Djokovic vs Federer on clay if Djokovic wins RG this year

[Krish872007]

To be honest, there's an argument for putting Djokovic slightly higher right now.
However, I would value an RG title - so I'll say Federer is above until Novak gets an RG.

 

[mattosgrant]

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.

This "old Federer" theory regarding that 2011 result is also increasingly a garbage one. Djokovic is now almost as old as Federer was then and is playing some of his best tennis ever. Not to mention regardless of his supposed peak, prime, blah blah, Federer probably played his 2nd best clay match ever after only Rome 2006 that day, so he sure as heck had better have won, otherwise it would really be obvious he were the weaker clay courter.

That is without even mentioning the side argument there are many Federer fans who still insist that he is superior to 3 time RG champion (Federer of course a mere 1 time one) Kuerten, even though a way way past his prime Kuerten absolutely destroyed peak Federer at RG 2004. A far more telling result by about 200 times than the RG 2011, and yet it still doesnt deter many Federer fans from insisting he is a superior clay courter who merits a higher rating than the already far more accomplished Kuerten.

 

[metsman]

This "old Federer" theory regarding that 2011 result is also increasingly a garbage one. Djokovic is now almost as old as Federer was then and is playing some of his best tennis ever. Not to mention regardless of his supposed peak, prime, blah blah, Federer probably played his 2nd best clay match ever after only Rome 2006 that day, so he sure as heck had better have won, otherwise it would really be obvious he were the weaker clay courter.

That is without even mentioning the side argument there are many Federer fans who still insist that he is superior to 3 time RG champion (Federer of course a mere 1 time one) Kuerten, even though a way way past his prime Kuerten absolutely destroyed peak Federer at RG 2004. A far more telling result by about 200 times than the RG 2011, and yet it still doesnt deter many Federer fans from insisting he is a superior clay courter who merits a higher rating than the already far more accomplished Kuerten.

2004 was not Federer's clay peak...far from it as you yourself admitted. How that's 200 times a more telling result than 2011 RG semi I have no idea. 2011 was probably Djokovic's clay peak and he was better in the semi than Fed was in the 04 RG match. 2011 RG is probably a top 5 clay match for Federer, but definitely not 2nd. Rome 06, matches in Hamburg 02/04/05/07, FO 09 final are all up there.

 

[metsman]

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.

Seemed to me Federer was more natural at sliding into shots and just keeping balance on clay in general.

 

[Man of steel]

Djokovic may be ahead of fed statistcally on clay bet i'd still rank fed the better player on clay and higher peak.

 

[Incognito]

To be honest, there's an argument for putting Djokovic slightly higher right now.
However, I would value an RG title - so I'll say Federer is above until Novak gets an RG.

An argument can be made if he wins RG once. Right now, he's not worthy of washing Roger's dirty undies.

 

[abmk]

2004 was not Federer's clay peak...far from it as you yourself admitted. How that's 200 times a more telling result than 2011 RG semi I have no idea. 2011 was probably Djokovic's clay peak and he was better in the semi than Fed was in the 04 RG match. 2011 RG is probably a top 5 clay match for Federer, but definitely not 2nd. Rome 06, matches in Hamburg 02/04/05/07, FO 09 final are all up there.

the hewitt semi in hamburg 04 doesn't get talked about much, but that was as ridiculous an FH exhibition as the USO final later on that year ( of course USO one was more impressive as hewitt is clearly better at the USO than on clay )

 

[metsman]

the hewitt semi in hamburg 04 doesn't get talked about much, but that was as ridiculous an FH exhibition as the USO final later on that year ( of course USO one was more impressive as hewitt is clearly better at the USO than on clay )

yup..also great in the final against peak Coria. He beat a slew of good opponents in Hamburg that year. Low bouncing donditions definitely helped him as he was pretty bad in all the clay events (even Gastaad against weak opponents).

 

[InsideOut900]

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.

You know what is even worse,that all your points are irrelevant.
Did Nadal lose any of those matches? No.
Did he play poor when it mattered the most? Well he did in Madrid 2013, winning MC would have been hard anyway .He played poor in the opening round where there was no risk for an upset.
2011 SF/F or 2013 SF/F in RG were excelent matches,better than 2006 and roughly the same level as 2005,this is all that is relevant in comparison. I would bring the 2006 final once again,because he shouldn't have got away with that one,having played a sub-par match,but he did. 2005RG was probably nice,but 2006 was one of his worst,at least for me.
He was better in clay masters in 2005/2006 compared to 2013 only,about equal in 2011,although it gets brought down a bit.
He won some epics back then,but I feel it had to do with the opponents choking. 2011 Rome and Madrid weren't bad,but the match-up with peak Nole made them look worse for sure,while beating redhot Federer makes it look better.

