Is Djokovic the 3rd best clay courter ever

[King No1e]

According to TTW Nole isn't top 10 on clay, grass or hardcourt. Kinda odd really.

He's #1 on carpet, though.

 

[MrFlip]

If Djokovic could time travel with his equipment he would simply destroy players like Borg or Lendl at the FO. I’m talking 6-0,6-0, 6-0.We really need to stop with this whole worship of past players. Tennis technology and training has moved on. You look at some of the points from the FO Borg-Lendl final and it looks like something you see in a weekend match in your local courts.

what could a wooden racquet wielding Borg do against a player like Novak? in what area could he even compete? Not serve, not return, not speed in the court. You need to imagine an alternative reality where Borg trains as a child with modern equipment.

I'm glad someone else said it

I will give the old players the exception of adapting their swings etc for modern equipment. Judging by the footage, still put Fed and Djok over Borg, Lendl but you can't say that because of numbers.

Fed still the 2nd best claycourter of all time though.

 

[GabeT]

I'm glad someone else said it

I will give the old players the exception of adapting their swings etc for modern equipment. Judging by the footage, still put Fed and Djok over Borg, Lendl but you can't say that because of numbers.

Fed still the 2nd best claycourter of all time though.

I don’t think it‘s fair to compare across so many decades because obviously training and tech will change. That‘s why I find time travel tennis debates fun but ultimately useless. We can always compare outcomes and there Borg is the clear winner with 6 FOs.

but to argue that if Borg and Novak met with the equipment/training each grew up with that Borg would win borders on delusion. We have videos of what an FO final looked like that time. It ain’t pretty. ball was much slower yet the players barely moved. A player like Novak would simply destroy them.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I'd still put Lendl and maybe Kuerten above him.

What if he wins a 3rd RG at some point before he retires?

 

[martinezownsclay]

2005-2011 Fed was a very good clay courter. Even after 3 years not attending he made the SF and lost to Nadal again when he probably would have had a very good chance of making the final against Djok or Thiem.

Djokovic or Thiem would have destroyed Federer at RG 2019. Federer definitely had no shot against any of those 3, even though he did well to make the semis.

 

[NonP]

Who needs Beavis and Butthead when TTW's village lemmings are here to assure us that Fedovic would not only best Lendl and Wilander but beat the overrated Bjorn Borg like a drum?

For those of you who fail to see just how clueless this wishful thinking is but actually care to learn, seek out a local coach or pro and ask if these legends in their prime would struggle so much to play with these new racquets against the likes of Thiem, Tsitsipas and Zverev after weeks of preparation. And let it be understood that this idea comes from someone else, lest you be laughed out of the room.

One more thing:

I think you guys are forgetting that since Nadal has been so dominant on clay that it diffuses who was the 2nd best during his dominance. He’s beaten Fed 4 times, and Novak 3 times in the RG finals so that should be taken into consideration.

A 88 and a 90 losing to a 99 doesn't necessarily mean those two would beat a 95 in a different era. This fallacy has been pointed out a zillion times.

 

[GabeT]

Who needs Beavis and Butthead when TTW's village lemmings are here to assure us that Fedovic would not only best Lendl and Wilander but beat the overrated Bjorn Borg like a drum?

For those of you who fail to see just how clueless this wishful thinking is but actually care to learn, seek out a local coach or pro and ask if these legends in their prime would struggle so much to play with these new racquets against the likes of Thiem, Tsitsipas and Zverev after weeks of preparation. And let it be understood that this idea comes from someone else, lest you be laughed out of the room.

One more thing:



A 88 and a 90 losing to a 99 doesn't necessarily mean those two would beat a 95 in a different era. This fallacy has been pointed out a zillion times.

You keep repeating that Borg would easily adapt to new racquets with just a few weeks of training. But this is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. The actual Borg had years to adjust and couldn’t do it.

You also keep skipping the part that Borg, on part due to tech differences, never faced the type of serving and shots modern players do. A look at actual videos of Borg playing, like the FO final with Lendl, shows dramatic differences with how tennis is played today. Balls are slower and players move much less.

