Is Novak really better on grass than he is on clay?
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
FailBetter
Semi-Pro
if he had lost against fed every time but once how many wimbledons would he have?
but there are not a lot of good grass court players these days.
there are certainly more good clay courters than grass
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
FailBetter
Semi-Pro
novak mastered the grass as fed did. but it took some time as it does for everyone
I would say he is better compared to the rest of the field on grass compared to clay
I would say he is better compared to the rest of the field on grass compared to clay
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Since 2014, he's been better on grass but used to be better on clay before that. Right now, there are quite a few players who can beat him at RG but very very few can at Wimbledon.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Not just Nadal, the field in general is more in tune with clay court tennis than grass courts. There's like 5 good grass court players in the world. Still, I reckon if he played as many tournaments on grass every year as he does on clay I feel like the truth would out.
Maybe with his new serve these last 5 years things have probably shifted some, but over the long course of his career there's no way he's a better grass court player than clay one. He broke out on clay before he even did on hard. It's where he made his name!
Maybe with his new serve these last 5 years things have probably shifted some, but over the long course of his career there's no way he's a better grass court player than clay one. He broke out on clay before he even did on hard. It's where he made his name!
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
The only thing Novak lacks on clay is consistent power IMO. He is world class on clay, but the only versions that had the required power was 2011,2012 and 2016.
But On modern Grass he is a nightmare. He has a good serve and the one of the best baseline grass game to protect it, not only that his returns are the most effective thing on modern grass since 2003-06 Federer Forehand.
He is a fantastic clay courter but
I think for modern grass he is the perfect player. Only Federer in his prime had more suitable game for the surface.
But On modern Grass he is a nightmare. He has a good serve and the one of the best baseline grass game to protect it, not only that his returns are the most effective thing on modern grass since 2003-06 Federer Forehand.
He is a fantastic clay courter but
I think for modern grass he is the perfect player. Only Federer in his prime had more suitable game for the surface.
J
joohan
Guest
Majority of European tennis players grow up on clay so it’s only natural it’s the first surface they’re most comfy on (unless they have natural fast court game from the off). Fed grew up on clay and did a decent job on red dirt throughout his career (like in top 10 players of all time on clay?). Berdych, who could be pointed out as rather fast court player, was very competent on clay, too.
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Djokovic is better on clay than he in on grass. Beckerovic though is a different story.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Grass has a more similar court speed to the main surface of the tour (hardcourt), though. Just check the result: for example Big4 have more similar results on hard and grass than they do on hard and clay.
IMO competition on hard > competition on clay/grass (equal)
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
a european or latin dirtballer winning wimbledon in 3 years is not an unrealistic expectation........welcome to the future of grass court tennis........
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
It has more similar speed, but it's the footing that is the difference. Anyone can move on hard, they try to move on grass and they fall on their asses. But yes, competition definitely the hardest on hard.
Pheasant
Legend
Most European players grow up playing on clay. Even Federer grew up playing on mostly clay surfaces. Given this, I would say that clay has the most competition.
Most players are better on clay than other surfaces because they have spent far more time playing on clay while growing up.
Players like Zverev and Thiem spent most of their careers being much better on clay because they grew up playing on dirt. They on recently have gotten nearly as good on hard courts.
Most players are better on clay than other surfaces because they have spent far more time playing on clay while growing up.
Players like Zverev and Thiem spent most of their careers being much better on clay because they grew up playing on dirt. They on recently have gotten nearly as good on hard courts.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Yes. Because in his most statistically successful years on the season, where many had him as the fav, 2011 and 2015, he lost to someone other than Nadal. Also last year, when again he was one of the top two heading in, he lost to Thiem, who now has a winning record over him at RG.
At Wimbledon, if you take out Federer, he had only one big loss, that was to Murray in 2013.
Djokovic, overall has been better on grass. But if you look at the breakdown, the younger Djokovic was better on clay. I think he was ready to win RG in 2008 if not for Nadal, felt he was beating Federer in the final that year.
At Wimbledon, if you take out Federer, he had only one big loss, that was to Murray in 2013.
