If Novak wins FO, is he top 3 all-time on clay?

If Novak wins this FO, is he top 3 all-time on clay?

  • Yes/да

    Votes: 26 38.2%

  • No/ не

    Votes: 42 61.8%
  • Total voters
    68
Nadalgaenger said:
Lol Rosewall would NOT be able to handle Nadal or Djoker
Click to expand...
Embarrassing.

And in 35 years any WTA player would effortlessly defeat any version of Nadal. The fact you don't know this speaks volumes. Who compares eras 40 years apart except for the extremely unenlightened?
 
NoleFam said:
As if Thiem beat the best version of Novak last year, and this excludes the fact that Djokovic destroyed him there in 2016.

You can create peak level this or that but neither are close to Djokovic's achievements on clay which are what matter.
Click to expand...
As a Thiem fan, I agree 100%.
Thiem‘s accomplishments on clay still crap compared to Novak‘s.
Novak is a dominant player on ALL surfaces and would possibly be challenging Borg for clay GOAT if Nadal hadn’t been around...
 
Not sure why Djokovic is getting a pass for getting steamrolled in the best two years of his career at RG in 2011 and 2015. That would be like a Fed taking a beating at RG in 2006 and 2007 from opponents other than Nadal. How can you possibly excuse him for the loss to an ancient Federer or Wawrinka?
 
Nadalgaenger said:
FED didn’t know how to play clay until 2006
Click to expand...

Fed had already won multiple clay Masters titles, been to several finals and the semi of the French. The clay field was way stronger in the early to mid 2000’s than it is now. Moya, Ferrero, Kuerten, Coria etc. would pummel guys like Diego, Shapo and Ruud.
 
Frankly Federer and Djokovic in some order are the two best clay courters ever after Rafa if we’re being real. Throw up whatever name you want, that guy wasn’t going to be kicking Fed/Djoker’s butt on clay. Rafa has completely wrecked this entire clay era, he’s just that damn good.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
Novak would NOT lose to Wilander or Chang! Only pure power can beat him...
Click to expand...

more delusions.
Your initial post included

"His major competition for top 3 are Lendl and Vilas. "

what next ? Wilander would not beat Vilas ? Well, he did beat Vilas in RG 82.

-----------

Djokovic lost in straight sets to Ferrer in DC 09.
Djokovic lost to Kohlscreiber in RG 09
 
vex said:
Frankly Federer and Djokovic in some order are the two best clay courters ever after Rafa if we’re being real. Throw up whatever name you want, that guy wasn’t going to be kicking Fed/Djoker’s butt on clay. Rafa has completely wrecked this entire clay era, he’s just that damn good.
Click to expand...

uh2BnuR9I56Kch9n2r3B_2017_02_23.jpg
 
BeatlesFan said:
Embarrassing.

And in 35 years any WTA player would effortlessly defeat any version of Nadal. The fact you don't know this speaks volumes. Who compares eras 40 years apart except for the extremely unenlightened?
Click to expand...
Maybe the 69 year old Nadal in 35 years, but no way in hell the Nadal Version from today.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
Lol Rosewall would NOT be able to handle Nadal or Djoker
Click to expand...


Well neither would Borg. The game generally evolves and Borg is far more removed from Nadal or Djokovic than he is from Rosewall and that's despite the supposed modern elements of his game. In terms of tennis actually produced, Rosewall could probably win games against Borg and Borg would be triple bageled by Nadal. Borg was still using wooden rackets.

Anyway, context matters and Nadal has been an absurd roadblock at RG. If Djokovic bags another, especially if he defeats Nadal in doing so, then he has a great argument for #3 OE. I wouldn't place Lendl or Vilas ahead of him. Wouldn't place Kuerten ahead of him. I already don't place Federer ahead of him.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Maybe the 69 year old Nadal in 35 years, but no way in hell the Nadal Version from today.
Click to expand...

Well yes, this clearly isn't happened and it's a horrendously poorly thought out prognostication. It would require a profound revolution in racket and string technology, something which could bridge the absolutely massive chasm in ability between men and women in tennis. Yet it appears we've reached a point of diminishing returns and a plateau in performance in which arcs of new performance from new generations can no longer leapfrog and obsolesce previous ones with the help of new technologies catalysing new paradigms.