 

[NonP]

You keep repeating that Borg would easily adapt to new racquets with just a few weeks of training. But this is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. The actual Borg had years to adjust and couldn’t do it.

You also keep skipping the part that Borg, on part due to tech differences, never faced the type of serving and shots modern players do. A look at actual videos of Borg playing, like the FO final with Lendl, shows dramatic differences with how tennis is played today. Balls are slower and players move much less.

I addressed all of these objections of yours less than 2 days ago, but this is how you responded:

this whole thread is about clay and my comments are only on clay. Not sure why you bring up grass, that’s not the comparison we are making.

also not clear what local pros have to do with anything. We are discussing a hypothetical match between peak Novak and peak Borg in clay.

to me it’s clear that a time traveling Borg facing Novak with modern equipment in clay and with only a couple of weeks to adjust would be simply destroyed. you disagree. it’s fine, this is all made up in any case.

These are deflections, not honest engagements. It's irrelevant that those matches took place on grass and hard when your contention is that those ATGs would struggle to adapt to the new conditions period, and the educated opinion of a real expert has everything to do with these unprovable, imaginary hypotheticals.

And I just took apart your fellow faux-evolutionist's talking point about Borg's comeback in the other thread but you keep repeating it. Why the hell should I bother wasting more of my time when you jokers won't acknowledge anything I say that doesn't jibe with your fantasy about this being the strongest, bestest era ever?

 

[OldBalls]

Lendl is closer to goat than Djoko will ever be. Even Henman said so during Wimbledon

Hahahhahahha

Who let you out of the ward?

 

[martinezownsclay]

Djokovic can't compare to Borg on clay. Borg is the only one who could truly consistently compete with PRIME (meaning not the current version of course) Nadal on clay. Djokovic despite being a favorable match up for Nadal still lost to an already weakened clay version of Nadal from 2011-2014 and 2017-2020 far more often than not, especialy when it mattered.

The spots behind Nadal and Borg are the ones that are up for debate. Those 2 are far above the rest.

 

[GabeT]

I addressed all of these objections of yours less than 2 days ago, but this is how you responded:



These are deflections, not honest engagements. It's irrelevant that those matches took place on grass and hard when your contention is that those ATGs would struggle to adapt to the new conditions period, and the educated opinion of a real expert has everything to do with these unprovable, imaginary hypotheticals.

And I just took apart your fellow faux-evolutionist's talking point about Borg's comeback in the other thread but you keep repeating it. Why the hell should I bother wasting more of my time when you jokers won't acknowledge anything I say that doesn't jibe with your fantasy about this being the strongest, bestest era ever?

you didn’t address much. We were debating the differences in clay levels between Borg and Novak, I offered as evidence actual FO gameplay from Borg, and you responded that we should ignore FO gameplay and instead look at play on grass. How does that make any sense?

The contention that Borg would struggle to adapt to a new racquet technology if forced to do so over a few weeks is based on actual events. Borg never adapted to new tech. He had years to do so when he came back and never managed to do it.

but you don’t need to only focus on Borg. Interviews with pros make it clear that even very small changes take a long time to process. I mentioned one such interview with Novak. Pros at that level fine tune their play to very exacting specifications. Federer famously took quite a while to make chamges to the size of his racquet. And that was just the size not a jump from wooden racquets to modern ones with modern strings.

the idea that Borg would be able to pick up a modern racquet and play with it at top level defies everything we know about how pros train.

and that‘s just the tech part. Borg played at a time when the balls he faced were much slower. i already provided evidence of the increase in the average serving speed. But you can look at videos of actual gameplay and notice the same thing. Lendl and Borg have allies where the ball just saunters from one side to the other. They have none the angles and 100 mph down the line forehands that modern players accomplish.

