If Djokovic wins Roland Garros, who rates higher on clay- Fed or Djokovic

[bombaybeach]

Should Djokovic win the title this Sunday, as most of us expect will happen, who would rank higher all time on clay between Djokovic and Federer.

I would probably go with Djokovic. More Masters titles, more tournament titles, MUCH better balance of Masters titles and wins (this is the big one), and much more success vs Nadal on clay. The only edge Federer would have is a couple extra French finals, but really how much does that mean when Djokovic lost to Nadal in the semis 3 times (Federer did once). Not enough to overcome the other things I mentioned, most of all Djokovic winning all the current Masters on clay, vs Federer who has won only 1 of the 3 current ones, even though he also has won at a now disbandoned Masters (which you cant fault Djokovic much or any for not winning when its last year ever was 2008).

 

[tennisaddict]

OP, the pecking order is

Majors won
Majors Finals Reached
Master wins

H2H , SF appearence, number of clay titles all are not really close to the above 3 factors.

Novak will need 2 RG titles to be rated above Fed. I think he can do it.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Should Djokovic win the title this Sunday, as most of us expect will happen, who would rank higher all time on clay between Djokovic and Federer.

I would probably go with Djokovic. More Masters titles, more tournament titles, MUCH better balance of Masters titles and wins (this is the big one), and much more success vs Nadal on clay. The only edge Federer would have is a couple extra French finals, but really how much does that mean when Djokovic lost to Nadal in the semis 3 times (Federer did once). Not enough to overcome the other things I mentioned, most of all Djokovic winning all the current Masters on clay, vs Federer who has won only 1 of the 3 current ones, even though he also has won at a now disbandoned Masters (which you cant fault Djokovic much or any for not winning when its last year ever was 2008).

Djokovic only beat Nadal at the French this year because he's been at his worst on clay since 2004.

Stick prime Federer into the mix instead of Djokovic and he'd have taken care of Nadal today, 6-1, 6-3, 6-1. He wouldn't have brainfarted like Chokovic did.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

OP, the pecking order is

Majors won
Majors Finals Reached
Master wins

H2H , SF appearence, number of clay titles all are not really close to the above 3 factors.

Novak will need 2 RG titles to be rated above Fed. I think he can do it.

Fed lost 4 finals to Rafa and 1 SF winning 4 total sets = 5 matches
Novak lost 2 finals to Rafa and 3 SF winning 4 total sets = 5 matches

Both reached 1 additional SF losing to each other.
Both won 1 title (assuming the win for Nole this year of course).

I fail to see where this makes Fed superior, by just having the luck of the draw in his favor more times to avoid Rafa until the final.

Meanwhile:

Novak if he wins RG this year will have

1)more clay masters: 7-6 (including winning all 3 types vs only 1 for Fed including 4-0 at Rome, the most "prestigious" and 2-0 at MC the second most "prestigious" since you like to throw this word around in regards to Wimbledon vs other slams )
2)more total clay titles: 12-11
3)An 80-76 % edge in career win % on clay
4)An 83-80% edge in career RG win %

And before you call out "decline" in regards to Fed's % #s, I did an adjustment to only include Fed's first 11 RGs (to match the # of RGs Nole has played) and his RG % comes out to the 79.6 vs Nole's 83. I also looked at Fed's career clay win % up to only 2009 (the year he turned 28 which is Nole's age now) and his career clay win % comes out to 75.7. So these over-all numbers are fair representations even accounting for that anticipated BS excuse you will inevitably give. In fact they are slightly higher:lol:

You can try to discount a win over Rafa at RG all you want by trying to diminish it but the fact is he was still riding a 39 match win streak heading into today and it was Nole who stopped him from setting all time records for win streak at a slam and most consecutive slam titles and Fed could not stop him here even in his absolute peak when Rafa was a teenager.

So ya given Novak owns Fed in every other metric, I don't think Fed's luck of the draw to play Rafa two more times in finals instead of SF makes him better on clay.

 

[jm1980]

It's very simple:

Djokovic wins 1 RG title -> Federer still slightly better because of the extra finals
Djokovic wins 2 RG titles -> Djokovic clearly better

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It's very simple:

Djokovic wins 1 RG title -> Federer still slightly better because of the extra finals
Djokovic wins 2 RG titles -> Djokovic clearly better

Yeah, I can agree with that.