Instead, I'd like to make a counter "prediction". If Nadal was allowed to enter the women's RG draw in 35 years time, he'd win the tournament, assuming he's alive and relatively well, using his current equipment.
 
mike danny said:
That's super disrespectful of Borg.
Click to expand...
No disrespect at all. I respect any era of tennis and watched every Slam final of Borg except the 1975 RG final which seemingly isn’t available online. He clearly was the best of his era. But I don’t see anything in his game which could trouble the Big 3, wooden racquet or not. And that’s not strange. Sport evolves over the decades, or do you think a top 70s football (soccer) team could be the best of today (or just win ONE big international title)?

And do you really think Borg would steal more than one RG title during the Nadal era? Or on the other hand do you think Vilas, Orantes, Gerulaitis etc. would prevent Federer or Djokovic from winning 6 RG titles?

We could only say they all would be different players in a different era. That’s true, but then we wouldn’t talk about guys we know anymore but about completely ficticious characters (which would be pointless speculation).
 
Highest win percentage on their worst surface (hard/clay/grass):

1) Djokovic (clay) 80.0
2) Nadal (grass) 78.0
3) Connors (clay) 77.8
4) Federer (clay) 76.1
5) Laver (clay) 75.9
6) Borg (hard) 75.3
7) Lendl (grass) 75.0
8) Agassi (clay) 72.7
9) Rosewall (hard) 72.2
10) McEnroe (clay) 71.8
 
Lew II said:
Highest win percentage on their worst surface (hard/clay/grass):

1) Djokovic (clay) 80.0
2) Nadal (grass) 78.0
3) Connors (clay) 77.8
4) Federer (clay) 76.1
5) Laver (clay) 75.9
6) Borg (hard) 75.3
7) Lendl (grass) 75.0
8) Agassi (clay) 72.7
9) Rosewall (hard) 72.2
10) McEnroe (clay) 71.8
Click to expand...
Still 1 FO :-D
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
-NN- said:
Well yes, this clearly isn't happened and it's a horrendously poorly thought out prognostication. It would require a profound revolution in racket and string technology, something which could bridge the absolutely massive chasm in ability between men and women in tennis. Yet it appears we've reached a point of diminishing returns and a plateau in performance in which arcs of new performance from new generations can no longer leapfrog and obsolesce previous ones with the help of new technologies catalysing new paradigms.

Instead, I'd like to make a counter "prediction". If Nadal was allowed to enter the women's RG draw in 35 years time, he'd win the tournament, assuming he's alive and relatively well, using his current equipment.
Click to expand...
34 year old nadal would still straight set every women on earth also in 100 years of time save maybe the unlikely case that they are inventing new super forms of PED and completely legalize it or invent some strange new racquet technology which is light years superior to the current one. When we go back 35 years back in time we have the Becker/Lendl generation. Does anyone seriously think that today’s WTA player would stand a chance against 17 year old Becker??And there were a lot of improvements in training, nutrition, poly strings etc in the last 35 years. I seriously doubt that at the current level of play there is still much room for improvement to be honest. At least there is not much difference between player in 2020 and 2005. Watching the next gen you even get the notion that the game has regressed.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
I say there is a decent argument to be made that Novak will go down as third best clay court player of all time if he wins the FO.

He has dominated clay Masters events even if his dominance has been overshadowed by Rafa. If he weren't playing in Rafa's era, he'd probably have 4-5 FO and an absurd amount of clay titles.

His major competition for top 3 are Lendl and Vilas. On paper, those guys have sexier stats, but the key point is that they DID NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH NADAL THEIR ENTIRE CAREERS!

I'd say that Djokovic is easily top 5 without the second FO and is top 3 on clay if he wins.

Win/Loss Index | ATP Tour | Tennis

In-depth data analysis of the performance of ATP World Tour players. Featuring year-to-date, 52-week, and career data for the top players in men's professional tennis.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com
Click to expand...

Not even close to top 3.

It's laughable that Borg is not listed there, and I'd even put Wilander ahead of him on clay.
 
ChrisRF said:
No disrespect at all. I respect any era of tennis and watched every Slam final of Borg except the 1975 RG final which seemingly isn’t available online. He clearly was the best of his era. But I don’t see anything in his game which could trouble the Big 3, wooden racquet or not. And that’s not strange. Sport evolves over the decades, or do you think a top 70s football (soccer) team could be the best of today (or just win ONE big international title)?

