Is Djokovic a better player at Roland Garros or at Wimbledon?

[helterskelter]

Answer is obvious if you look only at titles won, but I don't think it's actually anywhere near as clearcut as that.

For one thing, he's now been in the final of both events six times. He's also been at more semi-finals (11-9) and more quarter-finals (15-11) at Roland Garros than at Wimbledon. Both his record at MS level and his wins over Nadal at Roland Garros speak to the high level he's played at on clay for much of his career. Indeed, he has twice as many victories over Nadal at Roland Garros as does the rest of the field combined.

Of the six finals, three at Roland Garros were against Nadal (and he lost the lot), while three at Wimbledon were against Federer (and he won the lot). Of the other three, at Wimbledon he beat Nadal and Anderson, but lost to Murray. At Roland Garros, he beat Murray, lost to Wawrinka, and still has to play Tsitsipas. Assume for the sake of argument that he beats Tsitsipas. (I don't think this is a safe assumption, so this thread is probably best revisited after tomorrow). But if he does beat Tsitsipas, then he'll have two mid-level wins in Roland Garros finals, and one defeat to a very good but not quite great player, along with the three defeats against Nadal. At Wimbledon, he'll have a win over a Nadal who is tough at Wimbledon but not anywhere near as tough as at Roland Garros, a relatively easy win over Anderson, and a defeat to Murray that is probably roughly comparable to the defeat against Wawrinka. If anything, Wawrinka was probably a taller order at Roland Garros than Murray at Wimbledon, but it's close and hard to compare, given the surface difference.

So, his superior record at Wimbledon will come down to him having a 3-0 record against Federer in Wimbledon finals but an 0-3 record against Nadal in Roland Garros finals. It's thus highly significant that his wins over Federer came when he had an increasingly great age advantage, whereas he and Nadal are pretty much contemporaries. I would also argue that at their very best, Nadal at Roland Garros was an even taller order than Federer at Wimbledon.

Taking the field into account, I think there's a case that Djokovic is actually better at Roland Garros than at Wimbledon. Even if he's not, there is far less in it than the 5-1 title discrepancy makes it seem. One way in which he is better at Wimbledon is that he sometimes lacks firepower from the back on clay that the speed gives him at Wimbledon. This was a clear factor in the 2015 finals at both events: he showed much more firepower at Wimbledon than at Roland Garros. On the other hand, his movement on clay is probably better.

 

[40-15 still haunts me]

For me, Djokovics titles at Wimbledon are slightly inflated but he’s still a much better grass court player than he is a clay court player

 

[NoleFam]

He's played two less Wimbledons than RGs now since it was cancelled last year and he hasn't played this years edition yet. That explains the 11-9 difference in SFs. He does have more QFs at RG though. He can lose, and has lost, to several players at RG. That is not the case at Wimbledon. He's a better player on grass. Correction on your last sentence: he lacked firepower in the 2015 RG final but not the Wimbledon final where he was quite aggressive.

 

[vex]

Djoker himself has said he prefers grass. He’s one of the top all time clay courters but compared to his level on hard and grass, it’s probably not the same

 

[GhostofPetros]

Beating Nadal at RG is significantly, hilariously and monumentally more impressive than beating Fed at Wimbledon but I'd still say Novak's game is more suited to grass than clay.

 

[helterskelter]

He's played two less Wimbledons than RGs now since it was cancelled last year and he hasn't played this years edition yet. That explains the 11-9 difference in SFs. He does have more QFs at RG though. He can lose, and has lost, to several players at RG. That is not the case at Wimbledon. He's a better player on grass. Correction on your last sentence: he lacked firewpower in the 2015 RG final but not the Wimbledon final where he was quite aggressive.

That's what my last sentence means, actually. He might be better on grass than on clay because he has more firepower on grass, as shown by how much more firepower he had in the 2015 Wimbledon final than in the 2015 Roland Garros final. I edited the OP to make this clearer.

 

[helterskelter]

Djoker himself has said he prefers grass. He’s one of the top all time clay courters but compared to his level on hard and grass, it’s probably not the same

Not really a question of what he (says he) prefers, though. One can prefer A to B but still be better at B than A.

 

[Third Serve]

Novak's game is better suited to grass than clay I think, especially since he brought Becker along and improved his serve. He's got more semis at RG because he's two tournaments behind. Missed out on 2020 and he has yet to play 2021.

 

[NAS]

I have noted this pattern but this same as USO where he made 8 finals, 11 semi and in AO 9 final , 9 semi but he had more titles in AO

 

[Phenomenal]

Actually i was planning to make a thread about this before RG starts i do think Djokovic was the better player on RG(or clay) than Wimbledon. Not saying he is better since 2018 ofc not
I think he was better in RG until 2016-2017
Maybe his WB 2015 performance was his peak on WB as people call.

I think for sure he was better until 2015 season in RG than WB.

But it's hard to call still there is almost only one Grass tournament. Who knows is he better on clay or grass if we have lets say one masters on grass?

If we compare overall i think He is better on RG than WB for now. Last years he is clearly better on WB and maybe he can extent that.

 

[Kralingen]

The fact that he could conceivably have the 2nd most Wimbledon titles ever despite a net game that is poor at worst, mediocre at best, is incredible.
Testament to a few things (surface changes?) but most notably his unarguably GOAT level ROS skills.

I think his wins over Nadal at RG are more historically significant than any single one of his Wimbledon wins, even though Nadal wasn’t at his best.

 

[helterskelter]

I have noted this pattern but this same as USO where he made 8 finals, 11 semi and in AO 9 final , 9 semi but he had more titles in AO

True about the hard court slams except that there is no argument that he won more in Australia only because his biggest rival at the US Open was better. That argument would hold water for his early defeats against Federer, but not for his whole career, as he has losses against all sorts of people at the US Open.
To my mind, the US Open is clearly his second-best slam in terms of consistent performance, though.

 

[PilotPete]

Well he feasted on Federer from 2014-15, which is close to the age Nadal is now. He would have feasted on Nadal too if he was 5 years younger than Nadal.

This really shows that Federer had the toughest time having to deal with 2 ATGs, 5/6 years younger than him. The other two had almost no one but themselves, splitting most of the slams for most of the 2010s.