 

[Tennisanity]

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.

I think it does mean Federer is the better clay courter. Because if 2011 is the highest level Djokovic can ever produce, which it most certainly is based on how he played that year and going for Mac's record at FO, and Federer is no longer peak defeats him, it stands to reason that no version of Djokovic can beat peak Fed on clay barring an off day by Federer.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I think it does mean Federer is the better clay courter. Because if 2011 is the highest level Djokovic can ever produce, which it most certainly is based on how he played that year and going for Mac's record at FO, and Federer is no longer peak defeats him, it stands to reason that no version of Djokovic can beat peak Fed on clay barring an off day by Federer.

Which is a perfectly acceptable opinion to have even though the sample size is a very small one.

 

[Tennisanity]

Which is a perfectly acceptable opinion to have even though the sample size is a very small one.

Agreed small sample size but a crucial one. It would be like peak Djokovic losing at AO to old man Hewitt - and both played well. You could never again say Djoko was the AO GOAT if that happened.

 

[metsman]

You know what is even worse,that all your points are irrelevant.
Did Nadal lose any of those matches? No.
Did he play poor when it mattered the most? Well he did in Madrid 2013, winning MC would have been hard anyway .He played poor in the opening round where there was no risk for an upset.
2011 SF/F or 2013 SF/F in RG were excelent matches,better than 2006 and roughly the same level as 2005,this is all that is relevant in comparison. I would bring the 2006 final once again,because he shouldn't have got away with that one,having played a sub-par match,but he did. 2005RG was probably nice,but 2006 was one of his worst,at least for me.
He was better in clay masters in 2005/2006 compared to 2013 only,about equal in 2011,although it gets brought down a bit.
He won some epics back then,but I feel it had to do with the opponents choking. 2011 Rome and Madrid weren't bad,but the match-up with peak Nole made them look worse for sure,while beating redhot Federer makes it look better.

Nadal was not subpar in the 06 FO final after the first set. Horrible first set I agree.

He was easily better in the masters 06 than 11 or 13. 06 MC finals was one of his best clay matches, Rome was not quite as good but still at a good level...he wasn't at that level in 11 or 13. Not to mention 06 his perhaps his physical peak on clay as he was just grinding everyone into dust that year.

 

[InsideOut900]

Nadal was not subpar in the 06 FO final after the first set. Horrible first set I agree.

He was easily better in the masters 06 than 11 or 13. 06 MC finals was one of his best clay matches, Rome was not quite as good but still at a good level...he wasn't at that level in 11 or 13. Not to mention 06 his perhaps his physical peak on clay as he was just grinding everyone into dust that year.

Regarding the 2006 FO,I remember him playing some peak tennis for 1 set,he really broke Fed bad in the 3rd and the first part of the 4th set. But he wasn't that good in the 2nd,1st part of the 3rd and bonus he choked serving for the match.
Federer helped him big time with 60+ UE's(check youtube for screen stats, Eurosport says he made only 54,but he commited more).
I would give it to you for the clay Masters,you are right,although again,the match-up with Fed makes him look better.

 

[NoleFam]

I think it does mean Federer is the better clay courter. Because if 2011 is the highest level Djokovic can ever produce, which it most certainly is based on how he played that year and going for Mac's record at FO, and Federer is no longer peak defeats him, it stands to reason that no version of Djokovic can beat peak Fed on clay barring an off day by Federer.

Was the 2011 SF the best level Novak can produce? I doubt it. The forehand was masterclass but his backhand was subpar, which was costly and one of the few times I have ever seen that happen in a big match. Him having a walkover going into a match of that magnitude did not bode well either for his rhythm and timing. I remember before the match Patrick McEnroe said Federer would beat Djokovic because he had had so many days off and it would screw with his timing and he would be off. I thought he was being a bit drastic but turns out he was 100% right. Also, an intangible is that Federer was playing with uncommon lighter balls and was able to serve lights out. So, in your eyes you may think Federer has a higher peak level because he played the best he possibly can against a Djokovic who we know can play better; and even then if just 4 points in the tiebreakers went in the opposite direction, the result would be different.

