Is Djokovic overrated on clay?

[raph6]

Can I ask what you think of Agassi who deliberately lost the 1996 Australian Open semifinal against Chang (revealed in his autobiography Open)?

Wow I didn't know that, thanks for the info. I think Agassi has not the same mentality as the other champions, as he said he didn't like tennis so it's like Kyrgios who tanks some matches.

 

[Towser83]

If I were to say that Nadal lost the Wimbledon 2006 and Wimbledon 2007 finals because he was "mentally weak", people would rightly say I am making excuses.

If I were to say that Nadal lost the Australian Open 2012 final because he was "mentally weak" people would rightly say I am making excuses.

Yet I have to tolerate the ridiculous excuse that Djokovic only lost to Nadal the RG finals because of "mental weakness".

I dont see it as an excuse though, being mentally strong is part of being a great player and there are some matches (not all, but some) where both players play a similar level of tennis but one is more mentally strong at key times and tbis is what ultimately decides the match. This is a credit to a player who wins.

AO 2012 I absolutely think Nadal played as good as Djokovic and Djokovic won it through being mentally stronger. AO 2017 was another example, so was Wimbledon 2007. The end of Wimbledon 2008 was too but Nadal had been the better player overall in the match so it actually would have felt a bit wrong if Frderer won at the end. Wimbledon 2009 was kind of like this as well but Federer did actually win even though Roddick had arguably been the better player.

I have to say though a lot of times people focus on the loser being weak instead of the winner being strong, which is unfair

 

[Nole_King]

Most overrated player in history never mind on just clay

Imagine then how overrated then Nadal is who is getting his backside whipped by Novak again and again and again ....

 

[TMF]

Fixed it for you.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Lol, you must be one of the few Fed fans these days that believes Federer is better on clay than Djokovic. Why does it pain you so much to admit there's a surface on which Novak is better than your hero? I mean, how on earth does it affect your life? I just don't get fanatics like you at all.

 

[TMF]

Lol, you must be one of the few Fed fans these days that believes Federer is better on clay than Djokovic. Why does it pain you so much to admit there's a surface on which Novak is better than your hero? I mean, how on earth does it affect your life? I just don't get fanatics like you at all.

LOL. The same can be said about you. Pot calling kettle.

Just because someone has different opinion from you doesn't mean you're correct. Your username say it all.

 

[Djokovic2011]

LOL. The same can be said about you. Pot calling kettle.

Just because someone has different opinion from you doesn't mean you're correct. Your username say it all.

Just because I have Djokovic in my username doesn't make me a fanatic.

Please explain to me how Federer's a better clay court player than him.

 

[JackGates]

Just because I have Djokovic in my username doesn't make me a fanatic.

Please explain to me how Federer's a better clay court player than him.

Depends what you mean by better. Djokovic has better stats, but I think Fed is more skilled on clay, he made tons of clay court specialists look like amateurs in his era. Gaudio, Coria, Ferrer, Almagro, Fed made them look bad, not just beat them. Also how Fed made Moya look bad too. Djokovic is the same age as Rafa, why could only Fed and Rafa destroy top clay courters during 2003-2007 if Djokovic has such skills?

No, clay field is weaker since legends retired and I think Federer is more skilled on clay. He grew up there. Not to mention didn't Fed even bagel Kuerten and Nadal on clay?

You are comparing old Fed vs young Nole and this is very unfair,that's why Fed looks bad.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Depends what you mean by better. Djokovic has better stats, but I think Fed is more skilled on clay, he made tons of clay court specialists look like amateurs in his era. Gaudio, Coria, Ferrer, Almagro, Fed made them look bad, not just beat them. Also how Fed made Moya look bad too. Djokovic is the same age as Rafa, why could only Fed and Rafa destroy top clay courters during 2003-2007 if Djokovic has such skills?

No, clay field is weaker since legends retired and I think Federer is more skilled on clay. He grew up there. Not to mention didn't Fed even bagel Kuerten and Nadal on clay?

You are comparing old Fed vs young Nole and this is very unfair,that's why Fed looks bad.

