrid, and 2 Monte Carlo titles, the 3 Masters available to him (considering his final Hamburg was just after turning 21). Federer has 4 Hamburg and 2 Madrid titles but 0 at Monte Carlo and 0 at Rome, winning only 2 of the 4 available to him, while Djokovic has now won all 3 available to him multiple times. He would be only 1 behind in RG finals (barring the very unlikely event Fed is somehow in the RG final this year), with 3 RG semi final losses to Nadal (Federer has 1 of those) so basically the same thing. He now is ahead in clay titles. He has performed far better vs the hands down top clay courter of their era and clay GOAT Nadal. Actual clay head to head between Fed and Djokovic is basically a toss up. There really wouldnt be much case for Federer to be ahead, atleast achievements wise.

Considering Federer is generally believed to be the 10th best clay courter of the Open Era behind Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Vilas, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, and Muster, it would probably push him just out of the Open Era top 10 on clay as well.

I rank Novak above Federer on clay without RG. It has to be blatantly obvious that Novak's game is better suited to the surface.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nadal of 2005 on clay is probably about equal with 2013 IMO or at least only just below it. It was certainly better than 06, 11 and 14.

Nadal on 2005 is better on clay than 2006? I dont understand that at all, as it seems pretty clear he was improving every year on clay from 2005 onwards for awhile. In 2005 he was still having trouble with guys like Gaudio and Andreev regularly, and had trouble with a sluggish Fed and Puerta and Grosjean in winning RG. Rome 2006 Federer probably would have been enough to pull out a best of 5 win over 2005 Nadal on clay, but not 2006 as we saw. Nadal of 2005 was already excellent on clay but he was still extremely young, and building strength, maturity, confidence, despite that he already had become top guy on clay.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

I am not sure if you made a similar thread a few weeks/months ago but yes Djokovic would be ahead of Federer's clay achievements if he wins RG since he has more Masters and defeats vs the best Clay Court Players.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic is the only player of his era who was a real challenger to Nadal on clay, but he doesn't have the one missing piece. He has 8 Masters on Clay (winning them all multiple times) and beat Nadal 3 times from 2011-2013, when Nadal was close to his best, and 6 times overall. Federer has only beat him twice on clay. If Djokovic is able to add RG to his trophy cabinet, he leaps over Federer regardless if Federer has more RG finals or not.

A real challenger when Nadal was old maybe.

Just as Fognini.

 

[metsman]

Nadal of 2005 on clay is probably about equal with 2013 IMO or at least only just below it. It was certainly better than 06, 11 and 14.

As far as the topic goes if Djokovic wins the FO he will have the better resume on clay. Absolute top level of play I would go for Federer, consistent level of play maybe Djokovic - so obvious edge to Djokovic overall. He's got to win the FO first though.

05 rafa is ridiculously underrated...I also feel like people overrate the hell out of 2013 Rafa because of 1 set...a set which he won 9-7 because let's be real, besides that he wasn't that impressive. Djoker destroyed him in MC (where he also lost a set 6-2 to Greegor), lost sets to Brands and Klizan at the FO, almost lost to Ferrer in madrid, got breadsticked by Gulbis and lost another set to Ferrer in Rome.

for me it goes 08, 12=07, 05=10, 06 as his best years.

 

[NoleFam]

A real challenger when Nadal was old maybe.

Just as Fognini.

Nadal was 24 when Djokovic beat him in Madrid and Rome in 2011. Try harder.

 

[metsman]

Nadal on 2005 is better on clay than 2006? I dont understand that at all, as it seems pretty clear he was improving every year on clay from 2005 onwards for awhile. In 2005 he was still having trouble with guys like Gaudio and Andreev regularly, and had trouble with a sluggish Fed and Puerta and Grosjean in winning RG. Rome 2006 Federer probably would have been enough to pull out a best of 5 win over 2005 Nadal on clay, but not 2006 as we saw. Nadal of 2005 was already excellent on clay but he was still extremely young, and building strength, maturity, confidence, despite that he already had become top guy on clay.

05 was one of his best years...he was a different animal starting Monte Carlo. The RG final was one of his better matches...Puerta was redlining the first set ripping flat groundstrokes all over the place and he barely won that set and after Nadal settled in he destroyed him. 54 winners, 28 UFE.

He was better in 05 than 2006 when he was a little more passive in order to matchup better against Federer which brought his level down slightly overall (but not against federer). I doubt Rome 06 would have pulled it out given the Rome final in 05 where Nadal made another amazing comeback against Coria. It would have been more or less the same story probably.