Djokovic, overall has been better on grass. But if you look at the breakdown, the younger Djokovic was better on clay. I think he was ready to win RG in 2008 if not for Nadal, felt he was beating Federer in the final that year.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Novak's STRENGTHS are far better suited to grass than clay. Great serve and one of the greatest returns, generally taking the ball early and on the rise. The other stuff is non essential, at least in the modern era (I say Agassi's win makes the case that it hasn't been since at least the graphite era). Novak doesn't LOOK like your stereotypical idea of a grass court player, slicing, moving elegantly in short steps and rushing to the net for delicate volleys. But he owns the most important attributes for success on grass whereas clay is far better suited to taking your time to make a shot. Add to that, running almost an entire baseline's length, if required, to convert a backhand and you can see why Nadal dominates clay and specifically the slow clay of RG (as opposed to the faster Madrid or Rome where he has been upset at least once in a while).
Novak's STRENGTHS are far better suited to grass than clay. Great serve and one of the greatest returns, generally taking the ball early and on the rise. The other stuff is non essential, at least in the modern era (I say Agassi's win makes the case that it hasn't been since at least the graphite era). Novak doesn't LOOK like your stereotypical idea of a grass court player, slicing, moving elegantly in short steps and rushing to the net for delicate volleys. But he owns the most important attributes for success on grass whereas clay is far better suited to taking your time to make a shot. Add to that, running almost an entire baseline's length, if required, to convert a backhand and you can see why Nadal dominates clay and specifically the slow clay of RG (as opposed to the faster Madrid or Rome where he has been upset at least once in a while).
I’m not sure, but I do know that the ATP/ITF Joint Stats Bureau is looking carefully into this and will make a decision shortly.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Nole's serve is not his main weapon. There are for example 211 active players who hit more aces than him.
And serve is a big part in the grass game, check the best players on grass other than Big4, they all had a big serve: Roddick (3 F), Philippoussis (1 F), Berdych (1 F), Raonic (1 F) , Anderson (1 F), Cilic (1 F), Tsonga (2 SF and 2 QF).
I think we should give an edge to grass as its 5 to 1 slams is real but we can't be 100% sure that Nole is better than he is on clay as he had mainly two different opponents (2006-14 Claydal > 2012-19 Grasserer).
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yeah, he is IMO. Generally speaking, I'd always expect player with the best server/return combo to own the grass. Novak is more balanced on the return side obviously but his serve is underrated.
People often correlate clay with strong defense but that's a misconception. In my view clay primarily rewards heavy hitters, guys like Thiem and Stan are far more natural on clay than Novak who likes more to redirect pace than constantly create his own.
Of course Novak has been brilliant at times in CC masters but his game gets more or less exposed at the FO in BO5 format.
People often correlate clay with strong defense but that's a misconception. In my view clay primarily rewards heavy hitters, guys like Thiem and Stan are far more natural on clay than Novak who likes more to redirect pace than constantly create his own.
Of course Novak has been brilliant at times in CC masters but his game gets more or less exposed at the FO in BO5 format.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
They grow up on clay but aren't good on it
NatF
Bionic Poster
Aside from the Big 4...well considering that only Federer is a truly great server from among them excluding them seems silly. Also Hewitt, though an underrated server, is the only guy other than the Big 4 to win Wimbledon since 2002 and he didn't have a big serve...
It's often the return which has seperated the grass greats from their peers IMO - as holding serve on grass is relatively easier. No doubt Sampras had a 6th gear when it came to serving in Wimbledon finals but he was also able to seperate himself from his peers with his athletcism and ability to get returns in at key moments.
Djokovic has great first strikes off the serve and the return (perhaps the best combo of anyone ever), his serve isn't overpowering but it's well placed and very effective - obviously his return needs no introduction, since 2015 I don't think he relies on explosive hitting as he may have done in say 2011 when his clay game was clearly > his grass game. Clay blunting his first strikes has left him in a position where he can be overpowered in neutral rallies by players like Wawrinka and now Thiem.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I excluded them because they're better than anyone else everywhere. That cannot be changed by a surface.
Wawrinka edges Murray on clay but he's not a big server any way.