 

[Genie Of the Bank]

Nadal destroying the oposition on clay in the last 15 years make Novak two clay slam superhuman effort. Federer and Wawrinka got one each( with zero wins against Rafa), so you can see who is who on the food chain.

 

[vex]

After only Borg and Nadal. He has 1 less French than Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, but blows them away in all other clay stats.

The truth is yes, but haters will hate. Really it just goes to show how incredible Nadal was on the surface that despite having a rival who is a top 3-4 clay court player ever, he still found a way to shut him down for the most part

 

[martinezownsclay]

The truth is yes, but haters will hate. Really it just goes to show how incredible Nadal was on the surface that despite having a rival who is a top 3-4 clay court player ever, he still found a way to shut him down for the most part

Yes and I give Djokovic huge credit for doing so respectably well vs Nadal on clay overall in 2011-2013 (2014) when he was still near his best. The favorable match up is some of that, but it still not easy.

 

[NonP]

you didn’t address much. We were debating the differences in clay levels between Borg and Novak, I offered as evidence actual FO gameplay from Borg, and you responded that we should ignore FO gameplay and instead look at play on grass. How does that make any sense?

Again you weren't just talking about how this matchup would go on clay, but making a bold point about Borg being unable to make the transition to the modern era. You simply ignored those videos by redirecting the focus on clay. Like I said, a deflection.

The contention that Borg would struggle to adapt to a new racquet technology if forced to do so over a few weeks is based on actual events. Borg never adapted to new tech. He had years to do so when he came back and never managed to do it.

This only proves his unwillingness to adapt at the time, not his ability. And your new BFF just noted in the other thread that Borg made the switch to graphite in the middle of his comeback.

but you don’t need to only focus on Borg. Interviews with pros make it clear that even very small changes take a long time to process. I mentioned one such interview with Novak. Pros at that level fine tune their play to very exacting specifications. Federer famously took quite a while to make chamges to the size of his racquet.

the idea that Borg would be able to pick up a modern racquet and play with it at top level defies everything we know about how pros train.

You see, this is how I know you play next to no tennis yourself. Racquet specifications have very little to do with the basics, which again have stayed remarkably intact throughout tennis history. What you're talking about here is optimization whereas the kind of transition you were talking about with respect to Borg is a whole revamping of his game, and I'm telling you actual pros don't develop their game in accordance with their racquet specs, but rather as a hodgepodge product of coaching, talent, preference, prevailing trends, peer pressure, etc.

and that‘s just the tech part. Borg played at a time when the balls he faced were much slower. i already provided evidence of the increase in the average serving speed. But you can look at videos of actual gameplay and notice the same thing. Lendl and Borg have allies where the ball just saunters from one side to the other. They have none the angles and 100 mph down the line forehands that modern players accomplish.

Catch some of the recent mixed seniors tour/mixed doubles matches (though not too recent - even Mac ain't what he used to be 10 years ago) and you'll see these guys (and gals) in their 40s, 50s and even 60s often generating more pace than they did on average in their prime. That's not because they could make this "transition" only after retirement, but because the strokes were there from the get-go and only minor adjustments were necessary.

 

[GabeT]

Again you weren't just talking about how this matchup would go on clay, but making a bold point about Borg being unable to make the transition to the modern era. You simply ignored those videos by redirecting the focus on clay. Like I said, a deflection.

no, the debate was purely about the matchup on clay. Borg’s playing ability on grass or other non clay surfaces was not part of the debate (and would create a whole new sepárate debate)

edit: and yes, the point is that Borg was unwilling to adjust his play during his real actual career so to imagine he would do so in time travel tennis is simply assuming a brand new Borg, unrelated to the actual one that played the sport.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Djokovic
Wilander
Kuerten

Novak messed up with the Wawa opportunity, he would be number 3 with 3 RG's

 

[Russeljones]

Not even top 10? Lol. There are only 9 men in the OE who even won at least 2 RG titles.

The obsession with majors is relatively new. Surface homogenization even newer. You cannot account for the true weight of clay tournament wins of players from Villas, Lendl and Courier because you cannot understand the comparative strength and depth of the clay tennis field they faced.

