How competitive Fedkovic was on clay compared to other surfaces

[Winner Sinner]

In his career on clay, Federer has won 11 tournaments including Roland Garros, 4 Hamburg and once Madrid (blue clay) for a total of 6 big titles on the surface.
On clay he lost 4 finals at Roland Garros, 3 finals in Monte Carlo, 2 finals in Madrid and 4 finals in Rome for a total of 13 finals lost in big titles on the surface.
On clay he has a career winning percentage of 76.1%.

In his career, Djokovic has won 20 titles on clay, 3 Roland Garros, 2 Monte Carlo, 3 Madrid and 6 Rome plus Olympic gold, for a total of 15 big titles on surface.
He lost 15 finals on clay including 4 at Roland Garros, 2 in Monte Carlo and 6 in Rome for a total of 12 finals lost in big titles on surface.
On clay he has a career winning percentage of 79.8%.
The question is, to what extent is the perception that they were more competitive on other surfaces conditioned by the presence of the greatest tennis player in history on a single surface, namely Nadal on clay, against whom they lost 11 finals (Federer) and 9 finals (Djokovic)?
Or on the contrary, how much is their greatness on other surfaces due to the fact of having had a great rival, again Nadal, who while on clay was unapproachable, on other surfaces was much more "accommodating"?

In essence, how much is the perception of Fedkovic's different competitiveness between hard/grass and clay surfaces due to the simultaneous presence of Nadal?
If Nadal hadn't been there, would we now be talking about one of Federer or Djokovic as the greatest ever on clay?

 

[StrongRule]

Djokovic has massively inflated his stats on clay due to the asterisk era, and due to RG turning into DO. Talking about him being unlucky on the surface is not serious.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nole needs to win 2 more titles on grass to be triple double of modern tennis.

71 , 20, 8 right now.

 

[zakopinjo]

Djokovic has massively inflated his stats on clay due to the asterisk era, and due to RG turning into DO. Talking about him being unlucky on the surface is not serious.

Oh God, a man at the age of 37 took the OI on clay against Alcaraz in the final and you say that he inflated the statistics...

If Nadal didn't exist, Novak would probably be the owner of the largest number of RGs in history.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer is 71, 11, 19, 2 (carpet) is also impressive. But his 11 is too low and since he is retired, will NEVER improve.

 

[StrongRule]

Oh God, a man at the age of 37 took the OI on clay against Alcaraz in the final and you say that he inflated the statistics...

If Nadal didn't exist, Novak would probably be the owner of the largest number of RGs in history.

Yeah, somehow "by coincidence" he won most of his clay titles at age 30+. Doesn't sound realistic that he is now better than he was in his 20's. It's just that this is the asterisk era now, no competition at all. (and yeah, I've heard all this hype over Alcaraz, the guy who is down in head to head against a 37 years old)

 

[zakopinjo]

Yeah, somehow "by coincidence" he won most of his clay titles at age 30+. Doesn't sound realistic that he is now better than he was in his 20's. It's just that this is the asterisk era now, no competition at all. (and yeah, I've heard all this hype over Alcaraz, the guy who is down in head to head against a 37 years old)

Monte Carlo - 2013, 2015
Rome - 2008, 2011, 2014, 2015
Madrid - 2011, 2016
RG - 2016

 

[Tennfan123]

Who is Fedkovic? I don’t get bunging 2 players together like this.

 

[Hitman]

When Laver wins a CYGS in his 30s in the freaking 1960s, no one bats an eyelid. When Djokovic wins anything, everyone starts losing their minds.

 

[nolefam_2024]

When Laver wins a CYGS in his 30s in the freaking 1960s, no one bats an eyelid. When Djokovic wins anything, everyone starts losing their minds.

What do you mean everybody?
Just 1 or 2 sad members on ttw doesn't mean everybody

 

[Hitman]

What do you mean everybody?
Just 1 or 2 sad members on ttw doesn't mean everybody

It's a play on the Joker quote from The Dark Knight, those who know, know.

 

[Feather]

It's a play on the Joker quote from The Dark Knight, those who know, know.

It has to be either that film or "Terminator 2: A Judgement Day", the best sequel ever

 

[MichaelNadal]

It has to be either that film or "Terminator 2: A Judgement Day", the best sequel ever

And Rocky 2, all three

 

[StrongRule]

When Laver wins a CYGS in his 30s in the freaking 1960s, no one bats an eyelid. When Djokovic wins anything, everyone starts losing their minds.

