[POLL] Is Djokovic better on clay or Nadal on hard outdoor?

Who is better?


  • Total voters
    111

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Slam
Djokovic clay= 3
Nadal hard outdoor= 6

Olympic gold
Djokovic clay= 1
Nadal hard outdoor= 1

Masters 1000
Djokovic clay= 11
Nadal hard outdoor= 9

Titles in general
Djokovic clay= 20
Nadal hard outdoor= 24

H2H

Clay

Nadal= 20
Djokovic = 9

Hard outdoors
Djokovic = 16
Nadal = 5

Australian Open
Djokovic = 2
Nadal= 0

Roland Garros
Nadal = 8
Djokovic = 2

US Open
Nadal = 2
Djokovic = 1

Additional question;

Do you think that at their peak Nadal would have had a better chance of beating Djokovic at the Australian Open, or Djokovic of beating Nadal at Roland Garros?
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
I think equal with Novak being shade better on clay.
But both were stopped by others playing great on slam and master tournament
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Yeah I do agree it is a Bait, but he created wrong thread for Bait, they both are nearly equal( Rafa on outside HC and Novak on clay)
This is actually a thread created due to the uncertainty of the question.

You are hilarious with this victimism.
The forum is not for touchy people like you.
Evidently, raw nerves are touched.
 
ranking Nadal on outdoor hard since '74: clearly worse than Djokovic and Federer; likely worse than Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, and Sampras; comparable to Agassi

ranking Djokovic on red clay in the OE: clearly worse than Nadal and Borg; likely worse than Lendl, Kuerten, and Wilander; comparable to Nastase and Bruguera

fans of those two like to put them at the top of or within the respective middle tiers but i think that's going too far

Djokovic is a bit favored in this comparison by his matchup advantage shrinking the matchup-agnostic expected edge on clay and expanding it on outdoor hard. think the general peak-favoring view should always favor Nadal, and i've leaned his way before because USO '13 was more strategically and tactically impressive to me than whatever adjustments Djokovic ever made on clay against Nadal. however i do think Nadal was pretty prime-biased wrt his outdoor hard success (a big part of how his prime can be constructed, really), where Djokovic was clearly relatively better when young and old on clay, and i think that speaks to the relevance of their floors in indicating how well their games suit those conditions. perhaps a potential vs execution thing... Nadal an overachiever and Djokovic an underachiever, real and true,,,
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
the nadal on carpet trumps them all.

01_fe2e227e-318c-4fcc-b0e7-0d0358b1ed71_800x800.jpg
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
We must start from the assumption that during their respective careers the competition on the two surfaces was different in terms of quantity.

On hard outdoors it was obviously much more nourished thinking about the various Federers, Murray, Del Potro, Wawrinka, etc.
Which was partially compensated by the fact that Nadal was a more complicated obstacle on clay than Federer and Djokovic were on hard outdoors in their prime.
However, during Federer's peak period, it certainly cannot be said that Nadal struggled to win on hard outdoors due to the presence of the Swiss.
Before winning the 2009 Australian Open, Nadal simply wasn't competitive to win a hard outdoor slam.

In the end, despite the uncertainty, I choose Djokovic clay, simply because over the course of his career, net of overall competition on the less complicated surface, he has shown greater coherence than Nadal's hard outdoor version.
If, however, only the peak is taken into consideration, then here we really enter a swamp.

As for who had more chances of beating the other in the greater comfort zone (Australian Open for Djokovic and Roland Garros for Nadal), here too it is really complicated to give an answer, but even here in the end I choose Djokovic with more chances to beat Nadal at Roland Garros than Nadal would have had to beat Djokovic at the Australian Open.
If the Australian Open 2012 final compensates for the Roland Garros 2013 semi-final, Djokovic's clear superiority in the 2019 Australian Open final makes me lean in this direction.
At Roland Garros the two competed 10 times, but only in the 2020 final did Nadal impose a superiority comparable to that of the 2019 Australian Open final against Djokovic.
The fact that Djokovic very frequently comes to challenge Nadal in his temple, unlike what happened in Melbourne with the roles reversed, makes me further lean towards the hypothesis that Djokovic had a better chance of beating Nadal at Roland Garros of how many chances Nadal would have had of beating Djokovic at the Australian Open.
 

roysid

Legend
Its well known that in general Nadal is better on clay and Djokovic is better on outdoor hard, whatever the numbers may twist

But there are times when one has dominated the other even on the others prefered surface.
Like..Nadal over djokovic in 2010 USO and Year end final. Also in 2008 OG
And in 2013 at Montreal and US Open.