And do you really think Borg would steal more than one RG title during the Nadal era? Or on the other hand do you think Vilas, Orantes, Gerulaitis etc. would prevent Federer or Djokovic from winning 6 RG titles?

We could only say they all would be different players in a different era. That’s true, but then we wouldn’t talk about guys we know anymore but about completely ficticious characters (which would be pointless speculation).
Click to expand...

Both of them at their peak, and using wooden racquets? Absolutely, 100%, yes.
 
No. But if he wins another one at Wimbledon, he's top 3 there!

Actually he's already surpassed Borg at the W. Borg's best win was against McEnroe, once. Djokovic defeated the king of grass three times!
 
TripleATeam said:
Because he made so many semis and finals that he lost to the greatest clay courter ever? It's a simple prospect, really.

Since Nadal is the best clay courter to ever grace the court, he's a very tough measuring stick to use. Put Kuerten up against Nadal in his finals, never wins a single one. Same thing with Wilander and Lendl.

What we can measure is what they could have won in absence of Nadal. If Djokovic wins another RG, in absence of Nadal he wins at least 3 more, but up to 5 more, with several extra finals to his name. That's better than Kuerten, Lendl, and Wilander could say. Now, obviously we can't just gift him those victories because they didn't happen, but Djokovic has an 82.9% win rate at RG, even losing 6 times to Nadal (he's only lost 8 times to people not named Nadal). Take away the Nadal matches and he has an 89% win rate. Even if another clay courter just as good as Djokovic showed up in Nadal's place and won 50% of the time against him (a Nadal-lite, if you will) and played him 10 times, he'd still have 3+ RGs and an 85% win rate.

The only thing that stopped Djokovic from being a clay ATG was Nadal - same with Federer. And if Djokovic wins 2 RG, he's definitely top 5.
Click to expand...
The only thing that has stopped Djokovic from being a clay ATG has been his inability to win more than one French Open against the opposition in front of him in his own era. That's how tennis works. We can all have little fantasies about, for example, how many slams Borg would have won if McEnroe hadn't come along (20+?), but they are pointless, childish exercises.
 
ChrisRF said:
Switch Borg with Federer/Djokovic and let him play in the Nadal clay era and he wins next to nothing. Switch Federer or Djokovic with Borg and into his era (without Nadal and without each other), and they both easily win 6 or more RG titles.

But yes, in the end it is about numbers, so they cannot officially be considered Top 3.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the level of ignorance about the game of tennis on these boards is mind blowing.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Sometimes the level of ignorance about the game of tennis on these boards is mind blowing.
Click to expand...
Nice arguments, really. :-D

Seriously, I understand the romantic part that wants to give players from long ago a chance against modern top players. But in the end if someone thinks anyone in history could compete with Nadal on clay, he is just delusional. Federer/Djokovic are not top tier RG champions because of Nadal alone, that’s how good he is. And to think Borg’s competition would have have stopped Federer/Djokovic from winning 6 RG titles is delusional as well.

The same counts for football. Brazil 1970 etc. are legendary teams for their era and should never be forgotten, but to think they could compete in today’s era is absurd.
 
ChrisRF said:
No disrespect at all. I respect any era of tennis and watched every Slam final of Borg except the 1975 RG final which seemingly isn’t available online. He clearly was the best of his era. But I don’t see anything in his game which could trouble the Big 3, wooden racquet or not. And that’s not strange. Sport evolves over the decades, or do you think a top 70s football (soccer) team could be the best of today (or just win ONE big international title)?

And do you really think Borg would steal more than one RG title during the Nadal era? Or on the other hand do you think Vilas, Orantes, Gerulaitis etc. would prevent Federer or Djokovic from winning 6 RG titles?

We could only say they all would be different players in a different era. That’s true, but then we wouldn’t talk about guys we know anymore but about completely ficticious characters (which would be pointless speculation).
Click to expand...
Borg basically Ferrer...Great grinder but not enough weapons to trouble Big3
 
Nadalgaenger said:
Borg basically Ferrer...Great grinder but not enough weapons to trouble Big3
Click to expand...

Well Borg didn't have the equipment compared to big 3 to showcase his weapons the same way big 3 can.