Right, how come nobody talks about something that happened long before most TTW members were even born, and have no idea what was happening then.

 

[Hitman]

Right, how come nobody talks about something that happened long before most TTW members were even born, and have no idea what was happening then.

So you are admitting that in the long run, it won't freaking matter, as new born people will not give a crap about it.

I agree.

 

[Hitman]

It has to be either that film or "Terminator 2: A Judgement Day", the best sequel ever

Those are good candidates, but I would add, Godfather Part 2, Aliens, Rocky 2 in there also.

 

[nolefam_2024]

So you are admitting that in the long run, it won't freaking matter, as new born people will not give a crap about it.

I agree.

We don't give a crap even today lmao.

 

[Hitman]

We don't give a crap even today lmao.

Well, most don't. But the point I am trying to get across is, father time, even in this is undefeated, eventually those with such opinions will fizzle out and be replaced by those that don't care. They see the achievement and go with that.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Well, most don't. But the point I am trying to get across is, father time, even in this is undefeated, eventually those with such opinions will fizzle out and be replaced by those that don't care. They see the achievement and go with that.

They need to die out. Sanity is taking over in big 3 narrative already. Not some sad members keeping the entire narrative hostage.

 

[Hitman]

They need to die out. Sanity is taking over in big 3 narrative already. Not some sad members keeping the entire narrative hostage.

Some wounds take longer to heal.

 

[Third Serve]

It would still be Borg. Besides Nadal, the clay field is much weaker than Borg’s field.

 

[roysid]

In his career on clay, Federer has won 11 tournaments including Roland Garros, 4 Hamburg and once Madrid (blue clay) for a total of 6 big titles on the surface.
On clay he lost 4 finals at Roland Garros, 3 finals in Monte Carlo, 2 finals in Madrid and 4 finals in Rome for a total of 13 finals lost in big titles on the surface.
On clay he has a career winning percentage of 76.1%.

In his career, Djokovic has won 20 titles on clay, 3 Roland Garros, 2 Monte Carlo, 3 Madrid and 6 Rome plus Olympic gold, for a total of 15 big titles on surface.
He lost 15 finals on clay including 4 at Roland Garros, 2 in Monte Carlo and 6 in Rome for a total of 12 finals lost in big titles on surface.
On clay he has a career winning percentage of 79.8%.
The question is, to what extent is the perception that they were more competitive on other surfaces conditioned by the presence of the greatest tennis player in history on a single surface, namely Nadal on clay, against whom they lost 11 finals (Federer) and 9 finals (Djokovic)?
Or on the contrary, how much is their greatness on other surfaces due to the fact of having had a great rival, again Nadal, who while on clay was unapproachable, on other surfaces was much more "accommodating"?

In essence, how much is the perception of Fedkovic's different competitiveness between hard/grass and clay surfaces due to the simultaneous presence of Nadal?
If Nadal hadn't been there, would we now be talking about one of Federer or Djokovic as the greatest ever on clay?

Ultimately results matter, no ifs and buts. Djokovic had much better results on clay.

During his dominant years, Federer had the perfect kryptonite on clay in terms of Nadal. His playing style with 1 hbh was not really strong to beat Nadal. And later he was losing to many. He basically gave up on clay from 2012 onwards to focus on grass and hard.

Djokovic was also dominated by Nadal in earlier years. He fought hard till 2010 but lost all clay matches to Nadal. It changed from 2011 onwards when he started beating Nadal in smaller tournaments and finally RG 2015. He developed a all court playing style which was equally effective on clay. 3 RG wins and so many masters. And he is winning even when 35+ beating alcaraz no less. He is definitely the second best on clay.

 

[Neptune]

Oh God, a man at the age of 37 took the OI on clay against Alcaraz in the final and you say that he inflated the statistics...

If Nadal didn't exist, Novak would probably be the owner of the largest number of RGs in history.

He's essentially saying that clay is an asterisk surface this century because it makes up less than 30% of the tour.
Real kings aim to dominate the primary surface—hardcourt.

 

[nolefam_2024]

He's essentially saying that clay is an asterisk surface this century because it makes up less than 30% of the tour.
Real kings aim to dominate the primary surface—hardcourt.

Haha grill the sad members completely.