It is both amusing and alarming how little most mummies know about tennis history, yet they never stop talking about 'all-time, ever and all'.

 

[NonP]

no, the debate was purely about the matchup on clay. Borg’s playing ability on grass or other non clay surfaces was not part of the debate (and would create a whole new sepárate debate)

edit: and yes, the point is that Borg was unwilling to adjust his play during his real actual career so to imagine he would do so in time travel tennis is simply assuming a brand new Borg, unrelated to the actual one that played the sport.

This parsing contest isn't helpful. Let's just say Borg's matches on grass and hard don't feature the kind of cartoonish moonballing that old FO matches were known for and that's why I posted some of them to provide a more accurate picture.

And this wouldn't be a brand-new Borg, because we already know from those off-clay matches and even from his more recent exos how he would play in a faster environment.

Also you didn't acknowledge these vids (of the man on clay, mind you) earlier:

That's why none other than Stefanki claims to this day Borg is the fastest player he's ever seen. Maybe, maybe not, but there's no doubt he'd still be at worst one of the best athletes on tour today. That kind of talent would translate well to any era.

 

[Jonas78]

Its not a fair comparison to earlier eras where longevity and consistency was much harder to maintain. Big3 all had arthroscopic surgery which could have been career ending earlier. You also have prp treatment (Nadal) etc.

 

[martinezownsclay]

The obsession with majors is relatively new. Surface homogenization even newer. You cannot account for the true weight of clay tournament wins of players from Villas, Lendl and Courier because you cannot understand the comparative strength and depth of the clay tennis field they faced.

It is both amusing and alarming how little most mummies know about tennis history, yet they never stop talking about 'all-time, ever and all'.

The thing is Courier only has won 2 Masters on clay. That isn't impressive really. No way could I see him ranking over Djokovic on clay. You could argue Courier at his peak of peaks in 92 was superior, although even that is iffy at best considering Djokovic in one of his peaks on clay in 2011 was regularly beating near peak Nadal on clay that year, but even if that were true Courier's peak and even prime on clay was fleating, while Djokovic has maintained being one of the top 2 or 3 clay courters for well over a decade now.

And there is no freaking way Vilas who needed Borg and many other top clay courters missing to win his only RG, struggled to win games vs Borg (who is obviously no better than Nadal) on clay, couldn't even beat a 17 year old Wilander in a RG final (which is even worse than losing to Wawrinka, simply since it is a 17 year old), and won a bunch of mickey mouse clay events, is ahead of Djokovic on clay.

 

[CCPass]

After only Borg and Nadal. He has 1 less French than Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, but blows them away in all other clay stats.

Yes, but a third RG will seal it.

 

[tsp_207]

Lendl is closer to goat than Djoko will ever be. Even Henman said so during Wimbledon

Yes Henman, the guy who couldn't even reach a major final is the one who decides who is the GOAT

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The thing is Courier only has won 2 Masters on clay. That isn't impressive really. No way could I see him ranking over Djokovic on clay. You could argue Courier at his peak of peaks in 92 was superior, although even that is iffy at best considering Djokovic in one of his peaks on clay in 2011 was regularly beating near peak Nadal on clay that year, but even if that were true Courier's peak and even prime on clay was fleating, while Djokovic has maintained being one of the top 2 or 3 clay courters for well over a decade now.

And there is no freaking way Vilas who needed Borg and many other top clay courters missing to win his only RG, struggled to win games vs Borg (who is obviously no better than Nadal) on clay, couldn't even beat a 17 year old Wilander in a RG final (which is even worse than losing to Wawrinka, simply since it is a 17 year old), and won a bunch of mickey mouse clay events, is ahead of Djokovic on clay.

peak Nadal on clay in 2011 lol
nice peak dropping sets to Lorenzi, Isner and almost dropping one to Andujar

 

[Gary Duane]

Wait wait wait, being blocked by clay GOD is weakest era ever!?