 

[bombaybeach]

Djokovic only beat Nadal at the French this year because he's been at his worst on clay since 2004.

Stick prime Federer into the mix instead of Djokovic and he'd have taken care of Nadal today, 6-1, 6-3, 6-1. He wouldn't have brainfarted like Chokovic did.

Nadal as early as 2011 was regularly losing to Djokovic on clay, and that is when Nadal was near the peak, not the crap version of today. Djokovic is just a tougher opponent for Nadal on clay, period.

Now that alone wouldnt make Djokovic a better clay courter than Federer. However should he win the title Sunday, I just find his record a bit more balanced and impressive. It is true prime to prime Federer would have a pretty good chance, but if we dismiss Nadal-Djokovic vs Nadal-Federer due to the matchup factors, the same holds true of Djokovic-Federer. That alone wouldnt make Federer better either.

 

[fighting123]

Fed lost 4 finals to Rafa and 1 SF winning 4 total sets = 5 matches
Novak lost 2 finals to Rafa and 3 SF winning 4 total sets = 5 matches

lol should we count any one who lost to Rafa as the FO finalist?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nadal as early as 2011 was regularly losing to Djokovic on clay, and that is when Nadal was near the peak, not the crap version of today. Djokovic is just a tougher opponent for Nadal on clay, period.

Now that alone wouldnt make Djokovic a better clay courter than Federer. However should he win the title Sunday, I just find his record a bit more balanced and impressive. It is true prime to prime Federer would have a pretty good chance, but if we dismiss Nadal-Djokovic vs Nadal-Federer due to the matchup factors, the same holds true of Djokovic-Federer. That alone wouldnt make Federer better either.

Nadal lost to Novak in the warm up events. When it came to the crunch, like 2012, 2013 and 2014 when they did play he failed as badly as Federer did.

Like I said, 2006 Federer would have bageled Nadal today. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a double bagel either as he wouldn't have brain farted like Novak did in the first set.

 

[ibbi]

Without looking at or considering statistics I would say Djokovic to me is the better clay courter. That if you take Nadal out of the equation and have each of them play 100 clay court matches against 100 different guys, Novak would probably win more than Roger, he'd win easier anyway.

 

[bombaybeach]

Whether what you say is true or not, Novak proved he was a tougher opponent for Nadal on clay than Federer a long time ago, and did it when Nadal was still a real good clay courter, unlike what he is today. I dont read much into him beating him on clay this year either FWIW.

That isnt even the main reason I would rank Djokovic higher on clay though. His Masters record with wins spread out all over the current 3 Masters is way more impressive than Federer not winning at 2 of the 3 Masters that have been around his whole career (in fact the only 2 that have been around his whole career). Considering the difference is their French Open finals is mostly only draw, I find that more a tipping more than a couple extra times losing to Nadal in a final vs a semi.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Without looking at or considering statistics I would say Djokovic to me is the better clay courter. That if you take Nadal out of the equation and have each of them play 100 clay court matches against 100 different guys, Novak would probably win more than Roger, he'd win easier anyway.

You're serious?

Then what happened against Seppi and Tsonga?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Whether what you say is true or not, Novak proved he was a tougher opponent for Nadal on clay than Federer a long time ago, and did it when Nadal was still a real good clay courter, unlike what he is today. I dont read much into him beating him on clay this year either FWIW.

That isnt even the main reason I would rank Djokovic higher on clay though. His Masters record with wins spread out all over the current 3 Masters is way more impressive than Federer not winning at 2 of the 3 Masters that have been around his whole career (in fact the only 2 that have been around his whole career). Considering the difference is their French Open finals is mostly only draw, I find that more a tipping more than a couple extra times losing to Nadal in a final vs a semi.

Novak was lucky enough to face a past-prime Nadal on clay. Since 2012 anyway.

Federer had to face peak Nadal on clay.

 

[Tony48]

Novak.

More Masters (having won all 3 vs. Federer's 1) and did the impossible: straight set Nadal at the French.

