Is Novak really better on grass than he is on clay?

[NatF]

@NatF

If Djokovic was 1-6 against Federer at Wimbledon and 3-1 against Nadal at RG we may be talking about Djokovic not having a great return but being a great power baseliner...

His matches against Federer on grass and Nadal on clay influenced a lot our conception of him.

Even if their results were reversed I'd still be able to tell Djokovic had a great return...I don't make determinations on play style and attributes based on single h2h's, that would be daft.

I'm talking about the whole career though.

Djokovic was better on clay early on but since he hit his prime/peak he's been better on grass. As someone who calls 2015-onwards Djokovic peak I find it baffling that you don't consider his grass game superior to his clay game...

 

[NatF]

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.

Yeah, the names on both lists are certainly not equal in terms of ability.

 

[KINGROGER]

You are right his competition on grass has mostly sucked.

 

[beard]

It's simple.

Novak is about the same level great player at grass and clay.

Difference is that Novak is better player at grass than Federer, and Nadal is better player than him on clay...

 

[Martin J]

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.

Well, that "only" thing is a crucial ingredient for being successful on a red dirt in modern days, 30 years ago was more about consistency and defense. He doesn't hit heavy enough for clay (can't hit through the court as easy or open up the angles well enough before unleashing his shots), never did, and, as zagor said, it's easier to expose this "weakness" of his in BO5. That's why he had so many "unexpected" losses, while on grass he has been a dominant force for years.

 

[Martin J]

It's simple.

Novak is about the same level great player at grass and clay.

Difference is that Novak is better player at grass than Federer, and Nadal is better player than him on clay...

Lol, Nadal fanboy at his best.

 

[Lew II]

Even if their results were reversed I'd still be able to tell Djokovic had a great return...I don't make determinations on play style and attributes based on single h2h's, that would be daft.



Djokovic was better on clay early on but since he hit his prime/peak he's been better on grass. As someone who calls 2015-onwards Djokovic peak I find it baffling that you don't consider his grass game superior to his clay game...

On clay I think players peak earlier as it's more physically demanding.

Would be interesting to compare the average age of winners in clay slams and grass slams.

 

[Lew II]

It's simple.

Novak is about the same level great player at grass and clay.

Difference is that Novak is better player at grass than Federer, and Nadal is better player than him on clay...

It's possible but it's not that simple.

 

[NatF]

On clay I think players peak earlier as it's more physically demanding.

Would be interesting to compare the average age of winners in clay slams and grass slams.

Grass requires a different kind of athletcism, you need more precise footwork as well as dyanamic and quick/sudden movements. If by physically demanding you mean endurance, then I think the peak for endurance athletes is generally a bit later than those that rely on fast twitch muscle fibres.

 

[Lew II]

Grass requires a different kind of athletcism, you need more precise footwork as well as dyanamic and quick/sudden movements. If by physically demanding you mean endurance, then I think the peak for endurance athletes is generally a bit later than those that rely on fast twitch muscle fibres.

Not sure. Wimbledon had only over30s in the semis in the last three editions, while RG had Thiem and Cecchinato making semis...

 

[NoleFam]

Well, that "only" thing is a crucial ingredient for being successful on a red dirt in modern days, 30 years ago was more about consistency and defense. He doesn't hit heavy enough for clay (can't hit through the court as easy or open up the angles well enough before unleashing his shots), never did, and, as zagor said, it's easier to expose this "weakness" of his in BO5. That's why he had so many "unexpected" losses, while on grass he has been a dominant force for years.

I wouldn't go as far to say he never hit big enough on clay. Not many players would defeated that Tsonga in 2012 and I would have banked on him defeating anybody in the draw not named Nadal. Not only did Djokovic get him but he hit more winners than him. He also hit more winners off the ground than Federer in 2011 and went toe to toe with beastly Nadal in 2013. I think his problem has been that outside a few years, he hasn't consistently did it.

 

[Martin J]

I wouldn't go as far to say he never hit big enough on clay. Not many players would defeated that Tsonga in 2012 and I would have banked on him defeating anybody in the draw not named Nadal. Not only did Djokovic get him but he hit more winners than him. He also hit more winners off the ground than Federer in 2011 and went toe to toe with beastly Nadal in 2013. I think his problem has been that outside a few years, he hasn't consistently did it.

Well by "never" I of course meant never on a regular basis, which is what is usually required to win 7 matches in BO5. Sure he's able to it occasionally as in the matches you listed, but his strokes are not designed to impart as much topspion on the ball as the likes of Guga, Nadal, Thiem, Stan, etc...
I think that players like Novak or Federer owe their success on clay to the other skills they posses like increadible ballstriking, a very steady ground game, great movement/defense, but are not natural clay courters.

By the way, a hitting big is a way too general term imo, that's why I said he doesn't hit heavy (pace + spin) enough. There are other big hitters like Safin, Berdych, Cilic...who haven't been particularly successful on clay even though they hit pretty big (but not heavy).