Borg played in the wooden era. It's pointless to compare ''weapons''. Borg was hitting the ball with a wooden racket and a very small frame. Big 3 compared to that have bazookas to their disposal. What we can do is see what they achieved in their respective eras against players playing on the same terms. Borg was during a big period of time the best player in his field.
 
RF-18 said:
Well Borg didn't have the equipment compared to big 3 to showcase his weapons the same way big 3 can.

Borg played in the wooden era. It's pointless to compare ''weapons''. Borg was hitting the ball with a wooden racket and a very small frame. Big 3 compared to that have bazookas to their disposal. What we can do is see what they achieved in their respective eras against players playing on the same terms. Borg was during a big period of time the best player in his field.
Click to expand...
I'm basing this on physical build, which is pretty obvious if you look at them. The wooden racket era privileged speed, finesse, consistency. Those things aren't enough in the modern racket/string era. You need serious weapons. That's why guys like Stan and Thiem have a chance in matches against superior Big 3 players. They have enough power to hit through them on the right day. Grinders like Ferrer basically get dominated.

Borg seems like a grinder to me. I just don't see his game translating well.

Borg was one of the most dominant players of any era but I'm saying that his physical advantage (fitness, speed, etc.) wouldn't help him nearly as much today when those things are basically givens on the pro tour.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
I'm basing this on physical build, which is pretty obvious if you look at them. The wooden racket era privileged speed, finesse, consistency. Those things aren't enough in the modern racket/string era. You need serious weapons. That's why guys like Stan and Thiem have a chance in matches against superior Big 3 players. They have enough power to hit through them on the right day. Grinders like Ferrer basically get dominated.

Borg seems like a grinder to me. I just don't see his game translating well.

Borg was one of the most dominant players of any era but I'm saying that his physical advantage (fitness, speed, etc.) wouldn't help him nearly as much today when those things are basically givens on the pro tour.
Click to expand...
You need to stop humiliating yourself. Borg a grinder. Embarrassing.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
I'm basing this on physical build, which is pretty obvious if you look at them. The wooden racket era privileged speed, finesse, consistency. Those things aren't enough in the modern racket/string era. You need serious weapons. That's why guys like Stan and Thiem have a chance in matches against superior Big 3 players. They have enough power to hit through them on the right day. Grinders like Ferrer basically get dominated.

Borg seems like a grinder to me. I just don't see his game translating well.

Borg was one of the most dominant players of any era but I'm saying that his physical advantage (fitness, speed, etc.) wouldn't help him nearly as much today when those things are basically givens on the pro tour.
Click to expand...

Calling Borg a grinder and comparing him to Ferrer SMH. Evidently you know F'all about players from that time period yet you continue to speak about them...
 
Level-wise, Djokovic is probably Top3 of all-time on clay but not achievement-wise for sure. IF and that's a BIG if, he wins RG20 then he's Top4 of all-time achievement-wise.
 
abmk said:
more delusions.
Your initial post included

"His major competition for top 3 are Lendl and Vilas. "

what next ? Wilander would not beat Vilas ? Well, he did beat Vilas in RG 82.

-----------

Djokovic lost in straight sets to Ferrer in DC 09.
Djokovic lost to Kohlscreiber in RG 09
Click to expand...
Whatever, dude.
How is it “delusional” to make a claim based on actual statistical evidence?

So where is Fed all time on clay? I guess he would get owned by Wilander? LOL I just don’t see that.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
No grinding here at all. Pure aggressive first-strike tennis. What is so horrible about grinding anyway? It got Borg great results? I never questioned his status as a great player.
Click to expand...

What's remarkable about Borg is that he went from out-grinding Vilas one week, to serve and volleying his way to the Wimbledon title a few weeks later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mike danny
Big 3 top 3 toughest slam wins
Replies
23
Views
1K
Incognito
Incognito
Lozo1016
  • Poll Poll
If Novak wins RG, Is He The Only Player To Rank In Your (Open Era) Top 3 On Grass, Clay, and Hard?
Replies
27
Views
635
Lauren_Girl'
L
RF-18
  • Poll Poll
Djokovic - can he become greater than Federer on two surfaces?
11 12 13
Replies
614
Views
19K
jl809
jl809
Flint
(Post surgery) Is clay Murrays best surface?!?!
Replies
16
Views
1K
Poisoned Slice
Poisoned Slice
T
Djokovic Top Ten Wins
Replies
4
Views
499
serbiavic
serbiavic
Back
Top