 

[tennisaddict]

..........

So ya given Novak owns Fed in every other metric, I don't think Fed's luck of the draw to play Rafa two more times in finals instead of SF makes him better on clay.

Luck of the draw , weak era are all lame arguments. Not even worth arguing.

Let Novak win 2 RG / 1 RG and 3-4 finals. Then he would have earned it.

Not just by winning this year's RG.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Luck of the draw , weak era are all lame arguments. Not even worth arguing.

Let Novak win 2 RG / 1 RG and 3-4 finals. Then he would have earned it.

Not just by winning this year's RG.

Novak is currently playing in the weakest era since 2002 anyway.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

lol should we count any one who lost to Rafa as the FO finalist?

My point was that Fed's total # of F+SF is equal to Novak's F+SF (6), with both losing 1 SF to each other and the 5 other F/SF for both all being losses to Nadal with the same # of total sets won.

In 05 Fed did equally well in the SF as Puerta did in the final
In 13 Novak did far better in the SF than Ferrer did in the final

In 07 Fed did better vs Nadal in the final than Novak did in the SF
In 08 Novak did better vs Nadal in the SF than Fed did in the final

I don't see much reason there to credit Fed as having done better with those Finals #s when this is the case, and if we are considering clay over-all as I mentioned Novak leads in every other metric (masters in # and spread, total titles, win %, slam win %) and thats not even considering he has performed far better vs nadal over-all on the surface.

 

[bombaybeach]

What is funny is most people are saying Djokovic in this thread yet none of them are even bothering to vote, LOL!

 

[TMF]

Nadal's 2015 form is terrible, and is the worst in the past 10 years.

Federer faced a better Nadal version between 2005-2009.

 

[bombaybeach]

Nadal's 2015 form is terrible, and is the worst in the past 10 years.

Federer faced a better Nadal version between 2005-2009.

Yeah Nadal of 2009 who lost to a relative nobody at Roland Garros, and was injured most of the year, was so great. Also 18 year old Nadal in 2005 was already better than 2011-2013 Nadal. :lol:

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Novak was lucky enough to face a past-prime Nadal on clay. Since 2012 anyway.

Federer had to face peak Nadal on clay.

A 26 year old Nadal in 2013 is past prime, but a 19 year old in 2005 is peak? :lol:

Nadal was statistically better in 2013 than 2006 even including his SA return tour where he was awful and getting into shape. Counting only the euro clay portions of both years, 2013 is clearly superior.

 

[ibbi]

You're serious?

Then what happened against Seppi and Tsonga?

I don't know... What happened?

Has Federer never struggled in a clay court match before? Gasquet, Volandri, Costa, etc.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A 26 year old Nadal in 2013 is past prime, but a 19 year old in 2005 is peak? :lol:

Nadal was statistically better in 2013 than 2006 even including his SA return tour where he was awful and getting into shape. Counting only the euro clay portions of both years, 2013 is clearly superior.

2007-2010 Nadal >> 2013 Nadal.

 

[Tony48]

Djokovic only beat Nadal at the French this year because he's been at his worst on clay since 2004.

Stick prime Federer into the mix instead of Djokovic and he'd have taken care of Nadal today, 6-1, 6-3, 6-1. He wouldn't have brainfarted like Chokovic did.

LMAO. Federer wouldn't be able to beat Nadal at the French even if he was in a wheelchair with both hands tied behind his back.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Luck of the draw , weak era are all lame arguments. Not even worth arguing.

Let Novak win 2 RG / 1 RG and 3-4 finals. Then he would have earned it.

Not just by winning this year's RG.

Explain to me why drawing Nadal in 4 F and 1 SF vs 2 F and 3 SF and winning the same number of sets and matches is more impressive than having more masters, titles, rg win %, and surface win %, the latter 2 even when standardized for age?

 

[Gary Duane]

If Novak wins RG, I put them even.

 

[World Beater]

LMAO. Federer wouldn't be able to beat Nadal at the French even if he was in a wheelchair with both hands tied behind his back.

pretty much.

prime federer did have his chances and leads and break points, and ...and...


he still found many ways to fart it away...

im not convinced that federer would have beaten today's nadal at RG.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Explain to me why drawing Nadal in 4 F and 1 SF vs 2 F and 3 SF and winning the same number of sets and matches is more impressive than having more masters, titles, rg win %, and surface win %, the latter 2 even when standardized for age?

