vex
Legend
I’m sure you could find similar upset losses For those guys if you want.
If Novak wins FO, is he top 3 all-time on clay?
- Thread starter Nadalgaenger
- Start date
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Borg won the FO twice without dropping a set, and still holds the records at the tournament for fewest games dropped (32, in 1978) and most consecutive sets won (41), ahead of Nadal.
By age 25, both he and Nadal had six FO crowns, and had only lost to one man at the tournament.
Betting on anyone other than Nadal to defeat him at the FO is absurd.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
This while deliberately skipping the 77 edition which was won by a guy who was his pigeon on clay.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Anyone who won more French Open majors alone is already ahead of Djokovic. Other titles are irrelevant; no one adds other clay titles to Borg or Nadal's records, as their dominance on the surface is strictly about the French Open.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Not anyone. Certainly not Bruguera or Kodes. If he was to somehow win another RG title, he would leap frog a lot of players.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Nope. Win or lose, no.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
Rafa, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Guga. I'd guess that Djoker is top 10 on clay, probably, but not going beyond that.
"Did not have to deal with Nadal their entire career" is another way of saying, that this player isn't/wasn't close to matching Nadal on any kind of regular basis. If you want to be top 5, you have to be the one that others "had to deal with" not be the one that had to deal with them. Hypotheticals simply don't count. Lots of players would win "hypothetical" slams minus this player or that. Apparently, some delusional posters think that Roddick was a 8 slam player without Federer (note: he's not even close). You can play this game with many, many players - including the Big 3. But, hypotheticals don't count for squat for "best player on clay." That's BS.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
So win percentage means nothing?
It’s basically one of the most important things to consider. Nadal and Borg, not surprisingly, are 1,2 in win percentage...
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Roddick would definitely have won Wimbledon if not for 4 run-ins with Grass GOAT.
Fed and Djokovic would have at least 3-4 FO without having to deal with clay GOAT.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
No as I think Lendl would still be above him. I'd probably put him in 4th place given how superior his Masters record is compared to Kuerten and Wilander despite them having more FO titles.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Federer played better that year than he did in 2006 and 2007. Lol@ him being ancient.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Another tiresome, cherry picking, recency bias thread.
Step 1: Have an opinion influenced your personal fandom
Step 2: Find stats that back that up. Ignore or downplay facts, stats, and achievements that don't.
Step 4: Possible insert hypothetic "If player (X) wasn't here, then player (Y) surely would have won (Title)." Good grief.
Step 3: Thread!
What a waste of time.
Also no, still not top 5 - in my opinion. Tennis was played prior to the Big 3, prior to Djokovic winning a title, probably prior to 75% of the posters on this thread being born. They exist, the tour and game was different then, but their stuff counts.
Step 1: Have an opinion influenced your personal fandom
Step 2: Find stats that back that up. Ignore or downplay facts, stats, and achievements that don't.
Step 4: Possible insert hypothetic "If player (X) wasn't here, then player (Y) surely would have won (Title)." Good grief.
Step 3: Thread!
What a waste of time.
Also no, still not top 5 - in my opinion. Tennis was played prior to the Big 3, prior to Djokovic winning a title, probably prior to 75% of the posters on this thread being born. They exist, the tour and game was different then, but their stuff counts.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
That's wrong. I present you with this scenario.
Player A wins every single match he plays on hard court except 5 slams and 10 masters (goes 985-15 in career). Undisputed hard court GOAT. Wins every AO and USO for 15 years (except for 5), gets 25 slams. Another player (Player B) beats literally everyone else, every single time (895-105). Never loses a hard court match to anyone but Player A. He loses 95% of the matches he plays against Player A, but wins 5 hard court slams.
Given your criteria, Player B could not be a top 3 ATG on hard court because Player A existed. This is faulty reasoning. Federer and Djokovic, the current hard court GOATs, lost to dozens of players on hard court, and the hypothetical Player B did not. An objective analysis would tell us Player B is probably the 2nd best hard courter out there and was just unlucky to go up against the best ever, because Player A had a win % of 98.5. Player B would have the next highest in history at 89.5%, with Federer at 83.5% and Djokovic at 84.3%.