 

[metsman]

I rank Novak above Federer on clay without RG. It has to be blatantly obvious that Novak's game is better suited to the surface.

no it isn't. Federer is more comfortable moving on the surface, has a heavier forehand which penetrates the court more which are the two keys of playing on clay. Also better touch/dropshots. Djokovic has a more solid and dependable BH of course and has slightly better court coverage on clay than peak Federer but he like Federer can also have patches where he hits a lot of UFE because he isn't comfortable moving on clay like he is on hard.

 

[tennis_pro]

Nadal was 24 when Djokovic beat him in Madrid and Rome in 2011. Try harder.

Nadal was mediocre in 2011.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nadal was mediocre in 2011.

He was beating everyone else other than Djokovic t_p.

 

[tennis_pro]

He was beating everyone else other than Djokovic t_p.

y

 

[nolefam_2024]

I am not sure why people discuss it.
1) Novak would most probably win 1 RG anyway before he retires, so EVERY only if statement is pointless.
2) Even if Novak wins 1 RG, he and Fed would be so close on clay that it does not even MATTER who is ahead.

Only if Novak wins 2 RG, he will be ahead of Fed OTHERWISE it would be inconsequential comparing them, exactly why anyone can make any argument.

 

[tennisaddict]

We see this thread pop up every few days.

Let Novak win 2 RG and take his place.

He did the same at AO winning 2015 and 2016, steering himself clearly away from Fed.

At 1 major each, there is nothing much to differentiate

 

[mattosgrant]

Nadal was 24 when Djokovic beat him in Madrid and Rome in 2011. Try harder.

Yeah Nadal washed up at 24 according to some people. It is almost as funny as the Fed fans who insist even the late blooming/great longevity man was "past his prime" already at 26.

 

[mattosgrant]

2008
2012
2007
2006
2005~2011~2013
2014

rafa who's losing to ferrer/almagro/nearly nishikori in 14 is not better than 05 rafa

so hell yeah, 2005-08 rafa > 2011-14 rafa by a distance ...

You obviously have a short memory. Nadal in 2005 lost matches on clay easily to Igor Andreev and Gaudio (ok Gaudio is a shock RG champion but people still debate whether he is even better than someone like Ferrer on clay). He was 2 points from losing to Ferrer in Hamburg in 2005 and late bloomer Ferrer of 2014 is a far better player than he was in 05 (2014 was just before he started his decline) so I dont know what on earth you conclude he wouldnt be quite possibly losing to Ferrer or Nishikori on clay in 2005 too. Not at RG he wouldnt, but certainly quite possibly at some of the smaller clay events, those guys sure as heck are alot better than Andreev who posted an easy win over Nadal on clay in 05 after all, LOL! In his RG title run he not only struggled against Fed, but both Puerta and Grosjean as well. Rafa still had tons of improvement left on clay in 2005, despite that he was already the best clay courter.

I think the Nadal of 2005 would never be strong enough to beat say the Djokovic of the 2013 RG semis, and 2006 is even questionable as to whether he could have. Really other than his terrible performance in the Monte Carlo final vs Djokovic which was apparently just an off day, Nadal was excellent on clay in 2013, although obviously below his godly 2012 level.

Meanwhile Rafa''s 2011 clay form is downplayed mostly by either: a) Nadal fanatics who cant stand to admit at close to his best he could lose matches on clay, or b) Djokovic haters who want to diminish his successes of that year in anyway possible.

 

[mattosgrant]

no it isn't. Federer is more comfortable moving on the surface, has a heavier forehand which penetrates the court more which are the two keys of playing on clay. Also better touch/dropshots. Djokovic has a more solid and dependable BH of course and has slightly better court coverage on clay than peak Federer but he like Federer can also have patches where he hits a lot of UFE because he isn't comfortable moving on clay like he is on hard.

The bolded part is definitely not true. Djokovic is more comfortable sliding on the clay than Federer is. Federer even admits his footing on clay isnt as good as hard courts or grass. Djokovic's footing is clearly better on hard courts too, but while neither is uncomfortable sliding on the clay it seems clear Djokovic is slightly more comfortable and better at it.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sad to say, I would have to rank Novak Djokovic as greater than Federer on clay, if he wins RG this year.

 

[abmk]

You obviously have a short memory. Nadal in 2005 lost matches on clay easily to Igor Andreev and Gaudio (ok Gaudio is a shock RG champion but people still debate whether he is even better than someone like Ferrer on clay). He was 2 points from losing to Ferrer in Hamburg in 2005 and late bloomer Ferrer of 2014 is a far better player than he was in 05 (2014 was just before he started his decline) so I dont know what on earth you conclude he wouldnt be quite possibly losing to Ferrer or Nishikori on clay in 2005 too. Not at RG he wouldnt, but certainly quite possibly at some of the smaller clay events, those guys sure as heck are alot better than Andreev who posted an easy win over Nadal on clay in 05 after all, LOL! In his RG title run he not only struggled against Fed, but both Puerta and Grosjean as well. Rafa still had tons of improvement left on clay in 2005, despite that he was already the best clay courter.