 

[NoleFam]

Well by "never" I of course meant never on a regular basis, which is what is usually required to win 7 matches in BO5. Sure he's able to it occasionally as in the matches you listed, but his strokes are not designed to impart as much topspion on the ball as the likes of Guga, Nadal, Thiem, Stan, etc...
I think that players like Novak or Federer owe their success on clay to the other skills they posses like increadible ballstriking, a very steady ground game, great movement/defense, but are not natural clay courters.

By the way, a hitting big is a way too general term imo, that's why I said he doesn't hit heavy (pace + spin) enough. There are other big hitters like Safin, Berdych, Cilic...who haven't been particularly successful on clay even though they hit pretty big (but not heavy).

No I'm not saying he did it ocassionally in those years but throughout those entire tournaments, which is the difference in a year like 2015 where I think he fizzled out after that Nadal match. Spin is the ultimate on clay but you can be a flatter heavy hitter like Agassi and Courier and be successful. His strokes were fine but it was the mentality and approach to how he played some big matches that cost him.

Yea there is a difference between heavy (heavy usually has a lot more spin) than big so I get your point and would agree.

 

[Martin J]

No I'm not saying he did it ocassionally in those years but throughout those entire tournaments, which is the difference in a year like 2015 where I think he fizzled out after that Nadal match. Spin is the ultimate on clay but you can be a flatter heavy hitter like Agassi and Courier and be successful. His strokes were fine but it was the mentality and approach to how he played some big matches that cost him.

Yea there is a difference between heavy (heavy usually has a lot more spin) than big so I get your point and would agree.

I always though that Novak's low confidence on clay (at RG, in particular) comes from his realization that his opponent's game is more efficient for the surface than his, that he struggles more and needs to put more effort (and go out of his comfort zone) to match him. It happened to him against Nadal, Wawrinka and Thiem as well (to less extent). I never saw this happening on grass because I believe he's fully aware of his superiority over the majority of players, as his game is suited for it.
It could also be that he was affected by the fact that the FO was the only slam he never conquered, so it created additional pressure and made his job harder.

Re Agassi and Courier, I think the game rewarded by clay back then was a bit different. It was more about being a consistent ballstriker and a baseliner, with a good defense and a big lung. Today is more about hitting heavy, opening up the court. Btw, Courier forehand was monstrous, I can only imagine how efficient that shot would be today with the poly strings.

 

[NoleFam]

I always though that Novak's low confidence on clay (at RG, in particular) comes from his realization that his opponent's game is more efficient for the surface than his, that he struggles more and needs to put more effort (and go out of his comfort zone) to match him. It happened to him against Nadal, Wawrinka and Thiem as well (to less extent). I never saw this happening on grass because I believe he's fully aware of his superiority over the majority of players, as his game is suited for it.
It could also be that he was affected by the fact that the FO was the only slam he never conquered, so it created additional pressure and made his job harder.

Re Agassi and Courier, I think the game rewarded by clay back then was a bit different. It was more about being a consistent ballstriker and a baseliner, with a good defense and a big lung. Today is more about hitting heavy, opening up the court. Btw, Courier forehand was monstrous, I can only imagine how efficient that shot would be today with the poly strings.

It was Nadal that got into his head at RG in my opinion and crushed his confidence, and caused him to doubt himself. 2011 he was outplayed on the day and it happens. 2012 he played well but Nadal was a beast so what can you do. Then in 2013, when he finally had Nadal on the ropes, the match slips away and he still losss. That's when the mental demons came imo. I don't think the Thiem matches were as mental as his losses in 2014 and 2015 there were. Thiem just outplayed him in conditions that weren't ideal in 2019 and he was not himself in 2017 and not playing well, so no surprise he lost to Thiem. 2014 and 2015 I thought were very mental losses.

Yea but both Courier and Agassi relied more on offense than defense I think in their clay games but it was a bit different back then. I didn't think Bruguera was that offensive but really solid and he was very successful there. Courier's forehand was monstrous. I would have loved to see how he would have matched up with some of the guys from the past generation.

 

[Martin J]

It was Nadal that got into his head at RG in my opinion and crushed his confidence, and caused him to doubt himself. 2011 he was outplayed on the day and it happens. 2012 he played well but Nadal was a beast so what can you do. Then in 2013, when he finally had Nadal on the ropes, the match slips away and he still losss. That's when the mental demons came imo. I don't think the Thiem matches were as mental as his losses in 2014 and 2015 there were. Thiem just outplayed him in conditions that weren't ideal in 2019 and he was not himself in 2017 and not playing well, so no surprise he lost to Thiem. 2014 and 2015 I thought were very mental losses.

Yea but both Courier and Agassi relied more on offense than defense I think in their clay games but it was a bit different back then. I didn't think Bruguera was that offensive but really solid and he was very successful there. Courier's forehand was monstrous. I would have loved to see how he would have matched up with some of the guys from the past generation.

I would say that 2014 was a mental loss, Nadal's level wasn't really high. Disagree about 2013, 2015, but don't have time to respond right now, lol. The next chapter will come soon.