Maybe because Novak's had it easier with a so-so Nadal on clay?

"Everyone peaks at age 26".

 

[Deleted member 307496]

pretty much.

prime federer did have his chances and leads and break points, and ...and...


he still found many ways to fart it away...

im not convinced that federer would have beaten today's nadal at RG.

Uh.. you aren't convinced?

If Novak can blow a 4-0 lead and still win in straights, Federer would have too.

 

[World Beater]

Uh.. you aren't convinced?

If Novak can blow a 4-0 lead and still win in straights, Federer would have too.

federer had 4-0 in 2nd set of monaco...and was leading like by a double break in hamburg too in the first set in his prime.

had mps in rome.

blew away a million bps in 2007 RG final.

6-1 in 2006, and played a terrible 2nd set against nadal in the RG final

how much more evidence do you need?

I'm not discussing the quality of federer vs djokovic...but federer just cant get the job done against nadal.

He had ample opportunity in his prime...and if federer was creating so MANY chances, he sure should have capitalized on a few, or maybe ONE at RG!

the reality is he only beat nadal twice on clay and both at hamburg/madrid.

djokovic is better against nadal than federer is...that is hard to dispute.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

2007-2010 Nadal >> 2013 Nadal.

agreed but so what?

07 and 08 Nadal denied both Fed and Nole at RG, and Nole looked far better in 08.

Fed didn't have to face 09 or 10 Nadal at RG and it was in fact Djokovic who was denied at 3 straight masters by Nadal in 09.

12 Nadal >> 05 Nadal
13 Nadal > 06 Nadal (who Djokovic also still had to face in the QF)
not much separates 14 and 11 Nadal at RG especially given Nadal's 14 form from QF-F

 

[Tony48]

Federer could be 6-0, 6-0, 5-0 40-0 and would still lose

 

[Deleted member 307496]

agreed but so what?

07 and 08 Nadal denied both Fed and Nole at RG, and Nole looked far better in 08.

Fed didn't have to face 09 or 10 Nadal at RG and it was in fact Djokovic who was denied at 3 straight masters by Nadal in 09.

12 Nadal >> 05 Nadal
13 Nadal > 06 Nadal (who Djokovic also still had to face in the QF)
not much separates 14 and 11 Nadal at RG especially given Nadal's 14 form from QF-F

Nadal was worse in 2014, but so was Djoko. At least in comparison to 2011.

2012 Nadal = 2005 Nadal at RG by the way.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

federer had 4-0 in 2nd set of monaco...and was leading like by a double break in hamburg too in the first set in his prime.

had mps in rome.

blew away a million bps in 2007 RG final.

6-1 in 2006, and played a terrible 2nd set against nadal in the RG final

how much more evidence do you need?

I'm not discussing the quality of federer vs djokovic...but federer just cant get the job done against nadal.

He had ample opportunity in his prime...and if federer was creating so MANY chances, he sure should have capitalized on a few, or maybe ONE at RG!

the reality is he only beat nadal twice on clay and both at hamburg/madrid.

djokovic is better against nadal than federer is...that is hard to dispute.

Nadal was not as bad as he was today. Honestly, this is probably the worst Nadal has played since 2004.

 

[World Beater]

Everytime federer played nadal on clay at RG..something in his game went wrong.

in 2005 his bh sucked against rafa, 2006 his serve left him...in 2007 is fh was below average and serve was meh.

2008...lets not go there.

2011...poor decision making.

i dont see such a huge gap between fed and nole if nole wins rg.

but if nole wins 2? then its a big gap.

 

[bombaybeach]

2008...lets not go there.

Lets not pretend though he had a prayer of winning in 2008 no matter how well he played.

 

[World Beater]

Nadal was not as bad as he was today. Honestly, this is probably the worst Nadal has played since 2004.

maybe it was the worst nadal.

but you can put everything on nadal's level.

federer's level was good enough to create those leads and opportunities in his prime..he should have closed the deal.