I think the Nadal of 2005 would never be strong enough to beat say the Djokovic of the 2013 RG semis, and 2006 is even questionable as to whether he could have. Really other than his terrible performance in the Monte Carlo final vs Djokovic which was apparently just an off day, Nadal was excellent on clay in 2013, although obviously below his godly 2012 level.

Meanwhile Rafa''s 2011 clay form is downplayed mostly by either: a) Nadal fanatics who cant stand to admit at close to his best he could lose matches on clay, or b) Djokovic haters who want to diminish his successes of that year in anyway possible.

1. I was mainly talking about his form in masters and RG in 05 ( when he started to gather steam - from MC onwards ), he was unbeaten on clay from then on ...that should be obvious (when talking about 13 should I go on and on about the early part of the year when he lost to zeballos and was playing well below in sao paolo -- even though he won )

in 05 , from the start of the run, he beat probably the best version of gasquet and then coria at MC 05, beat coria at Rome 05 in that epic match , beat federer/puerta B2B at RG ..no, that nadal is not losing to nishikori/almagro/ferrer.

nadal of 2005 > djokovic of RG 13 semi , so is nadal of 06 ( in general )

2. yeah, nadal was so excellent on clay in 2013 apart from the 13 MC final that he :

a) lost a set 2-6 to dimitrov in MC ( not that losing a set to dimitrov is bad, but he lost it badly )
b) nearly lost to ferrer in straights in madrid ( was 2 points away from losing )
c) should've lost to gulbis in Rome, but somehow won ( nadal had 13 winners to 59 from gulbis )
d) nearly went down 2 sets to brands, lost a set to klizan at RG
e) played a sh*t match vs fognini at RG, but that goes unnoticed because he didn't lose a set in that match.


3. as far nadal of 11 is concerned, :

a) lost a set 2-6 to murray in MC ( not that losing a set to murray is bad, but he lost it badly )
b) lost a set to #148 ranked lorenzi in rome
c) lost 2 sets to isner in 1R of RG
d) was nearly bagelled by andujar at RG - who of course went to choke that set magnificently


I know what happened in 11 and 13. My memory is pretty good. So stop with the revisionist bullsh*t.

 

[abmk]

no it isn't. Federer is more comfortable moving on the surface, has a heavier forehand which penetrates the court more which are the two keys of playing on clay. Also better touch/dropshots. Djokovic has a more solid and dependable BH of course and has slightly better court coverage on clay than peak Federer but he like Federer can also have patches where he hits a lot of UFE because he isn't comfortable moving on clay like he is on hard.

I agree with this .

 

[Tennisanity]

Djokovic can never be better because at his absolute best in 2011 when he was going for a record no less playing the best tennis he is capable of, he lost to Federer who was no longer peak (even though some may claim he was playing peak on clay in 2011). So no version of Djokovic is better on clay than peak Federer.

That has nothing to do with Djokovic's better ability to beat Nadal on clay. Matchups.

 

[user]

I think the Nadal of 2005 would never be strong enough to beat say the Djokovic of the 2013 RG semis, and 2006 is even questionable as to whether he could have. Really other than his terrible performance in the Monte Carlo final vs Djokovic which was apparently just an off day, Nadal was excellent on clay in 2013, although obviously below his godly 2012 level.

2005 Nadal:

1. Lost to Gaudio (bagel + breadstick)
2. Lost sets to Calleri, Mello, Martin, Gasquet, Stepanek, Ferrer, Grosjean
3. Straightsetted by Andreev

2006 Nadal:

1. Lost sets to Gaudio, Nieminen, Hewitt
2. Barely beat Mathieu at RG, his RG campaign alltogether was far from convincing

2013 Nadal:

1. Lost to Zeballos (first tournament after a long hiatus)
2. Lost sets to Alund, Berlocq, Gulbis, Dimitrov, Ferrer, Brands, Klizan

General form 2006>2013>2005
RG only 2013>2005>2006

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic can never be better because at his absolute best in 2011 when he was going for a record no less playing the best tennis he is capable of, he lost to Federer who was no longer peak (even though some may claim he was playing peak on clay in 2011). So no version of Djokovic is better on clay than peak Federer.

That has nothing to do with Djokovic's better ability to beat Nadal on clay. Matchups.

Just because Federer beat Djokovic at RG in 2011 doesn't mean he's the better clay courter. I think the question was more about who would have the better overall record should Novak win the French this year rather than peak level of play which is always debatable.