 

[tennisaddict]

Was the 2011 SF the best level Novak can produce? I doubt it. The forehand was masterclass but his backhand was subpar, which was costly and one of the few times I have ever seen that happen in a big match. Him having a walkover going into a match of that magnitude did not bode well either for his rhythm and timing. I remember before the match Patrick McEnroe said Federer would beat Djokovic because he had had so many days off and it would screw with his timing and he would be off. I thought he was being a bit drastic but turns out he was 100% right. Also, an intangible is that Federer was playing with uncommon lighter balls and was able to serve lights out. So, in your eyes you may think Federer has a higher peak level because he played the best he possibly can against a Djokovic who we know can play better; and even then if just 4 points in the tiebreakers went in the opposite direction, the result would be different.

If you are talking about 4 points as nothing then we have to extend that argument to Wimb 14, Wimb 15 and USO 15

 

[abmk]

You know what is even worse,that all your points are irrelevant.
Did Nadal lose any of those matches? No.
Did he play poor when it mattered the most? Well he did in Madrid 2013, winning MC would have been hard anyway .He played poor in the opening round where there was no risk for an upset.
2011 SF/F or 2013 SF/F in RG were excelent matches,better than 2006 and roughly the same level as 2005,this is all that is relevant in comparison. I would bring the 2006 final once again,because he shouldn't have got away with that one,having played a sub-par match,but he did. 2005RG was probably nice,but 2006 was one of his worst,at least for me.
He was better in clay masters in 2005/2006 compared to 2013 only,about equal in 2011,although it gets brought down a bit.
He won some epics back then,but I feel it had to do with the opponents choking. 2011 Rome and Madrid weren't bad,but the match-up with peak Nole made them look worse for sure,while beating redhot Federer makes it look better.

its not irrelevant and you know it. if those matches are not indications of nadal being below par, what is ? losing matches ? well, losing to djokovic in straights thrice ,for one ? But of course, that is put down to djokovic only majorly ?

I saw the first half of the 2nd set of RG 06 and nadal was perfectly good in that, doing his job well , while federer did self-destruct. only the 1st set was sub-par ...one bad set doesn't make an entire match from nadal sub-par.

so the epics were choking, but RG 2011 final wasn't ? losing a set after being up 5-2 and having a set point ? hello !?

masters about equal in 11 ?

rome 06 nadal was serving at 80+% and playing much better than he did vs Nole in rome 11. and of course MC 06 final was much better than madrid 11 final , its a no contest.

 

[NoleFam]

If you are talking about 4 points as nothing then we have to extend that argument to Wimb 14, Wimb 15 and USO 15

Fair enough regarding 2014 Wimbledon and US Open 2015 but I don't see 2015 Wimbledon being any different no matter which way you cut it.

 

[mattosgrant]

Was the 2011 SF the best level Novak can produce? I doubt it. The forehand was masterclass but his backhand was subpar, which was costly and one of the few times I have ever seen that happen in a big match. Him having a walkover going into a match of that magnitude did not bode well either for his rhythm and timing. I remember before the match Patrick McEnroe said Federer would beat Djokovic because he had had so many days off and it would screw with his timing and he would be off. I thought he was being a bit drastic but turns out he was 100% right. Also, an intangible is that Federer was playing with uncommon lighter balls and was able to serve lights out. So, in your eyes you may think Federer has a higher peak level because he played the best he possibly can against a Djokovic who we know can play better; and even then if just 4 points in the tiebreakers went in the opposite direction, the result would be different.

RG 2011 SF was a good performance by Novak but it definitely ranks way lower on his personal list of best ever clay matches than it does Fed's. That year alone it probably wouldnt even make his top 5 given some of his amazing displays that year, while Fed's performance would easily make his all time top 5 on clay without question.

 

[NoleFam]

RG 2011 SF was a good performance by Novak but it definitely ranks way lower on his personal list of best ever clay matches than it does Fed's. That year alone it probably wouldnt even make his top 5 given some of his amazing displays that year, while Fed's performance would easily make his all time top 5 on clay without question.

Absolutely. Federer delivered a masterclass all around, so we have to give him credit for that, but it was not Djokovic's best performance that year by a good measure.