I think it's safe to say prime Djokovic would've made all those clay specialists look pretty bad as well. And players develop at different ages on different surfaces which is probably why he wasn't "destroying" the rest of the field between 2003-2007.

 

[JackGates]

I think it's safe to say prime Djokovic would've made all those clay specialists look pretty bad as well. And players develop at different ages on different surfaces which is probably why he wasn't "destroying" the rest of the field between 2003-2007.

Yes, if we transform Nole from today, of course he would, but you can't think like that. He had the benefit of evolution. If you transform Stalin's army to old Rome of course Stalin would destroy Caesar, doesn't mean he is more skilled general.

Same with Roddick beating Laver. Just because a new guy has higher level, that doesn't mean he is better. Djokovic is better because of Evolution, not because he is more talented than Federer.

 

[NoleFam]

Just because I have Djokovic in my username doesn't make me a fanatic.

Please explain to me how Federer's a better clay court player than him.

Agreed.

Depends what you mean by better. Djokovic has better stats, but I think Fed is more skilled on clay, he made tons of clay court specialists look like amateurs in his era. Gaudio, Coria, Ferrer, Almagro, Fed made them look bad, not just beat them. Also how Fed made Moya look bad too. Djokovic is the same age as Rafa, why could only Fed and Rafa destroy top clay courters during 2003-2007 if Djokovic has such skills?

No, clay field is weaker since legends retired and I think Federer is more skilled on clay. He grew up there. Not to mention didn't Fed even bagel Kuerten and Nadal on clay?

You are comparing old Fed vs young Nole and this is very unfair,that's why Fed looks bad.

Djokovic wasn't even playing tennis in 2003 since he was like 15 years old so that's pretty weak. Also, Rafa matured faster than Djokovic overall. In fact, Rafa matured faster than anybody in the last 20 years and clay is his best surface, and he is better on it than Djokovic or Federer are on any surface. Federer lost to past his prime Kuerten in 2004 at his peak so I have no idea how you are getting to these conclusions. The stats say everything actually, the head to heads, titles won, the win loss ratios, the top 10 wins etc. Djokovic has pretty much caught Federer in every stat on clay or surpassed him although he played considerable less time. People will believe whatever they want at the end of the day though.

 

[JackGates]

Agreed.


Djokovic wasn't even playing tennis in 2003 since he was like 15 years old so that's pretty weak. Also, Rafa matured faster than Djokovic overall. In fact, Rafa matured faster than anybody in the last 20 years and clay is his best surface, and he is better on it than Djokovic or Federer are on any surface. Federer lost to past his prime Kuerten in 2004 at his peak so I have no idea how you are getting to these conclusions. The stats say everything actually, the head to heads, titles won, the win loss ratios, the top 10 wins etc. Djokovic has pretty much caught Federer in every stat on clay or surpassed him although he played considerable less time. People will believe whatever they want at the end of the day though.

I'm not saying Fed is greater, just that he is better. Better in terms of skills and peak play. But Djokovic has better achievements, that's what greater means. Why do you bring one match versus Kuerten as proof? Using your logic old Fed defeated peak Nole in 2011 on clay, so Fed is better.

It's not about believing, it's about seeing. Fed has more talent on clay, it's obvious, had more shots and Fed did it with small racket and one hander, much tougher.

Hey, a lot of crappy musicians today sell more records, they have better stats, doesn't mean their music is better.

 

[Sport]

Agreed.


Djokovic wasn't even playing tennis in 2003 since he was like 15 years old so that's pretty weak. Also, Rafa matured faster than Djokovic overall. In fact, Rafa matured faster than anybody in the last 20 years and clay is his best surface, and he is better on it than Djokovic or Federer are on any surface. Federer lost to past his prime Kuerten in 2004 at his peak so I have no idea how you are getting to these conclusions. The stats say everything actually, the head to heads, titles won, the win loss ratios, the top 10 wins etc. Djokovic has pretty much caught Federer in every stat on clay or surpassed him although he played considerable less time. People will believe whatever they want at the end of the day though.

I agree with your analysis.

