At Roland Garros Djokovic is 67-8 (89.3%) against non-Nadal players. At Wimbledon he is 69-9 (88.5%) against non-Federer players.
Could his 5 titles to 1 difference just be due to Nadal being more dominant on clay than Federer is on grass?
2if he had lost against fed every time but once how many wimbledons would he have?
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!
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.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!
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.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)
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.At Roland Garros Djokovic is 67-8 (89.3%) against non-Nadal players. At Wimbledon he is 69-9 (88.5%) against non-Federer players.
Could his 5 titles to 1 difference just be due to Nadal being more dominant on clay than Federer is on grass?
Nole's serve is not his main weapon. There are for example 211 active players who hit more aces than him.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).
They grow up on clay but aren't good on itMost 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.
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).
I excluded them because they're better than anyone else everywhere. That cannot be changed by a surface.Aside from the Big 4...well considering that only Federer is a truly great server from among them excluding them seems silly.
it 's still myth of thing thatI excluded them because they're better than anyone else everywhere. That cannot be changed by a surface.
Take the worst of them on his worst surface: Murray on clay. He was still more consistent than any non-Big4 player, with 1 final and 4 semis.
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.it 's still myth of thing that
since 2003 , only big four only four players to win wimbledon
so that 's unbelivable
Too different sample size, he played 270 matches on clay (70 against top10s) and 113 on grass (21 against top10s).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.
With the same logic the serve makes the difference on clay because breaking serve is easierIt's often the return which has seperated the grass greats from their peers IMO - as holding serve on grass is relatively easier.
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.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).
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![]()
![]()
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.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.
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.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.
@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.
With the same logic the serve makes the difference on clay because breaking serve is easier![]()
![]()
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
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.
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.
It's a good serve but not a big serve.Stan has a big serve actually. His ROS and needing time to set up his shots is what kills him on grass.
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.
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.
Who's the best among Big4 on grass? the best server (Federer)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.
On clay first strikes are blunted so other facets of the game are more important IMO.
Who's the best among Big4 on grass? the best server (Federer)
Who's the best among Big4 on grass? some of the best servers (Roddick, Raonic, Anderson, Berdych, Cilic, Philli, Tsonga).
The great returner Djokovic beating the great server Federer was an anomaly.
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?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?
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
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.
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?
I'm talking about the whole career though.Since 2014 when Djokovic really took off on grass it hasn't been Nadal stopping him at the FO.
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.