 

[zakopinjo]

He's essentially saying that clay is an asterisk surface this century because it makes up less than 30% of the tour.
Real kings aim to dominate the primary surface—hardcourt.

Real kings dominate on all 3 surfaces, and the only such player in the 21st century is Novak Djokovic.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic's career win percentage on clay is 80.6% and Federer won 7 big titles. I don't think you can just remove Nadal on clay and say oh they could win a lot more. Every era has at least 1 dominant clay champion or may have multiple who dominate for a while and then other takes over. It's up to the champions to figure out how to beat them. The challenge of beating Nadal may be greater but you still have to find a way.

I think you have to break it down by tournaments won versus tournaments entered. Then we have—

Spoiler

Clay tournament wins vs entrees

1. Nadal - 63/116 = 54.3%
2. Borg - 32/76 = 42.1%
3. Lendl - 28/95 = 29.5%
4. Muster - 40/168 = 23.8%
5. Vilas - 49/210 = 23.3%
5. Djokovic - 20/86 = 23.3%
7. Wilander - 20/88 = 22.7%
8. Nastase - 30/136 = 22.1%
9. Kuerten - 14/84 = 16.7%
10. Federer - 11/80 = 13.8%
11. Ferrero - 13/105 = 12.4%
12. Moya - 16/151 = 10.6%
13. Courier - 5/50 = 10%
14. Bruguera - 13/138 = 9.4%

Some players pad their totals and percentages with a bunch of smaller tournaments though and some players play better in big tournaments, so we have to go further and break it down by big clay tournaments won vs tournaments entered—

Spoiler

Big clay tournament wins vs entrees

1. Nadal - 40/73 = 54.8%
2. Borg - 12/26 = 46.2%
3. Lendl - 9/40 = 22.5%
4. Djokovic - 15/68 = 22.1%
5. Wilander - 6/29 = 20.7%
6. Kuerten - 7/35 = 20%
7. Muster - 7/46 = 15.2%
8. Courier - 4/28 = 14.3%
9. Federer - 7/64 = 10.9%
10. Ferrero - 4/40 = 10%
11. Bruguera - 4/42 = 9.5%
12. Nastase - 3/33 = 9.1%
13. Vilas - 5/56 = 8.9%
14. Moya - 3/52 = 5.8%

Now things come into better focus and you can see Nadal is clear of everyone (clay GOAT) and his percentage doesn't change and Borg's (clay legend) and Kuerten's goes up. Lendl, Djokovic, Wilander and Kuerten are on the same
level and are ATG's on clay imo. Federer is below them and in the tier with Ferrero, Bruguera, Nastase, and Vilas. Moya comes last.

So no matter which way you slice it, both Federer and Djokovic are better on other surfaces than clay and even they would say that.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic's career win percentage on clay is 80.6% and Federer won 7 big titles. I don't think you can just remove Nadal on clay and say oh they could win a lot more. Every era has at least 1 dominant clay champion or may have multiple who dominate for a while and then other takes over. It's up to the champions to figure out how to beat them.

I think you have to break it down by tournaments won versus tournaments entered. Then we have—

Clay tournament wins vs entrees

1. Nadal - 63/110 = 57.3%
2. Borg - 32/76 = 42.1%
3. Lendl - 28/95 = 29.5%
4. Muster - 40/168 = 23.8%
5. Vilas - 49/210 = 23.3%
5. Djokovic - 20/86 = 23.3%
7. Wilander - 20/88 = 22.7%
8. Nastase - 30/136 = 22.1%
9. Kuerten - 14/84 = 16.7%
10. Federer - 11/80 = 13.8%
11. Ferrero - 13/105 = 12.4%
12. Moya - 16/151 = 10.6%
13. Courier - 5/50 = 10%
14. Bruguera - 13/138 = 9.4%

Some players pad their totals and percentages with a bunch of smaller tournaments though and some players play better in big tournaments, so we have to go further and break it down by big clay tournaments won vs tournaments entered—

Big clay tournament wins vs entrees

1. Nadal - 40/69 = 57.9%
2. Borg - 12/26 = 46.2%
3. Lendl - 9/40 = 22.5%
4. Djokovic - 15/68 = 22.1%
5. Wilander - 6/29 = 20.7%
6. Kuerten - 7/35 = 20%
7. Muster - 7/46 = 15.2%
8. Courier - 4/28 = 14.3%
9. Federer - 7/64 = 10.9%
10. Ferrero - 4/40 = 10%
11. Bruguera - 4/42 = 9.5%
12. Nastase - 3/33 = 9.1%
13. Vilas - 5/56 = 8.9%
14. Moya - 3/52 = 5.8%

Now things come into better focus and you can see Nadal is clear of everyone (clay GOAT) and his total doesn't change and Borg's (clay legend) and Kuerten's goes up. Lendl, Djokovic, Wilander and Kuerten are on the same
level and are ATG's on clay imo. Federer is below them and in the tier with Ferrero, Bruguera, Nastase, and Vilas. Moya comes last.