Federer is to blame, not nadal's "god-like" level. Nadal was really good, but apart from 2008,

federer and nadal have always played close matches!

 

[fighting123]

My point was that Fed's total # of F+SF is equal to Novak's F+SF (6), with both losing 1 SF to each other and the 5 other F/SF for both all being losses to Nadal with the same # of total sets won.

In 05 Fed did equally well in the SF as Puerta did in the final
In 13 Novak did far better in the SF than Ferrer did in the final

In 07 Fed did better vs Nadal in the final than Novak did in the SF
In 08 Novak did better vs Nadal in the SF than Fed did in the final

I don't see much reason there to credit Fed as having done better with those Finals #s when this is the case, and if we are considering clay over-all as I mentioned Novak leads in every other metric (masters in # and spread, total titles, win %, slam win %) and thats not even considering he has performed far better vs nadal over-all on the surface.

I buy all all the argument you brought out except for that one about losing in the semis to Rafa counting as the finalist because it is disrespectful for the winner in the other semis.

In addition, losing in the semis against Nadal in the FO does not give you:

- finalist trophy.
- 1200 ATP points.
- some certain amount of money.

You can credit the players however want, I respect that, but I disagree.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

maybe it was the worst nadal.

but you can put everything on nadal's level.

federer's level was good enough to create those leads and opportunities in his prime..he should have closed the deal.

Federer is to blame, not nadal's "god-like" level. Nadal was really good, but apart from 2008,

federer and nadal have always played close matches!

Nadal was just too good in his prime on clay. He got bageled by Coria on clay and still won. He was unbeatable and he seemed to have gained a lot of Hewitt's fighting spirit early on. And we all know Federer hated playing him in his early years.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Nadal was worse in 2014, but so was Djoko. At least in comparison to 2011.

2012 Nadal = 2005 Nadal at RG by the way.

:roll: yes 19 year old Nadal in his 1st ever RG was as good as the absolute peak form that showed up in 2012 dropping the fewest games of his career at RG in the first 6 rounds, and only dropping a set when Djoko went godmode.

Nadal and Djoko didn't play at RG in 11. The Nadal that played the RG final in 11 vs Fed and the one who played vs Djoko in 14 were comparable especially given Nadal's performances against the same opponent in Murray in both SFs.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

:roll: yes 19 year old Nadal in his 1st ever RG was as good as the absolute peak form that showed up in 2012 dropping the fewest games of his career at RG in the first 6 rounds, and only dropping a set when Djoko went godmode.

Nadal and Djoko didn't play at RG in 11. The Nadal that played the RG final in 11 vs Fed and the one who played vs Djoko in 14 were comparable especially given Nadal's performances against the same opponent in Murray in both SFs.

I am not talking about the whole clay season, just Roland Garros.

Also, Murray himself was worse in 2014 as opposed to 2011..

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I buy all all the argument you brought out except for that one about losing in the semis to Rafa counting as the finalist because it is disrespectful for the winner in the other semis.

In addition, losing in the semis against Nadal in the FO does not give you:

- finalist trophy.
- 1200 ATP points.
- some certain amount of money.

You can credit the players however want, I respect that, but I disagree.

Im not saying losing in the SF should be counted as a finalist. Im saying the use of F appearances as the be all 2nd metric after titles is flawed because it is highly draw dependent and my comparisons about those SF/F of Fed/Djok vs Nadal was evidence of that.

Novak was quite clearly the 2nd best player at RG in 2013 but was a SF due to draw instead of F. In 08 its much more likely Novak was the 2nd best at RG given his match vs Nadal compared to Fed's, but yet again Novak had to settle for a SF instead of F based on draw.

If you use RG win % and clay court win % instead, a F appearance is still awarded more weight than a SF because its a 6-1 factored in over 5-1, but its only an element considered in the entire confines of a player's career and hence the random draw element is balanced, instead of being the SOLE criteria like others are mentioning it should be.

Inspite of this factoring Novak would still comfortably lead Fed in RG win % and clay win % (even age adjusted). That coupled with more masters (with diversity), more titles, and better performance vs Nadal to me indicate he is greater on clay if he wins RG more so than solely focusing on draw dependent F appearances.