Or do you disagree?
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
This is a textbook strawman argument.
Player A doesn't exist and Player B also doesn't exist. Even the best players in history lose to people who aren't ATG's. Your hypothetical scenario is even more ridiculous than Roddick or Djokovic's theoretical slams minus Roger or Rafa.
I don't doubt that Novak or even Roddick would have won more slams without the presence of the ATG players they run up against. So would have any number of players in history. HOWEVER, they don't get to count them as achievements, because they aren't actually achievements. Achievements are things that players actually accomplished, not what they could have or would have or should have. What the (bleep)!
Agassi doesn't get credit for theoretical slams could have won without Sampras - which he lost to Pete, because he.... well, he lost. Same with Roddick and Novak.
And, finally.... yes. Player B would NOT be top 3 ATG. He didn't win enough slams. He had a solution to this dilemma - beat player A. He couldn't, he didn't, he's still great, still AN ATG, but not top 3.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Their stuff can count, but downplaying stuff that happened recently just because you miss the "good old days" isn't going to make their achievements better.
There's a reason we discount Pre-Open era achievements. There's a reason we discount AO titles prior to the 80s. I respect all achievements that the older generations of players have done, but seriously. No one's devaluing Kuerten's 3 victories, but who looks at his overall resume and says that it's 3x better than Djokovic's?
I mean honestly.
Djokovic has 10 clay masters with another 7 finals. Djokovic has 1 RG W, 3 more finals, and 4 more semis.
Kuerten has 4 clay masters with another 2 finals. He has 3 RG wins, 0 more finals, 0 more semifinals.
With a hypothetical second RG, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that one more RG in a non-Nadal era outweighs 6 clay masters, 5 clay masters finals, 3 RG finals, and 4 semis while facing the greatest clay courter to ever live?
Similarly, Wilander has 3 clay masters, 2 finals. 3 RG wins, 2 finals, and a semi. Obviously that's more respectable, but 7 masters, 5 masters finals, 1 RG final and 3 semis are outweighed by a single RG title, still remembering that Djokovic built that strong of a resume while going up against Rafael Nadal?
How can you say with a straight face that this thread is ridiculous? At the very least it's debatable. Clearly he'd be ahead of every 2-RG winner out there, putting him at #6 on clay all time at the very least. I'd easily put him in front of Kuerten with 2 RGs, but Wilander and Lendl are harder to say. I would say probably ahead of Wilander, but Lendl might edge him for #3 of all time.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Ah, I didn't realize that your reasoning only applied when you wanted it to. My mistake. I'll be clearer in the future. Personally I don't see how you could rate a player that only ever lost to one person below Djokovic and Federer on hard court. But feel free, I'll just disagree.
Also, I'm not giving Novak 5+ RGs like people claim he'd win without Nadal, I'm just putting his theoretical 2 RGs in context of his competition. Djokovic with 2 RGs and all else being equal is unilaterally ahead of Kodes, Courier, and Bruguera. Thus, he's at least 6th of all time. I take careers holistically, not as a tiebreaker. Djokovic's other clay achievements outweigh Kuerten's clay achievements outside RG. I think his extra RG finals, semifinals, and the masters achievements easily outdo a single extra RG.
It's like the argument surrounding Vilas. His 4 grand slams aren't worth 4. He won 2 weak AOs and his RG was in absence of Borg or Connors. Is Vilas better than Murray just because he played an AO that none of the other players bothered to show up at? No. Vilas has 4 slams, 4 finals, 4 semis, 1 ATP finals and 7 master-equivalent titles; Murray has 3 slams, 8 finals, 10 semis, 1 ATP finals, and 21 masters titles (and 2 Olympic Golds, but unfair since Vilas didn't get the chance) - not to mention playing against the 3 greatest players in the last 50 years at least.