So no matter which way you slice it, both Federer and Djokovic are better on other surfaces than clay and even they would say that.

Vilas had so many dirtRATs playing during his time. Look at the rankings of those guys, some are not even in top 200. Many are outside top 50. The guy has less top 5 wins than Nole despite stat padding 3 times over.

Nole has really turned into one of the clay court greats of all times despite being born just a year younger than clay GOAT.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I don't respect dirtRATs as much as non clay specialists if this wasn't already clear.

 

[NoleFam]

Vilas had so many dirtRATs playing during his time. Look at the rankings of those guys, some are not even in top 200. Many are outside top 50. The guy has less top 5 wins than Nole despite stat padding 3 times over.

Nole has really turned into one of the clay court greats of all times despite being born just a year younger than clay GOAT.

He has less top 10 and top 5 wins. He was very good on clay but won a ton of smaller tournaments.

Well I think to have the title of overall GOAT you have to be great on all surfaces and conditions, and I think he's done enough on every surface to make that claim. After all that though, clay is still his weakest surface although he's better on his weakest surface than a lot were on their best surface.

 

[nolefam_2024]

He has less top 10 and top 5 wins. He was very good on clay but won a ton of smaller tournaments.

Well I think to have the title of overall GOAT you have to be great on all surfaces and conditions, and I think he's done enough on every surface to make that claim. After all that though, clay is still his weakest surface although he's better on his weakest surface than a lot were on their best surface.

Exactly. Close to a triple double.

71 on hard -38% of tournaments entered
20 on clay -25% or so tournaments entered
8 on grass - close to 30% of tournaments entered.

Nole can win in every single criteria. Despite facing koc , he is close to his other surfaces titles count by participation.

Nadal btw has around 16/17% on both hard and grass. Total stat padding on clay.

 

[NoleFam]

Exactly. Close to a triple double.

71 on hard -38% of tournaments entered
20 on clay -25% or so tournaments entered
8 on grass - close to 30% of tournaments entered.

Nole can win in every single criteria. Despite facing koc , he is close to his other surfaces titles count by participation.

Nadal btw has around 16/17% on both hard and grass. Total stat padding on clay.

Nadal was more dependent on his best surface to be in the GOAT tier than the other two were, yes. They had two surfaces they could depend on and dominated both.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Djokovic's career win percentage on clay is 80.6% and Federer won 7 big titles. I don't think you can just remove Nadal on clay and say oh they could win a lot more. Every era has at least 1 dominant clay champion or may have multiple who dominate for a while and then other takes over. It's up to the champions to figure out how to beat them. The challenge of beating Nadal may be greater but you still have to find a way.

I think you have to break it down by tournaments won versus tournaments entered. Then we have—

Spoiler

Clay tournament wins vs entrees

1. Nadal - 63/110 = 57.3%
2. Borg - 32/76 = 42.1%
3. Lendl - 28/95 = 29.5%
4. Muster - 40/168 = 23.8%
5. Vilas - 49/210 = 23.3%
5. Djokovic - 20/86 = 23.3%
7. Wilander - 20/88 = 22.7%
8. Nastase - 30/136 = 22.1%
9. Kuerten - 14/84 = 16.7%
10. Federer - 11/80 = 13.8%
11. Ferrero - 13/105 = 12.4%
12. Moya - 16/151 = 10.6%
13. Courier - 5/50 = 10%
14. Bruguera - 13/138 = 9.4%

Some players pad their totals and percentages with a bunch of smaller tournaments though and some players play better in big tournaments, so we have to go further and break it down by big clay tournaments won vs tournaments entered—

