Greatest achievements on a surface
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Nadal will win more slams on clay and Djokovic will win more masters on hard.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, it's so fair to compare them when there are twice more slams and twice more masters tournaments on hardcourt than on clay. 
When Djokovic wins at least 20-21 slams on hardcourt (and you should thank me for not saying 24) then start comparing him to Nadal on clay. Because if there were 2 slams on clay then Nadal's numbers would be close to that. It's actually very funny that Nadal on clay is ahead given the difference in number of big tournaments.
When Djokovic wins at least 20-21 slams on hardcourt (and you should thank me for not saying 24) then start comparing him to Nadal on clay. Because if there were 2 slams on clay then Nadal's numbers would be close to that. It's actually very funny that Nadal on clay is ahead given the difference in number of big tournaments.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Competition on hardcourt is twice stronger as the surface is twice more relevant on the tour.Yeah, it's so fair to compare them when there are twice more slams and twice more masters tournaments on hardcourt than on clay.
When Djokovic wins at least 20-21 slams on hardcourt (and you should thank me for not saying 24) then start comparing him to Nadal on clay. Because if there were 2 slams on clay then Nadal's numbers would be close to that.
It's like comparing two different sports one with 1 million players and one with 500,000 players.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
You can keep thinking that if you want.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I lost what? Is there a judge/referee to determine I lost?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I remember when you used to be creative lol, yawn.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
It’s judged by the number of comments agreeing or disagreeing with you.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Yeah, it's so fair to compare them when there are twice more slams and twice more masters tournaments on hardcourt than on clay.
When Djokovic wins at least 20-21 slams on hardcourt (and you should thank me for not saying 24) then start comparing him to Nadal on clay. Because if there were 2 slams on clay then Nadal's numbers would be close to that. It's actually very funny that Nadal on clay is ahead given the difference in number of big tournaments.
This is not true lol. If there were 2 clay slams the majority of players would be claycourters than hardcourters, so there would be competition and we know Nadal doesn't like it when he has it tough and fails more often than not. See his record at the Tour Finals.
If there were 2 slams, Nadal would have chosen to be a hardcourter instead so he can harvest all the titles of the only hardcourt slam where there would be no competition.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
No, it isn't. All players from the top 100 enter RG, the same than in Grand Slams on hard.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Hardly ever happens.That doesn't determine what's wrong/right.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
How many players have their tennis built for hardcourt? When the main surface in tennis is hardcourt, you adapt your game to hardcourt.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Who will achieve more on a single surface?
Djokovic on hardcourt:
8 Slams in one event
Nadal on clay:
12 Slams in one event
Nadal already won the battle. There are TWO Slams on hard, yet Djokovic has less Slams on hard than Nadal. WIth 2 Slams on clay, Nadal coudl potentially have 24 Slams on clay.
Djokovic on hardcourt:
8 Slams in one event
Nadal on clay:
12 Slams in one event
Nadal already won the battle. There are TWO Slams on hard, yet Djokovic has less Slams on hard than Nadal. WIth 2 Slams on clay, Nadal coudl potentially have 24 Slams on clay.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Stop with the excuses. With 2 Slams on clay, Nadal could potentially have 24 Slams on clay.
Only relevant stat is:
Nadal 12 Slams on clay in one event
Djokovic 8 Slams on clay in one event
Even if we add the Slams on hard on the 2 events (AO + USO), Nadal still has more Slams on clay than Djokovic on hard (12 >11).
Nadal wins the comparison by a giant margin.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Federer 100% of wins on blue clay. Federer is the best on a surface.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
As far as this forum is concerned you’ve lost the argument.That doesn't determine what's wrong/right.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
If you ask the majority of people, every murderer would be sentenced to death.
vanioMan
Legend
Why didn't you include the W/L % on each surface like you often do? Is it because Novak is behind in that stat?
Novak on HC - 84%
Nadal on Clay - 92%
Not to mention Nadal's winning streak of 81 matches on clay between 2005-2007, or winning RG without dropping a set 3 times, or winning MC-Rome-Madrid-RG in 2010, or never losing a RG final, or having a 93-2 W/L record at RG and I think 117-2 in BO5 clay matches. As amazing of a player Novak is on HC, Nadal is in a league of his own when talking about surface domination.
Why didn't you include a poll too?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Level of competition is different so the win percentage doesn't make sense. Total achievements do.
vanioMan
Legend
Yes, because it doesn't suit your agenda. Don't worry, even the fan of Novak know that Rafa on clay is above everyone else
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Chung has 100% of wins vs. Djokovic at the AO. Does it mean Chung is a bad matchup against Djokovic at the AO, or the sample size is too small?