If you dislike holistic review and hypotheticals, feel free, but then stay away from threads labelled "If Novak wins FO [...]"
dropshotlikeitshot
Professional
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Let’s just see if he can make it through the tournament without hurting anybody before we start crowning him.
vex
Legend
That’s an opinion I don’t agree with.
abmk
Bionic Poster
6 out 7 FOs from 74-81, including 2 of the lowest games lost in RG history at 78 and 80. 32 games at RG 78 (least) and 38 games at RG 80 (3rd least).
Given his conditions, technology, time, his prime level was up there with Nadal's in the 2000s.
Maybe watching some of those Borg matches at RG will actually help !
abmk
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer played better that year than he did in 2006 and 2007. Lol@ him being ancient.
Federer didn't play ancient in RG 2011, but he wasn't better than in 06,07. his top level was higher in 06, 07 easily, even if he he dropped a set like the one to Massu in 06 or to Robredo in 07. vs top level opponents, the top level/peak level matters more than a sloppy set dropped in one match of the tournament.
abmk
Bionic Poster
what statistical evidence ?
you mean cherrypicking BS stats that you want ?
Wilander won 3 frickin' FOs. Vilas won only 1 (that too where Borg was absent due to WTT).
Yes, Vilas won USO on har tru among the 3 USOs on har tru, but Wilander didn't even get a chance to play there.
Also this is your statistical conclusion ?
"Novak would NOT lose to Wilander or Chang! Only pure power can beat him..."
LOL !
I didn't say Djokovic would get owned by Wilander. I said Wilander could beat him. Learn to tell the difference.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
So Borg and Rosewall aren't even contenders for the top 3?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.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
I’d bet on Panatta
In life and sports, you should get penalized for not persevering!
Spencer Gore
Legend
So, Nadal is no.1, Djokovic is in a battle with Lendl and Vilas for top 3.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.
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.
So you think Lendl and Vilas were better clay court players than Borg.
Dear, oh dear.
It's surely time for people to have to take a test in basic tennis knowledge before being allowed to post?
Because the point of this thread is not to discuss only to acclaim Djokovic is number 2 on clay even if he has 1 FO title which is BS. How number 2 can be a person who lost all big matches on FO to Nadal, Federer (once), Thiem and Wawrinka. I mean defeating Murray and Tsonga is great thing but is not putting you in front of all past champions.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Never said that. Borg obviously 2. Lendl 3 right now...
No, not quite yet, imo.
Nadal, Borg, and Rosewall for what he achieved in his day, are my top 3 in achievements. There were so many good clay courters throughout tennis history.
Players like Laver, Nastase, Kodes, Roche etc were all strong on clay courts.
People can say the game and racket tech etc has evolved so Novak's peak is probably higher in an absolute sense, but achievements wise, he would probably not be quite there imo to warrant top 3 all time on clay even if he wins this French.
If Novak were to win this French (and depending how the tournaments plays out in present circumstances) he would have two RG, he's won quite a lot of clay Masters and has a few impressive wins over Nadal on clay, so if he dominates the tournament and say, beat Nadal convincingly in the final, that's a real boost to his resume though. I might put him top 3 of the purely Open era behind Rafa, Bjorn and possibly top 5 all time.
Nadal, Borg, and Rosewall for what he achieved in his day, are my top 3 in achievements. There were so many good clay courters throughout tennis history.
Players like Laver, Nastase, Kodes, Roche etc were all strong on clay courts.
People can say the game and racket tech etc has evolved so Novak's peak is probably higher in an absolute sense, but achievements wise, he would probably not be quite there imo to warrant top 3 all time on clay even if he wins this French.
If Novak were to win this French (and depending how the tournaments plays out in present circumstances) he would have two RG, he's won quite a lot of clay Masters and has a few impressive wins over Nadal on clay, so if he dominates the tournament and say, beat Nadal convincingly in the final, that's a real boost to his resume though. I might put him top 3 of the purely Open era behind Rafa, Bjorn and possibly top 5 all time.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Third place is always behind Nadal/Borg in typically this glut of players:
Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten & yes Federer because of Nadal in his path and his consistency behind Nadal for a number of years.