Spoiler

Big clay tournament wins vs entrees

1. Nadal - 40/69 = 57.9%
2. Borg - 12/26 = 46.2%
3. Lendl - 9/40 = 22.5%
4. Djokovic - 15/68 = 22.1%
5. Wilander - 6/29 = 20.7%
6. Kuerten - 7/35 = 20%
7. Muster - 7/46 = 15.2%
8. Courier - 4/28 = 14.3%
9. Federer - 7/64 = 10.9%
10. Ferrero - 4/40 = 10%
11. Bruguera - 4/42 = 9.5%
12. Nastase - 3/33 = 9.1%
13. Vilas - 5/56 = 8.9%
14. Moya - 3/52 = 5.8%

Now things come into better focus and you can see Nadal is clear of everyone (clay GOAT) and his percentage doesn't change and Borg's (clay legend) and Kuerten's goes up. Lendl, Djokovic, Wilander and Kuerten are on the same
level and are ATG's on clay imo. Federer is below them and in the tier with Ferrero, Bruguera, Nastase, and Vilas. Moya comes last.

So no matter which way you slice it, both Federer and Djokovic are better on other surfaces than clay and even they would say that.

High level competition is obviously part of the game, but here we are talking about a player who on clay has won 14 Roland Garros, 11 Monte Carlo, 10 Roma and 4 Madrid, basically leaving almost only crumbs to his opponents.

If Fedkovic on clay had had a less unilateral but broader type of opposition it is very likely that he would have raised much more.

No, for me it is absolutely legitimate to judge the perception of Fedkovic's competitiveness on clay compared to other surfaces absolutely doped by the Nadal factor.

We have seen it in the rare dark moments of Nadal's career, as in his less cannibalistic version at Roland Garros Fedkovic was almost always ready to take advantage of them.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal was more dependent on his best surface to be in the GOAT tier than the other two were, yes. They had two surfaces they could depend on and dominated both.

In a real world if tennis was just clay sport Nole would be at least close to Nadal. Maybe half of him. But if tennis was just hard court sport, Nadal wouldn't be even half of Nole. Same thing for grass.

And that's what makes him a surface specialist.

 

[NoleFam]

High level competition is obviously part of the game, but here we are talking about a player who on clay has won 14 Roland Garros, 11 Monte Carlo, 10 Roma and 4 Madrid, basically leaving almost only crumbs to his opponents.

If Fedkovic on clay had had a less unilateral but broader type of opposition it is very likely that he would have raised much more.

No, for me it is absolutely legitimate to judge the perception of Fedkovic's competitiveness on clay compared to other surfaces absolutely doped by the Nadal factor.

We have seen it in the rare dark moments of Nadal's career, as in his less cannibalistic version at Roland Garros Fedkovic was almost always ready to take advantage of them.

Yea he left crumbs but pay not attention to total titles but look at the percentages. The crumbs Djokovic picked up still allowed him claim to be an ATG on clay and his percentages are with Lendl's, and a little above Wilander's and Kuerten's. I would say all are in the same tier though.

If you remove Nadal though, then what? Who is going to be the clay legend they face? Federer lost his first 12 matches on the surface. He's obviously not a natural dirtballer and had to learn to be great on it. So basically they would have no dominant clay player if you take him out of the equation, when both prefer other surfaces than clay. The legends must find a way to beat whatever opposition that comes their way.

 

[NoleFam]

In a real world if tennis was just clay sport Nole would be at least close to Nadal. Maybe half of him. But if tennis was just hard court sport, Nadal wouldn't be even half of Nole. Same thing for grass.

And that's what makes him a surface specialist.

I don't think Djokovic would be close to Nadal on clay. Djokovic would probably be 1/3rd of Nadal if clay was the only surface. Nadal would probably only be 1/3rd of Djokovic if hardcourt was the only surface too though and same for grass.

 

[MichaelNadal]

In a real world if tennis was just clay sport Nole would be at least close to Nadal. Maybe half of him. But if tennis was just hard court sport, Nadal wouldn't be even half of Nole. Same thing for grass.

And that's what makes him a surface specialist.

Put that work in bestie

 

[nolefam_2024]

I don't think Djokovic would be close to Nadal on clay. Djokovic would probably be 1/3rd of Nadal if clay was the only surface. Nadal would probably only be 1/3rd of Djokovic if hardcourt was the only surface too though and same for grass.

There is no way Djokovic would be 1/3 of Nadal. Nadal is the one who keeps getting injured. Not our guy.