 

[NoleFam]

I'm not saying Fed is greater, just that he is better. Better in terms of skills and peak play. But Djokovic has better achievements, that's what greater means. Why do you bring one match versus Kuerten as proof? Using your logic old Fed defeated peak Nole in 2011 on clay, so Fed is better.

It's not about believing, it's about seeing. Fed has more talent on clay, it's obvious, had more shots and Fed did it with small racket and one hander, much tougher.

Hey, a lot of crappy musicians today sell more records, they have better stats, doesn't mean their music is better.

Your whole point is forget everything about what they achieved, their records, their titles, etc...Federer is better because I say so. To say he has better skills based on the eye test doesn't hold up when everything else says otherwise. I brought up that match because you brought up Kuerten in the first place, and seem to forget that Kuerten won their most important match on clay and led the head to head overall. Yea you could say old Federer beat Djokovic in 2011, when he wasn't really old and only 29, and I could say the reverse happened the next year. Like I said, people see what they want to see.

 

[Sport]

Your whole point is forget everything about what they achieved, their records, their titles, etc...Federer is better because I say so. To say he has better skills based on the eye test doesn't hold up when everything else says otherwise. I brought up that match because you brought up Kuerten in the first place, and seem to forget that Kuerten won their most important match on clay and led the head to head overall. Yea you could say old Federer beat Djokovic in 2011, when he wasn't really old and only 29, and I could say the reverse happened the next year. Like I said, people see what they want to see.

Jack Gates confessed that he doesn't care about logic or sense, he only wants to win the debate rather than find the truth. That is what the sophists did in the Ancinet Greece: they specialized in rethoric, the art of persuading the audience. Here you are trying to bring some light to his mental cave, with the patient of Plato.

 

[JackGates]

Your whole point is forget everything about what they achieved, their records, their titles, etc...Federer is better because I say so. To say he has better skills based on the eye test doesn't hold up when everything else says otherwise. I brought up that match because you brought up Kuerten in the first place, and seem to forget that Kuerten won their most important match on clay and led the head to head overall. Yea you could say old Federer beat Djokovic in 2011, when he wasn't really old and only 29, and I could say the reverse happened the next year. Like I said, people see what they want to see.

So, you think stats equals skills? So, is Serena more skilled than Djokovic if stats equal skills?

 

[angrybirds89]

Just because I have Djokovic in my username doesn't make me a fanatic.

Please explain to me how Federer's a better clay court player than him.

Stats wise it is pretty undisputable Djokovic is slightly better with a virtually equal RG record and better Masters record. They are still close enough one could place Federer ahead by subjective means reasonably if they wish though.

 

[NoleFam]

Jack Gates confessed that he doesn't care about logic or sense, he only wants to win the debate rather than find the truth. That is what the sophists did in the Ancinet Greece: they specialzied in rethoric, the art of persuading the audience. Here you are trying to bring some light to his mental cavern, with the patient of Plato.

I don't know what his basis is but I just can't follow that type of thinking when there is nothing concrete to suggest these conclusions. I mean nothing. Djokovic has more titles on clay, more Masters on clay, better win percentage, more wins against the top 10, more wins against Nadal, etc. and he reached this after playing about 4 years less than Federer. Yet Federer is better in skills? Based on what?

 

[NoleFam]

So, you think stats equals skills? So, is Serena more skilled than Djokovic if stats equal skills?

So what evidence of these skills are there that I'm missing? Skills translate to results at the end of the day so what is everyone missing here that you see? Serena and Djokovic play different sports so this is irrelevant.

 

[JackGates]

Jack Gates confessed that he doesn't care about logic or sense, he only wants to win the debate rather than find the truth. That is what the sophists did in the Ancinet Greece: they specialzied in rethoric, the art of persuading the audience. Here you are trying to bring some light to his mental cavern, with the patient of Plato.

Logic tells me that you need some delusion in your life in order to be happy.

 

[JackGates]

So what evidence of these skills are there that I'm missing? Skills translate to results at the end of the day so what is everyone missing here that you see? Serena and Djokovic play different sports so this is irrelevant.