Obviously with a 2nd title, Novak goes ahead of everyone except arguably Wilander. But 2 titles is still 2 titles.
Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten & yes Federer because of Nadal in his path and his consistency behind Nadal for a number of years.
Obviously with a 2nd title, Novak goes ahead of everyone except arguably Wilander. But 2 titles is still 2 titles.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Fair point. Lendl clearly has a statistical edge...
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Of course he has already dominated Nadal at RG...But that was the year he himself couldn’t win it.
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
Top 5 yes, top 3 no
Don't forget about Gustavo Kuerten who won 3 FOI 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.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
No way. Won't even match Lendl, Mats, and Gusto.
FO Titles...
OPEN ERA
Rafael Nadal 12
Bjorn Borg 6
Mats Wilander 3
Gustavo Kuerten 3
Ivan Lendl 3
Sergi Bruguera 2
Jan Kodes 2
Jim Courier 2
Over-all
Rafael Nadal 12
Max Decugis 8
Bjorn Borg 6
Henri Cochet 4
Andre Vacherot 4
Paul Ayme 4
Mats Wilander 3
Maurice Germot 3
Gustavo Kuerten 3
Ivan Lendl 3
Yvon Petra 3
Rene Lacoste 3
Also this:
There is a no-lose situation at RG for Rafa this year.
If Rafa loses - he's old and it's the year of Covid.
If Novak wins he beat an old Rafa out of from Rafa. Kind of like last time.
Rafa can't lose at RG at this point even if he loses.
And Novak will never be a "clay" guy.
FO Titles...
OPEN ERA
Rafael Nadal 12
Bjorn Borg 6
Mats Wilander 3
Gustavo Kuerten 3
Ivan Lendl 3
Sergi Bruguera 2
Jan Kodes 2
Jim Courier 2
Over-all
Rafael Nadal 12
Max Decugis 8
Bjorn Borg 6
Henri Cochet 4
Andre Vacherot 4
Paul Ayme 4
Mats Wilander 3
Maurice Germot 3
Gustavo Kuerten 3
Ivan Lendl 3
Yvon Petra 3
Rene Lacoste 3
Also this:
There is a no-lose situation at RG for Rafa this year.
If Rafa loses - he's old and it's the year of Covid.
If Novak wins he beat an old Rafa out of from Rafa. Kind of like last time.
Rafa can't lose at RG at this point even if he loses.
And Novak will never be a "clay" guy.
Last edited:
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
My point is that he is a dominant clay player everywhere except FO
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Those other players were also dominant, including the FO.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
no. Thiem Rafa and Federer are top 3I 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.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
The tricky thing about win percentage is that wins at slam finals have the same weight as wins in first rounds of a 250er. A guy who wins 5 slams but loose a hell lot of first round matches in minor tournaments will be way better/more accomplished than a guy who wins a lot of masters and 500er and always reaches the latter stages of slams but never wins it all. Sampras winning percentage on grass for instance is not as great as you would expect due to his many early exits in Queens. Musters win percentage on clay is wat better than his abysmal record (for a supposed former clay GOAT) at the French open. As for Kuerten, he was very inconsistent and has a lot of strange losses but when one he was not fat away from Nadal level. Going by win percentage there are a lot of mugs better than him, you wouldn’t place on of them higher than him though. Win percentage is one of the most misleading stats around.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Well, that’s kind of important.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
True, but Borg one of highest win percentages of all time. Better than Fed’s overall !
Drob
Hall of Fame
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.
It Might make him the overall G.O.A.T., but not sure about top-three on clay. Before his victory Monday, I had him at the bottom of my all-time top-10 on clay, although I think would bump him up just a bit, of course, based on the fifth Italian Championship, on a list where 7-10 are so close. Were he to triumph at the Porte d' Auteuil come October 11, I'd probably have him tied for fifth all-time on clay. He has been slightly underrated as a clay-court player. Waspsting has a thread with good description and minute statistical details of his near-victory over Nadal at the French SF in 2013.