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic has massively inflated his stats on clay due to the asterisk era, and due to RG turning into DO. Talking about him being unlucky on the surface is not serious.

Dear StrongRule, Nadal ruled clay court tennis until 2022. Don't be finger-happy and assign everything to 'asterisk' era.

Against Nadal, nobody needed to watch a Federer-Nadal match on clay; we just assumed a Nadal victory. But there was always suspense in a Nadal-Djokovic match on clay.

Nadal faced Federer 13 times, and Djokovic 29 times, on clay! Federer won twice during their 13 encounters; Djokovic won 9 times!

DJOKOVIC WAS DEFINITELY THE MUCH BETTER CLAY COURT PLAYER! He was probably the third best player all-time on clay!

 

[SonnyT]

There is no way Djokovic would be 1/3 of Nadal. Nadal is the one who keeps getting injured. Not our guy.

Well, Nadal kept showing up on clay and Roland Garros!

 

[StrongRule]

Dear StrongRule, Nadal ruled clay court tennis until 2022. Don't be finger-happy and assign everything to 'asterisk' era.

Against Nadal, nobody needed to watch a Federer-Nadal match on clay; we just assumed a Nadal victory. But there was always suspense in a Nadal-Djokovic match on clay.

Nadal faced Federer 13 times, and Djokovic 29 times, on clay! Federer won twice during their 13 encounters; Djokovic won 9 times!

DJOKOVIC WAS DEFINITELY THE MUCH BETTER CLAY COURT PLAYER! He was probably the third best player all-time on clay!

Yeah, Federer never had the luck to face 2014-2016 Nadal, forget about 2024.

 

[MeatTornado]

Federer has won 11 tournaments including Roland Garros, 4 Hamburg and once Madrid (blue clay) for a total of 6 big titles on the surface.

Fed has 2 Madrids. He won the inaugural year on red clay in 09.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Well, Nadal kept showing up on clay and Roland Garros!

Thats because that was just 1 thing. But if entire year is on clay who knows where this guy will get messed up

 

[SonnyT]

Yeah, Federer never had the luck to face 2014-2016 Nadal, forget about 2024.

We all know with almost certainty who'd have won, on clay!

 

[NoleFam]

There is no way Djokovic would be 1/3 of Nadal. Nadal is the one who keeps getting injured. Not our guy.

How often was Nadal injured on clay though? Lol. I rest my case.

 

[nolefam_2024]

How often was Nadal injured on clay though? Lol. I rest my case.

That's because it's only 3 months for him. If he played far more then would get injured.

 

[The Blond Blur]

In a real world if tennis was just clay sport Nole would be at least close to Nadal. Maybe half of him. But if tennis was just hard court sport, Nadal wouldn't be even half of Nole. Same thing for grass.

And that's what makes him a surface specialist.

Lol, keep pushing that narrative. It makes you look even more ignorant than you already are

 

[Incognito]

Lol, keep pushing that narrative. It makes you look even more ignorant than you already are

That guy knows nothing about tennis. He claims Rafa played peak tennis for 17 years.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Well, most don't. But the point I am trying to get across is, father time, even in this is undefeated, eventually those with such opinions will fizzle out and be replaced by those that don't care. They see the achievement and go with that.

At least Djoker can have the last laugh when no one cares.

 

[fedfan24]

H2H very close. Djokovic is the better defender and has much better BH, but Federer hits with more spin and has the dominant FH. Career wise Djokovic has the edge thanks to more higher level rg runs and more wins over Nadal in his prime (Rome 11, mc13). I don’t put any weight into rg21/23 wins, 2012/2019 Federer could’ve won those if he faced Tsitsipas and Ruud.

If both are playing well I’d give Federer the nod as matches are usually on his racket. If his level drops, Djokovic grinds it out by keeping ball in play waiting for miss.

 

[fedfan24]

Djokovic has massively inflated his stats on clay due to the asterisk era, and due to RG turning into DO. Talking about him being unlucky on the surface is not serious.

23 RG was a new low point for men’s tennis. - 36 year old outlasted a younger ATG (Carlos) physically who retired after 2 sets. Then Casper Ruud in the final. Even worse than AO23. Those two I’d rate as the worst slams in the 21st century.

21 RG wasn’t as bad, Nadal could’ve won if he got it done in 3/4 but in hindsight we know he was injured. Tsitsispas was never going to close it out.