 

[NoleFam]

I would say that 2014 was a mental loss, Nadal's level wasn't really high. Disagree about 2013, 2015, but don't have time to respond right now, lol. The next chapter will come soon.

2013? At least partly mental. That collapse at the net completely changed the momentum and you could see it on his face what was coming. The other part was Nadal's level which was crazy high. Fair enough.

 

[Martin J]

2013? At least partly mental. That collapse at the net completely changed the momentum and you could see it on his face what was coming. The other part was Nadal's level which was crazy high. Fair enough.

I think that Novak showed a great mental strength at the end of the fourth set, breaking Nadal and winning the tie-break. After 2-0 for him in the fifth set, Nadal became unplayable imo. Even though Novak was in the lead, Nadal started putting a lot of pressure on him by hitting winner after winner and making him work in his own service games and breaking him was inevitable. I think the dynamic was very similar to the AO 2017 final (Nadal was leading, but Federer was in every of his service games and looked more convincing).

But I agree that he looked so disappointed/devastated after getting broken in the fifth, he was so close.

 

[The Guru]

Babyovic 05-06: Clay>Hard>Grass
Early Primeovic 07-10: Hard>Clay>Grass
Peakovic Pt 1 2011-2013: Hard>Clay>Grass
Peakovic Pt 2 (Also known as Beckerovic): Hard>Grass>Clay
Struggleovic 2017-2018 RG: Grass>Clay>Hard
Returnovic 2018 W-Now: Hard=>Grass>Clay

 

[SonnyT]

Among the Big 3, Novak typically plays with the least spin. So he should be better on grass than clay.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

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?

Yes. He’s not been able to beat the dominant clay player at his best (2015 was a weakened version of Nadal obviously) but is 3-1 against the dominant grass one.

 

[King No1e]

Grass used to be his weakest surface, now it's hard to still make that case. His natural game is more suited to clay, though.

And yes, Nadal on clay being infinitely better than anyone on grass would be a factor.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Grass used to be his weakest surface, now it's hard to still make that case. His natural game is more suited to clay, though.

And yes, Nadal on clay being infinitely better than anyone on grass would be a factor.

I look at it this way. He is more COMFORTABLE moving on clay. He has got pretty comfortable NOW on grass else even up to 2013-14 was prone to sliding and slipping. BUT his strengths vis a vis the tour get a better reward on grass. This has always been the case but he had to get comfortable on grass to make those strengths count. It's somewhat like Sampras actually. Had horrible Wimbledons initially but once he got going, he was unstoppable because so many of his strengths were perfect to dominate grass. Whereas Feddy has always looked most comfortable on grass, even more so than on hard. And he is more like Graf or Becker that way.

 

[Jonesy]

He is the second greatest clay court player of his era, the same era of the greatest clay player of all time, this sums it up where his level on clay is.

I think his grass game right now is a bit better than his hard court game that is a bit better than his clay court game. Still better than anyone else besides Nadal and Thiem on clay.

 

[RS]

I would say that 2014 was a mental loss, Nadal's level wasn't really high. Disagree about 2013, 2015, but don't have time to respond right now, lol. The next chapter will come soon.

Nadal played at a very high level in the last 3 sets in 14.

 

[Martin J]

Nadal played at a very high level in the last 3 sets in 14.

He looked gassed to me, especially in the last set. Started to cramp and I really thought he was gonna lose the match as there was nothing left in this tank. Can't really agree his level was higher compared to any of the FO finals he played.

 

[RS]

He looked gassed to me, especially in the last set. Started to cramp and I really thought he was gonna lose the match as there was nothing left in this tank. Can't really agree his level was higher in any of FO finals he played.

I think he gave away a cheap game i the 4th. Not Nadal best FO final and maybe one of his worst but still a high level it being Nadal.

 

[Third Serve]

It's simple.

Novak is about the same level great player at grass and clay.

Difference is that Novak is better player at grass than Federer, and Nadal is better player than him on clay...

Please don’t stupid

@StANDAA

 

[beard]

Please don’t stupid

@StANDAA

Most common arguments of Fed fans.... Insults...

 

[Third Serve]

Most common arguments of Fed fans.... Insults...

It’s a new meme.

 

[Third Serve]

Seriously, though, that post was bizarre.

 

[beard]

Seriously, though, that post was bizarre.

Truth can't be bizarre, it's just a truth...

 

[Third Serve]

Truth can't be bizarre, it's just a truth...

Way too many hypotheticals needed to put 5>8.

 

[beard]

Way too many hypotheticals needed to put 5>8.

I would put 5>88 if 88 is won the way it's won...
But, more seriously, I know it's just my opinion and feeling, not many will agree...

 

[Third Serve]

I would put 5>88 if 88 is won the way it's won...
But, more seriously, I know it's just my opinion and feeling, not many will agree...

You do realize this way of thinking penalizes Federer for something out of his control, right?

 

[Lew II]

You do realize this way of thinking penalizes Federer for something out of his control, right?

Winning 2014, 2015, 2019 finals was not out of his control.

 

[Third Serve]

Winning 2014, 2015, 2019 finals was not out of his control.

That’s not what I meant and you know it.