 

[Dave1982]

It's a fair and valid question....there's no doubt if you took Nadal out of the equation both would have a fair collection of French Opens between them.
I've voted Fed and am leaning towards him on the basis that without Nadal, Fed would probably have significantly more clay titles than Djokovic currently does. Fed has obviously had to contend more so with Nadal when he was top of his game and Djokovic has largely been the beneficiary of an either injured or out of sorts Nadal.
Needless to say Djokovic is a tremendous clay court player and right now is at the peak of his powers, I'd expect him to win at least a couple of French Opens before he retires.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I am not talking about the whole clay season, just Roland Garros.

So was I

05 RG: 2 bagels, 2 breadsticks, lost 77 games and 3 sets
12 RG: 3 bagels, 3 breadsticks, lost 53 games and 1 set

Also, Murray himself was worse in 2014 as opposed to 2011..

He was which is why losing only 6 games to him in 2014 vs 13 in 2011 indicates fairly similar level of play.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So was I

05 RG: 2 bagels, 2 breadsticks, lost 77 games and 3 sets
12 RG: 3 bagels, 3 breadsticks, lost 53 games and 1 set

A difference of two sets is practically nothing..

These stats do nothing for me. I still believe Nadal in 2005 was equal to Nadal in 2012 at Roland Garros. The whole clay season is a different story.

He was which is why losing only 6 games to him in 2014 vs 13 in 2011 indicates fairly similar level of play.

I can agree with that I guess..

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I've voted Fed and am leaning towards him on the basis that without Nadal, Fed would probably have significantly more clay titles than Djokovic currently does.

Fed
05, 06, 07, 09, 11 RG
06, 07, 08 Monte Carlo
02, 04, 05, 07 Hamburg
09, 12 Madrid
06, 13 Rome

5 RGs 11 Masters

Nole
08, 12, 13, 14, 15 RG
08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 15 Rome
09, 12, 13, 15 Monte Carlo
11 Madrid

5 RGs 11 Masters

08 Hamburg could go either way considering both lost in 3 sets to Nadal, but Nole won Rome and pushed Nadal MUCH harder at RG that year.

You could also argue 09 Madrid that Fed won as Nole wore Nadal out in the epic the day before that win and held match points. Without Nadal there Nole could have had that too.

In any case far cry from "far more clay titles"

Fed has obviously had to contend more so with Nadal when he was top of his game and Djokovic has largely been the beneficiary of an either injured or out of sorts Nadal.

The evaluation of lost titles proves this to be quite the fallacy.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

A difference of two sets is practically nothing..

These stats do nothing for me. I still believe Nadal in 2005 was equal to Nadal in 2012 at Roland Garros. The whole clay season is a different story.

So losing more games, more sets, and having fewer dominant sets tells you he was as good at 19 in his first RG as he was in one of his peakest RGs? LMAO ok

and since a difference of two sets is practically nothing I guess that means Nadal losing 4 sets at this RG is pretty much equal to the one losing 3 at RG 06.

 

[wangs78]

Roger took out Djoker in 2011 at RG when Djoker was riding a 40+ match win streak. That tells me all I need to know. Fed was already past his prime then, too.

 

[tennisaddict]

My point was that Fed's total # of F+SF is equal to Novak's F+SF (6), with both losing 1 SF to each other and the 5 other F/SF for both all being losses to Nadal with the same # of total sets won.
.....

I don't see much reason there to credit Fed as having done better with those Finals #s when this is the case, and if we are considering clay over-all as I mentioned Novak leads in every other metric (masters in # and spread, total titles, win %, slam win %) and thats not even considering he has performed far better vs nadal over-all on the surface.

There is no luck of the draw. Federer and Nadal were ranked 1 and 2 and they couldn't face earlier than finals.

It would not matter whether Novak was drawn against Fed or Nadal , as he was not beating Fed at RG till 2012.

We cannot award Novak fictitious RG finals .

 

[tennisaddict]

Without Nadal, Fed was winning 5 FO. Novak could have won 3 and 4 if at all he wins this year.

So, he needs 2 more if you look at it this way as well.