Last edited:
skypadq
Hall of Fame
novak 's first wins wimbledon came up is 2011
in before that 2011 , i think novak dosen 't how to play the wimbledon grass
2011 is everything changed from novak
2012 - he lost to federer
2013 - he lost to murray
2014 and 2015 - he beat federer in final
2018 - he beat nadal in epic semi
2019 - he saved two championship point and goes to wins
so all that record seems novak is better grass court player than clay
novak 's serve is good , but roger 's serve is best among the big four
but again , novak 's return is best all the time
so novak is taking advantage on grass
in before that 2011 , i think novak dosen 't how to play the wimbledon grass
2011 is everything changed from novak
2012 - he lost to federer
2013 - he lost to murray
2014 and 2015 - he beat federer in final
2018 - he beat nadal in epic semi
2019 - he saved two championship point and goes to wins
so all that record seems novak is better grass court player than clay
novak 's serve is good , but roger 's serve is best among the big four
but again , novak 's return is best all the time
so novak is taking advantage on grass
skypadq
Hall of Fame
it 's still myth of thing that
since 2003 , only big four only four players to win wimbledon
so that 's unbelivable
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Big4 were the best four on every surface. Wawrinka, Thiem may edge Murray on clay, but they're not great servers so my point stands.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
I think, as someone mentioned, he plays a lot more on clay every year, therefore his clay success seems better.
Id be interested in percentages of grass and clay tournaments hes either won, or been to the finals.
If you take away a couple clay tournaments each year, and add a grass Masters, then it may be a clearer comparison.
Id be interested in percentages of grass and clay tournaments hes either won, or been to the finals.
If you take away a couple clay tournaments each year, and add a grass Masters, then it may be a clearer comparison.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
@NatF
total grass stats (since 1991)
ace 8.8%
1st serve won 74.2%
2nd serve won 50.2%
service points won 64.8%
service games won 81.7%
break points saved 62.4%
total clay stats (since 1991)
ace 4.9%
1st serve won 67.7%
2nd serve won 49.3%
service points won 60.5%
service games won 73.4%
break points saved 58.4%
It's pretty clear to me that serving is much more important on grass than it is on clay.
total grass stats (since 1991)
ace 8.8%
1st serve won 74.2%
2nd serve won 50.2%
service points won 64.8%
service games won 81.7%
break points saved 62.4%
total clay stats (since 1991)
ace 4.9%
1st serve won 67.7%
2nd serve won 49.3%
service points won 60.5%
service games won 73.4%
break points saved 58.4%
It's pretty clear to me that serving is much more important on grass than it is on clay.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Too different sample size, he played 270 matches on clay (70 against top10s) and 113 on grass (21 against top10s).
Last edited:
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
With the same logic the serve makes the difference on clay because breaking serve is easier
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
It doesn't matter how many players have had a better serve than him. What you should look at instead is how many games he wins on serve. Yes I know that's not JUST serve blah blah but the serve is an important component of it. You can't win 85 plus percent service games with a weak or average serve. He serves well enough to let his groundstrokes do the job. Which is the same as what Fed does. Now I know Nole fanatics like you believe Fed is just a servebot but he's not, he too relies on a serve forehand combo. And so does Nadal. But his serve is weaker than the other two and relies more on topspin than slice, hence more attackable on grass. But ever since he improved his serve under Moya, he has been having good results on grass and may have won Wimbledon again but for his old nemeses stopping him both times in the semis.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Absolutely no doubt that Nadal is more dominant on clay than Federer on grass, or anyone anywhere really, but the field is also better on Clay. There’s been no Thiem or Stan equivalent show up to take a big scalp on grass. Even prime Fed was pushed more at W (05,07,08,09) than Nadal was at RG (09,13). That said, Fred losing 5 set marathons from 2014 on doesn’t really tell us much
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
It isn't because hitting return winners is harder. The truest test of your baseline rallying skills, pure, is clay. This is as true now as it was pre graphite (see Borg).With the same logic the serve makes the difference on clay because breaking serve is easier
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I don't think 211 players have a better serve than Djokovic, but it is a stat that shows that he is not among the best servers IMO.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
But that stat only counts aces. You don't have to hit aces to win service games, even unreturned will do. And if you have a great forehand and backhand, you only need to place your serve well enough to set up a groundstroke winner on your second shot. Novak does that almost as well as Fed at this point and that's more than good enough at Wimbledon.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think you misunderstand, I'm not saying the serve isn't more prominant on grass - I'm saying that because it is more prominant having a good return is also more prominant.