LOL. You can claim that Nadal's clay total is inflated by weak competition - not my argument btw - but talking about weak competition on clay for Joker is pretty weird. He is 8-19 against the King of Clay. Anyone who saw RG 2013 knows what a beast Joker has been on clay. I think there are good arguments for Joker being stronger on clay than on grass.

 

[Russeljones]

The thing is Courier only has won 2 Masters on clay. That isn't impressive really. No way could I see him ranking over Djokovic on clay. You could argue Courier at his peak of peaks in 92 was superior, although even that is iffy at best considering Djokovic in one of his peaks on clay in 2011 was regularly beating near peak Nadal on clay that year, but even if that were true Courier's peak and even prime on clay was fleating, while Djokovic has maintained being one of the top 2 or 3 clay courters for well over a decade now.

And there is no freaking way Vilas who needed Borg and many other top clay courters missing to win his only RG, struggled to win games vs Borg (who is obviously no better than Nadal) on clay, couldn't even beat a 17 year old Wilander in a RG final (which is even worse than losing to Wawrinka, simply since it is a 17 year old), and won a bunch of mickey mouse clay events, is ahead of Djokovic on clay.

Your opinion. I don't see how it reflects on the argument for weighing clay court achievements.

 

[NoleFam]

The obsession with majors is relatively new. Surface homogenization even newer. You cannot account for the true weight of clay tournament wins of players from Villas, Lendl and Courier because you cannot understand the comparative strength and depth of the clay tennis field they faced.

It is both amusing and alarming how little most mummies know about tennis history, yet they never stop talking about 'all-time, ever and all'.

No it's always been about the Slams. Vilas has one RG and he was a good clay player but the only reason he has that RG is because he avoided Borg, who destroyed him the two times they played at RG. So if your ability to win the biggest clay tournament is dependent if you can avoid the best clay player of your time, that matters and is a strike against you imo. Courier is legit but he has way less big titles than Djokovic and frankly less clay titles in general, when Djokovic didn't even play a whole lot of clay tournaments outside RG and Masters.

It is a bit amusing, of the fact that you are criticizing someone else's tennis history knowledge when you clearly are lacking in that if you are rating Vilas' ability on clay higher than Djokovic's.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Just curious: what would Wilander do to beat Djokovic in a Bo5 match on clay? How'd he go about it?

Irrelevant

 

[Terry Tibbs]

3) Kuerton
4) Muster
5) Lendl
6) Wilander
7) Djokovic
8) Federer
9) Bruguera
10) Courier

 

[daggerman]

Irrelevant

It's far from irrelevant. If somebody says one player is "much better" than another, I'm interested in knowing the way(s) in which that player is much better.

If the argument is, instead, that so-and-so has a better resume, then that's fine. They can clarify if that's what they meant, but that's different from being "much better."

 

[GabeT]

This parsing contest isn't helpful. Let's just say Borg's matches on grass and hard don't feature the kind of cartoonish moonballing that old FO matches were known for and that's why I posted some of them to provide a more accurate picture.

And this wouldn't be a brand-new Borg, because we already know from those off-clay matches and even from his more recent exos how he would play in a faster environment.

Also you didn't acknowledge these vids (of the man on clay, mind you) earlier:

That's why none other than Stefanki claims to this day Borg is the fastest player he's ever seen. Maybe, maybe not, but there's no doubt he'd still be at worst one of the best athletes on tour today. That kind of talent would translate well to any era.

As usual with these online debates we end up with several different lines of arguments at the same time. If this were a conversation over a couple of beers it would be a lot easier!

Imagining hypothetical matches is difficult even when comparing players in the (roughly) same era, say Novak 2015 vs Fed 2006. At least those 2 shared common surfaces and tech.