Rafael Nadal (Obvious)
Henri Cochet (4 amateur Slam titles at “Roland Garros Tournament,” a/k/a French International Championship of Tennis, and 1 French Pro, plus 1 World Hard Court Championship, in all respects equal to a Slam; 3 Monte Carlo titles; approximately 60 total clay-court titles; 22-3 Davis Cup singles record on clay; 82.3% career clay winning percentage)
Björn Borg (6 French Open titles in 8 participations, 1973-81; 3 Monte Carlo titles and 2 Italian Open; Continental Double; won 26 consecutive clay-court singles rubbers in Davis Cup; 82.6% career clay winning percentage)
Ivan Lendl (3 French Open championships in 5 finals; achieved “Clay-Court Grand Slam” two-times over (French, Italian, Monte Carlo and Hamburg/Madrid, despite playing the three top non-Slam tournaments only 11 times between 1981-90; Continental Double; 28 clay titles; 81% career clay winning percentage)
Ken Rosewall (6 RGs in total - 1 Roland Garros championship in 3 participations as amateur, all as teenager; winner of first French Open, 1968 and finalist in 1969, after which did not compete; 4 French Pro titles on clay at Roland Garros; additional 10 significant clay titles; approximately 40 total clay titles; 74.1% winning percentage)
Gustavo Kuerten (3-time French Open Champion; twice Monte Carlo champ, plus Italian and German Open titles; joined the exclusive career Clay-Court Grand Slam club at age 23; but at age 25, a serious hip injury hobbled his game so badly he was no longer competitive; from his breakout at 1997 Roland Garros through 2001 and the arrival of the hip injury, Guga enjoyed an 81% clay winning percentage)
Rod Laver (twice winner at Roland Garros, amateur and Open era; 2 Italian championships; 2 German championships; 1968 French Pro title on clay; 1 Geneva Gold Trophy title; 1971 Italian Open title was effectively the clay-court Slam that year, with a vastly stronger field than the French Open; did not participate at French Open after 1969; more than 50 clay-court titles; 79.4% career clay winning percentage)
Jaroslav Drobny (2 championships at Roland Garros in five finals; 3 Italian titles, plus titles at Monte Carlo and German International Championships; as a result, first player to accomplish the career Clay-Court Grand Slam; Continental Double; 4 British Hard Court championships; approximately 90 career clay-court titles; 80.4% career clay-court winning percentage, i believe, in a career that really did not start until he was 25)
Rene Lacoste (3 French Championships in 5 consecutive finals, 1925-29; playing a limited schedule, won an additional eight significant clay tournaments, including 2 British Hard Court Championships; 15-1 record in Davis Cup matches on clay, 1924-29; serious respiratory illness caused his retirement at 25 years of age)
Novak Djokovic (1 French Open championship in 4 finals; four Italian Open championships; career Clay-Court Grand Slam and 9 Masters 1000s (counting the 4 Italian titles); 8-2 Davis Cup clay-court singles; 79.6% career clay-court winning percentage)
This is pre-Rome 2020 - Nole now has 5 Italian and total 10 M 1000s. His winning percentage must now be close to 81%.
Last edited:
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
I see it happening ! Novak in 5!
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Lol Nole miles ahead of most of these clowns on clay. Lacoste would hardly win a point! Jaroslav who???
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
It's good that this absolutely ridiculous thread didn't age well. Djokovic with 1 RG title shouldn't be even in the discussion for being an ATG on clay, leave alone top-3.
aditya123
Hall of Fame
Why are you calling them as clowns??? Thats a huge disrespect directed towards them.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
I’m just saying that Nole is awesome clay player. He had horrible RG final and Nadal simply too good. But to say that these guys would have taken RG titles away from Rafa if Fed and Nole couldn’t is a joke.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