 

[Tony48]

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.

Which version of Nadal did Djokovic deal with in 2011?

 

[mattosgrant]

Which version of Nadal did Djokovic deal with in 2011?

He doesnt even acknowledge that Nadal was Djokovic's biggest rival on clay by far from 2011-2014 at all. In fact he potrays 34 year old Federer as Djokovic's biggest competition on clay in the last few years by the wording of his post, LOL! Truly comical.

 

[Tennisanity]

Was the 2011 SF the best level Novak can produce? I doubt it. The forehand was masterclass but his backhand was subpar, which was costly and one of the few times I have ever seen that happen in a big match. Him having a walkover going into a match of that magnitude did not bode well either for his rhythm and timing. I remember before the match Patrick McEnroe said Federer would beat Djokovic because he had had so many days off and it would screw with his timing and he would be off. I thought he was being a bit drastic but turns out he was 100% right. Also, an intangible is that Federer was playing with uncommon lighter balls and was able to serve lights out. So, in your eyes you may think Federer has a higher peak level because he played the best he possibly can against a Djokovic who we know can play better; and even then if just 4 points in the tiebreakers went in the opposite direction, the result would be different.

Was the 2011 SF the best level Novak can produce? Yes. For sure. The forehand AND backhand were masterclass. See how that works?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I rank Novak above Federer on clay without RG.

Right.

It has to be blatantly obvious that Novak's game is better suited to the surface Nadal's game.

FTFY

 

[Chadillac]

Which version of Nadal did Djokovic deal with in 2011?

Nadal lost 15 matches in 2011, it wasnt a good year for him. Lost 6 in 2012 and 7 in 2013.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nadal lost 15 matches in 2011, it wasnt a good year for him. Lost 6 in 2012 and 7 in 2013.

You have a valid point on 2013, but 2012 is meaningless when he only played half a year (and mostly his preferred part of the year too). 15 to 7 is a big difference but some of that is 6 losses to Djokovic in 2011 vs 3 in 2013, and that is partly down to Djokovic too. Fed was also garbage in 2013.

 

[Tony48]

Nadal lost 15 matches in 2011, it wasnt a good year for him. Lost 6 in 2012 and 7 in 2013.

Almost half of those losses were to ONE player (who happened to go on one of the biggest tears in tennis history). Remove Djokovic from the equation and Nadal would have done better than 2010.

And in regards to clay? Who -- other than Djokovic -- did Nadal lose to?

 

[mattosgrant]

Almost half of those losses were to ONE player (who happened to go on one of the biggest tears in tennis history). Remove Djokovic from the equation and Nadal would have done better than 2010.

And in regards to clay? Who -- other than Djokovic -- did Nadal lose to?

He did almost lose to Isner at Roland Garros which is pretty startling. I don't think 2011 was one of his best years on clay form wise at all, although it was much better than some people imply all the same.

 

[Vcore89]

If? Novak is not going to win RG, not ever! It is in his head! Much like R-Fed succumbing to Rafa [especially on the red clay of RG] most of the time. That is a fact until proven otherwise, it's quite a tall order even for Nole.

 

[mattosgrant]

If? Novak is not going to win RG, not ever! It is in his head! Much like R-Fed succumbing to Rafa [especially on the red clay of RG] most of the time. That is a fact until proven otherwise, it's quite a tall order even for Nole.

Well if he doesn't win it this year, I will be inclined to agree with you. I can honestly say as a Djokovic fan if he doesn't win RG this year I am giving up on the idea altogether, I will become a Djokovic2011 level pesstimist on the topic. I wont expect or even seriously hope for it ever again, and if he does get it, it will be a bonus. This year I really expect him to win it, much more than ever before, but if he doesn't do it this year my feelings will change moving forward.

 

[Vcore89]

Well if he doesn't win it this year, I will be inclined to agree with you. I can honestly say as a Djokovic fan if he doesn't win RG this year I am giving up on the idea altogether, I will become a Djokovic2011 level pesstimist on the topic. I wont expect or even seriously hope for it ever again, and if he does get it, it will be a bonus. This year I really expect him to win it, much more than ever before, but if he doesn't do it this year my feelings will change moving forward.

I think this must be the second best year for him to win [he was on the cusp of RG glory last year and the year before and two years before that] it.