Obviously the further we go back the harder this is. But I think we should try to at least base it in what we know about the players. Some facts we do know are that they used very different racquets and strings and that the tech differences would, all other things equal, give the more modern players a huge advantage. I’d also point out that probably as a consequence of the tech they used their very strokes evolved differently. And this results in very different muscle memory.

another thing we know is that Borg famously resisted changing his racquet even when he had years to do so and (based on what I understand) strong financial incentives.

so if we try to describe a scenario where Borg time travels to meet Novak and is provided modern equipment I don’t think it’s reasonable to simply assume he could adjust in a few weeks to the new racquets. He never did anything like that before, why would we assume he would do it for time travel tennis?

Maybe Borg would be one of the top athletes today. I’m not debating that. But for that raw talent to translate to elite tennis level in 2021 it would require Borg to redo his training from the ground up. Let‘s recall that at 34, at an age Novak is gunning for the CYGS, Borg famously returned to tennis unable or unwilling to change his racquet and losing in straight sets to journeymen.

by the way this is not meant in any way as an attack on Borg. It’s only that I think we tend to idealize past players and forget how much sports can change over decades. It will likely happen with the Big 3 as well.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

I mean I see many argue on here Federer is 5th or 6th on clay, and I am pretty sure Djokovic 100% has to be higher than wherever Federer is on the surface.

Rosewall career wise is obviously much better, but I am just talking Open Era and hardly any of Rosewall's greatness on anything is on the Open Era, a bit of it on clay but not much of it.

It’s hard to figure Fed vs djokovic out in terms of who is better on clay . Obviously Djokers career on clay is better as he has the double and 2 wins over Nadal so you have to say he’s greater. but a Fed in his 30s beat djokovic in 2011 at his peak at the French. And Fed to be fair did have to content with peak Nadal at the French. While djokovic has the more washed up version of Nadal

Sometimes I think djokovic is a better clay court player but other times I think Fed was better. They’re pretty even IMO even though Djokovic ha a better clay numbers overall. I don’t think either were “elite” with the other past clay great but certainly very good

I think both guys were fortunate in sense there wasn’t more than just Nadal to deal with. When Fed had to go up against true clay elite like Nadal at his peak and Kuerten, he was taken to the cleaners as Nole would have been

 

[Strale]

He is easily the second or third...

These other guys wont even take two sets of Nadal let alone win RG.

 

[joohan]

Just curious: what would Wilander do to beat Djokovic in a Bo5 match on clay? How'd he go about it?

Let him hit overhead after overhead until the Force prevails. Or call Milos Mecir.

 

[NoleFam]

It’s hard to figure Fed vs djokovic out in terms of who is better on clay . Obviously Djokers career on clay is better as he has the double and 2 wins over Nadal so you have to say he’s greater. but a Fed in his 30s beat djokovic in 2011 at his peak at the French. And Fed to be fair did have to content with peak Nadal at the French. While djokovic has the more washed up version of Nadal

Sometimes I think djokovic is a better clay court player but other times I think Fed was better. They’re pretty even IMO even though Djokovic ha a better clay numbers overall. I don’t think either were “elite” with the other past clay great but certainly very good

I think both guys were fortunate in sense there wasn’t more than just Nadal to deal with. When Fed had to go up against true clay elite like Nadal at his peak and Kuerten, he was taken to the cleaners as Nole would have been

Djokovic played 2006, 2007 and 2008 Nadal at RG. He also played 2012 Nadal as well, so he played the top 3 versions of Nadal at RG, not to mention 2013.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Djokovic played 2006, 2007 and 2008 Nadal at RG. He also played 2012 Nadal as well, so he played the top 3 versions of Nadal at RG, not to mention 2013.

That’s true. But it was pre prime djokovic so he could hang on a little longer and wait for Nadal to slow down on clay. Whereas Feds peak was straddled during peak era with his peak tennis coinciding with Nadals peak tennis on clay


The 2011 match is what makes me wonder as Fed was almost 30’ and Djokovic had entered his peak and Fed still managed to beat him

 

[Noleberic123]

LOL. You can claim that Nadal's clay total is inflated by weak competition - not my argument btw - but talking about weak competition on clay for Joker is pretty weird. He is 8-19 against the King of Clay. Anyone who saw RG 2013 knows what a beast Joker has been on clay. I think there are good arguments for Joker being stronger on clay than on grass.