Blue clay is not part of the ATP circuit, it was only played in one tournament in 2009. Thus, the sample size is too small to know who the best on the surface is. That would be like concluding that Federer is the best on clay if RG 2009 had been the only ATP tournament ever held on clay. Or like a tourist who spends a rainy week in Egypt and a sunny week in France and concludes that Egypt has a colder climate than France.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Clay sample size is too small to determine it has the same level of competition as hardcourt.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
No it's because I have a different view form yours about competition on different surfaces.Yes, because it doesn't suit your agenda. Don't worry, even the fan of Novak know that Rafa on clay is above everyone else
Sport
G.O.A.T.
All top 100 players participate at RG, just like they do at the USO or the AO.
In that there many more hard court tournaments, perhaps there are more good HC players than clay players? The same was true before the eighties, there were more grass court tournaments, therefore, more good grass court players? Still, I find it incredible that Nadal is able to dominate so much on clay, especially at the French Open.Yeah, it's so fair to compare them when there are twice more slams and twice more masters tournaments on hardcourt than on clay.
When Djokovic wins at least 20-21 slams on hardcourt (and you should thank me for not saying 24) then start comparing him to Nadal on clay. Because if there were 2 slams on clay then Nadal's numbers would be close to that. It's actually very funny that Nadal on clay is ahead given the difference in number of big tournaments.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic has won less USO titles than Nadal and has a losing H2H against Nadal at the USO. There is no single clay tournament where Djokovic has more titles than Nadal or leads the H2H over him.
Keep lying to yourself.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Doesn't change the fact that Nadal is much better on clay than Djokovic on hard. Djokovic has won less USO titles than Nadal and has a losing H2H against Nadal at the USO. There is no single clay tournament where Djokovic has more titles than Nadal or leads the H2H over him.
There are TWO Slams on hard, yet Djokovic has less Slams on hard than Nadal on clay. With 2 Slams on clay, Nadal could have 24 Slams on clay or so.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
LOL, comparing with Nadal on clay
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
We've reached peak delusion (perhaps).
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
If hardcourt is the main surface, players will have a game built for hardcourt. So even if all players take part to RG as it's one of the four biggest tournaments in the world, only few of them will have their game built for clay. Most players have their game built for AO/UO.
Clay has the lowest participation of top players, by the way. In the last decade
RG has the lowest participation rate (from UTS) among Slams;
MonteCarlo has the lowest participation rate among Masters;
Rio and Hamburg have the 2nd and 3d lowest participation rate among 500s (behind Memphis)
17 clay tournaments are among the 31 250s with the lowest participation rate
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually many if not most top players grew up playing and competing primarily on clay - including Roger Federer. Nadal simply wiped out multiple generations of clay players.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, this is one of the most butthurt comments I have read on this forum. Keep crying, hater.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
We don't have data about time spent training on which surface, or how players adapt their game to a certain surface.
We have data about the surface distribution of official tournaments. That makes me think that players built their game for the main surface, which is hardcourt.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
We have the word of the players, guy. See above LOL
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Doesn't change the fact that Nadal has more USO titles and Canada Open titles than Novak. Novak has never had more titles than Nadal on any clay tournament.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Still not data. I think there is a natural selection to have players do their best on hardcourts, not on clay.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
Well there's the problem lol. I'll take the thoughts of Djokovic and Federer over your own.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
With bigger competition wins will always be better distributed among different players.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Did they say they play their best tennis on clay? Please find this and you will convince me.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
The competition on hardcourt might be stronger (though it depends on which hardcourt, it's not that simple) but it's for sure not twice stronger. I realize it would be hard to win 2 slams on clay every year which is why i wrote 20-21 slams in my comment and not 24. Even Nadal on clay probably wouldn't be able to win 2 different slams 12 times.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
If not for Nadal there would be as much if not more variance in clay success than there has been on HC and especially the AO in the last 15 years. Your attempt to subvert Nadal's dominance into some kind of negative is incredibly transparent.
Spencer Gore
Legend
"I grew up on clay "
-Novak Djokovic
"I am a clay-court player, essentially. I grew up on clay."
-Roger Federer
Case closed.
Now close the thread to save further embarrassment.
-Novak Djokovic
"I am a clay-court player, essentially. I grew up on clay."
-Roger Federer
Case closed.
Now close the thread to save further embarrassment.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
17 of Djokovic's 55 clay losses are to Nadal. If not for Nadal - Djokovic would likely have a better win % on clay than on hardcourts. Not as drastic for Federer (14/70) but he would also be at worst top-3 on clay all-time if not for Nadal.
So, yes, if not for Nadal, Djokovic and Federer would win at nearly the same rate on clay as on hardcourts. Djokovic almost certainly would win at a higher rate on clay.
Nadal has done nothing but pummel the next greatest clay players ever for 15 years.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Lol, this is one of the most butthurt comments I have read on this forum. Keep crying, hater.
It's the truth and you know it.