Ok, Mayweather has 0 heavy weight titles and yet he would be considered more skilled than most heavy weights. Because it's about the eyes and not just about stats.

 

[NoleFam]

Ok, Mayweather has 0 heavy weight titles and yet he would be considered more skilled than most heavy weights. Because it's about the eyes and not just about stats.

Djokovic and Federer don't play different divisions in their sport like in boxing this is also irrelevant.

 

[JackGates]

Djokovic and Federer don't play different divisions in their sport like in boxing this is also irrelevant.

But they do, Djokovic was in a weaker era, weaker division. They don't play the same sport, surfaces are different and different opponents.

I can't prove my theory, but you can't prove yours either, that's my point, this is not science. How can you claim you have evidence for a theory that isn't even falsifiable? It can't be done.

So, if you will pose your opinions as facts, I will do the same. At least my opinions are less biased and more educated, but I know they are not facts, but you think your opinions are facts.

 

[NoleFam]

But they do, Djokovic was in a weaker era, weaker division. They don't play the same sport, surfaces are different and different opponents.

I can't prove my theory, but you can't prove yours either, that's my point, this is not science. How can you claim you have evidence for a theory that isn't even falsifiable? It can't be done.

So, if you will pose your opinions as facts, I will do the same. At least my opinions are less biased and more educated, but I know they are not facts, but you think your opinions are facts.

Ok you have gone off the boiler now. I am abandoning this topic because it's going nowhere. I have no theory, just facts. Djokovic's superior record, titles, head to heads, etc. are facts not opinions.

 

[JackGates]

Ok you have gone off the boiler now. I am abandoning this topic because it's going nowhere. I have no theory, just facts. Djokovic's superior record, titles, head to heads, etc. are facts not opinions.

I'm not disputing your facts, I just don't like your interpretation of the facts. And your interpretation is not a fact, it's just your opinion.

Federer has 20 majors = fact. Federer is the goat = opinion. Get it?

 

[NoleFam]

I'm not disputing your facts, I just don't like your interpretation of the facts. And your interpretation is not a fact, it's just your opinion.

Federer has 20 majors = fact. Federer is the goat = opinion. Get it?

Except I never said here that Djokovic was better. I just pointed out that the facts do not support your opinion. There is no interpretation from my end, and certainly there is nothing to suggest Federer is more skilled than Djokovic on clay. That's the point, but you have your mind made up and I'm moving on.

 

[JackGates]

Lol, you must be one of the few Fed fans these days that believes Federer is better on clay than Djokovic. Why does it pain you so much to admit there's a surface on which Novak is better than your hero? I mean, how on earth does it affect your life? I just don't get fanatics like you at all.

Ok, but why can't you admit Connors is better than Djokovic? Connors has more titles than Djokovic.

 

[JackGates]

Except I never said here that Djokovic was better. I just pointed out that the facts do not support your opinion. There is no interpretation from my end, and certainly there is nothing to suggest Federer is more skilled than Djokovic on clay. That's the point, but you have your mind made up and I'm moving on.

But there are, more RG finals and all are consecutive. Surely slams are more important, otherwise Connors is better than Roger Federer, he has more titles. Isn't RG where the skills are measured the most? Also stats from Nadal prove Nadal had higher win % on clay in Fed's peak than in Nole's peak, so this proves Djokovic faced a bit softer version of Nadal. Also how about Fed winning all his matches with less energy and in shorter time? Shorter win is more impressive isn't it? It's a fact that Fed wins his matches on clay faster than Djokovic, you wouldn't call that more skills?

So, there are some stats that support my opinion, don't be biased.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Ok, but why can't you admit Connors is better than Djokovic? Connors has more titles than Djokovic.

Well he never won the French for a start and Djokovic has won a lot more Masters titles, even though Connors won more clay tournaments overall.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I mean overrated in the sense that people are saying he is basically co-favorite with Nadal to win RG, not in the sense of having an overrated clay resume.

No
He won 2 slams and OG in last 4 years and reached final and qf 2 times. Only Nadal stopped him since 2020.

2019 his level was not that far off.