I think that up until 2014, Djokovic was a better player on clay than on grass.

 

[NoleFam]

That’s true. But it was pre prime djokovic so he could hang on a little longer and wait for Nadal to slow down on clay. Whereas Feds peak was straddled during peak era with his peak tennis coinciding with Nadals peak tennis on clay


The 2011 match is what makes me wonder as Fed was almost 30’ and Djokovic had entered his peak and Fed still managed to beat him

I would have liked for peak Djokovic to line up with 2006 Nadal. I like his chances better in a match like that instead of having to play 2012 and 2013 Nadal, who was a monster by then and so dominant, and full of confidence. I also would have loved if he got 2011 Nadal too but Federer played spoiler that year.

2011 is one match though and he got the best of him that day. I have rarely seen one match overrated to this extent as if he could duplicate that performance the majority of the time. The next year, Djokovic beat him easily.

 

[Noleberic123]

I would have liked for peak Djokovic to line up with 2006 Nadal. I like his chances better in a match like that instead of having to play 2012 and 2013 Nadal, who was a monster by then and so dominant full of confidence. I also would have loved if he got 2011 Nadal too but Federer played spoiler that year.

2011 is one match and he got the best of him that day. I have rarely seen one match overrated to this extent as if he could duplicate that performance the majority of the time. The next year, Djokovic beat him easily.

I love when Federer fans use that match in 2011 as "proof" that Federer's peak is higher. Lmao. The dude possibly played his best clay court match ever. Only 06 Rome can be compared. While Djokovic was extremely good in that match it's not like his best clay court match ever.

 

[NoleFam]

I love when Federer fans use that match in 2011 as "proof" that Federer's peak is higher. Lmao. The dude possibly played his best clay court match ever. Only 06 Rome can be compared. While Djokovic was extremely good in that match it's not like his best clay court match ever.

It was his best clay match ever but they seem to someone think it was also Djokovic's best clay match ever, just because he was at his peak during that time. It wasn't. In a BO5 on clay, it would be harder for Federer to duplicate that because on clay the conditions are usually slower but they weren't in 2011 because of the balls. He tried to do the same in 2012 with heavier balls in windy conditions and the result was vastly different.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

I think the 12 fewer Slams would be a bit of a tricky obstacle to overcome but you do you i suppose

Not if you take into account what competition Lendl had compared to Djoko

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Not even top 10? Lol. There are only 9 men in the OE who even won at least 2 RG titles.

Well, Djoko only had to face one clay court specialist, who is now 10 years past his prime. You have to take the stats in its right context

 

[NoleFam]

Well, Djoko only had to face one clay court specialist, who is now 10 years past his prime. You have to take the stats in its right context

So his prime ended at 25?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

2011 was an aberration... lighter balls and faster conditions played into fed's hands, and djokovic had too much rest which affected his prep. Great win but as we saw a year later, not decisive and a clear one off.

Would've loved for peak Djokovic to get baby 05-06 nadal who had no bh, loopy fh, no serve rather than the 2012-2014 peak beast who could hit a FH winner from all parts of the court.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Bump

 

[Realfan]

He’s not even top 10 mate. Wilander, Muster, Bruguera to name a few are way better. You have to take into account that Djoko plays in the weakest era ever compared to the early 90s which had a lot of actual clay specialists

Today's clay court players are far better athletes than anything we saw in the 1990s. What Djokovic has done in today's era certainly places him in the top tier of clay court players.

 

[Tennfan123]

Nah, bud.

 

[Winners or Errors]

No.

 

[legcramp]

Today's clay court players are far better athletes than anything we saw in the 1990s. What Djokovic has done in today's era certainly places him in the top tier of clay court players.

Andy Roddick agrees.

 

[TripleATeam]

Yep. And if he wins tomorrow then definitely.