With the same logic the serve makes the difference on clay because breaking serve is easier
On clay first strikes are blunted so other facets of the game are more important IMO.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I have read this quite often on TTW during the years but was never really convinced that the margin is even noticeable. I mean logic dictates that the field is better on clay but where are all these great CC player actually? For the last 15 years you basically had Nadal and his challenger/number two (first it was Fed, then Novak and then Thiem) with Stan being the only other guy that stands out.
At Wimbledon Fed and Novak have been consistent forces for years (with a slight dip here and there), Nadal despite his slump period on grass had plenty of great runs there (including the last 2 years) and Murray, the clear #3 of this era was arguably at his best on grass.
Last year a 37 year old Fed reached FO semis while dropping one set(?) on the way. I just don't see this supposed great depth people talk about on clay. Also growing up on clay doesn't really mean as much as portrayed, Becker and Edberg grew up on clay for example.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Stan has a big serve actually. His ROS and needing time to set up his shots is what kills him on grass.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
This is basically it in a nutshell, especially that first paragraph. I would also probably add 2013 to that list but yes, outside of those years he struggled to bring consistent power during his best years to Chatrier when it was needed. I would say grass forces him to be more aggressive so that's the difference probably compared to how he approaches clay, plus the serve being more effective as well first strike returns. Good post.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
It's a good serve but not a big serve.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The last 20 years I would say more of the top players have excelled on grass rather than clay, e.g. Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, Dimitrov, Raonic etc...obviously there's some debate about Djokovic but it's only the last few years I'd say with the #NextGen sucking on grass that clay looks better. In recent years which top players have preferred clay? Nadal, Wawrinka, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer, Soderling, Nishikori (?) - maybe Del Potro but that's quite debatable after 2012-2013 and 2018, obviously Zverev, Thiem now prefer clay.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
The field gets wrecked by the big 4 everywhere but is totally hopeless on grass. You can count the depth players who know how to play on the surface on one hand.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Who's the best among Big4 on grass? the best server (Federer)
Who's the best outside Big4 on grass? some of the best servers (Roddick, Raonic, Anderson, Berdych, Cilic, Philli, Tsonga).
Djokovic beating Federer was an anomaly. Even Murray who has one of the best returns ever couldn't do much to stop Fed's serve at Wimbledon.
NatF
Bionic Poster
If Djokovic has been beating peak Fed on grass then isn't he e.g. the best returner, actually the best amongst the Big4 on grass?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
This takes us back to my opening post. Is Nole greater on grass than he is on clay because Fed allowed him and Nadal didn't?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
The field is better on clay? That's a bit of a stretch. Most would say grass, at least over the last 10 years. Tsonga, Raonic, Berdych, Cilic and Anderson gave the big 4 fits over the last 10 years there. Outside of the big 4, Wawrinka, Thiem and maybe Tsonga, who consistently brought it like that at RG?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sure but then Nadal couldn't get past big servers/net rushers in the 1st week for 6 years.
And yet I'd argue it's the same for clay, who are these excellent CCers aside from already mentioned big 3 + Stan and Thiem (who still doesn't even have a big CC title).
I'm not arguing grasscourt field is deep, I'm saying I don't see why CC field is.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Since 2014 when Djokovic really took off on grass it hasn't been Nadal stopping him at the FO.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I'm talking about the whole career though.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yep, pretty much. #NextGen sucking less on clay than they do on grass (something I absolutely agree with) isn't really enough to tip the scales to such a degree that CC field is considered deep. Who cares what Zverev prefers? The guy throws a party when he reaches a QF at a slam.
Also keeping in mind that while Thiem does deserve to be name dropped in these conversations (mainly because of his great consistency at the FO), the guy managed to win 1 set combined in what 4 matches against Oldal at the FO? And still doesn't even have a CC masters title.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