Djokovic overcome nadal on clay in 2011, 2015, 2016, 2021
2024 OG but Nadal was gone by then
 

RoddickAce

Hall of Fame
This question is actually interesting as it poses dilemmas for fans by exposing contrasting views in the way we assess the big 3's achievements.

Based on today's "slam count is king" view, Rafa should be greater because he has 6 HC slams vs. Djoko's 3 clay slams. But there are 2 HC slams a year vs. 1 clay slam, meaning that Rafa has more chances to win HC slams than Djoko does clay. However if this is accepted, then what does this mean of the overall slam count? Would this logic be a valid reason to give more weight to the fact that Rafa attained 22 slams with only 1 / 4 slams being on clay, while his rivals have more chances to win slams on their best surfaces?

Djokovic maintained an overall better level on clay throughout his career, than Rafa who dropped off quite hard on HC. Imo - Rafa, had a greater HC peak (especially with AO 09, USO '10 & 13 being highlight reel classics) than Djoko's clay peak. Is someone a better player for slaughtering everyone at their best and then falling off hard, or maintaining top form for 12-15 years?

No doubt, Djokovic would have much more than 3 slams if he didn't play the clay GOAT Rafa, who has been steamrolling everyone for almost 2 decades on clay. But does that mean we now start introducing "subjectivity" into assessing one's stats? Or do the numbers and H2H speak for itself?
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
This question is actually interesting as it poses dilemmas for fans by exposing contrasting views in the way we assess the big 3's achievements.

Based on today's "slam count is king" view, Rafa should be greater because he has 6 HC slams vs. Djoko's 3 clay slams. But there are 2 HC slams a year vs. 1 clay slam, meaning that Rafa has more chances to win HC slams than Djoko does clay. However if this is accepted, then what does this mean of the overall slam count? Would this logic be a valid reason to give more weight to the fact that Rafa attained 22 slams with only 1 / 4 slams being on clay, while his rivals have more chances to win slams on their best surfaces?

Djokovic maintained an overall better level on clay throughout his career, than Rafa who dropped off quite hard on HC. Imo - Rafa, had a greater HC peak (especially with AO 09, USO '10 & 13 being highlight reel classics) than Djoko's clay peak. Is someone a better player for slaughtering everyone at their best and then falling off hard, or maintaining top form for 12-15 years?

No doubt, Djokovic would have much more than 3 slams if he didn't play the clay GOAT Rafa, who has been steamrolling everyone for almost 2 decades on clay. But does that mean we now start introducing "subjectivity" into assessing one's stats? Or do the numbers and H2H speak for itself?
Lot you don't See flaw in your thinking right?
While talking about slam result all Four slam are taken, but in this case you are taking 2 slam for Rafa and one for Djokovic.
They both are nearly equal in this regard, while I think Novak is shade better on clay but it is also true the Rafa brought higher level on out door hc, better question could have been Rafa on wimbledon or Novak on clay
 
Nadal on hards easy . Peak on hards like 2010 US open and 2009 AO and US Open 2013 is way better than any level I’ve seen from Djoker on clay. The wins Djoker does have e over Nadal on clay, Nadal form was very off. Nadal almost beat 2012 AO Djoker as well despite Djoker basically close to peaking that match.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
The slam count is equal precisely because Nadal on hard outdoor has won double the slams won by Djokovic on clay, but the slams on outdoor hard courts are also double those on clay.

In terms of victories there is no substantial difference.
The thing that makes us lean towards Djokovic are the masters 1000, on clay he won two more than the masters 1000 won by Nadal on hard outdoor despite there being on clay (Monte Carlo, Madrid/Hamburg and Rome) two masters 1000 less than those that are there on hard outdoor (Indian Wells, Miami, Canada Open, Cincinnati and Shanghai), even if Shanghai was once Madrid on hard indoor.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Nadal on hards easy . Peak on hards like 2010 US open and 2009 AO and US Open 2013 is way better than any level I’ve seen from Djoker on clay. The wins Djoker does have e over Nadal on clay, Nadal form was very off. Nadal almost beat 2012 AO Djoker as well despite Djoker basically close to peaking that match.
And Djokovic came close to beating one of the best versions of Nadal on clay (Roland Garros 2013).

However, I don't agree that Nadal's peak on hard outdoor was better than Djokovic's peak on clay.
The fact that one of Djokovic's peaks on clay coincided with a watered-down version of Nadal (2015 and 2016) means nothing.
And Djokovic also beat Nadal in Monte Carlo 2013, and has won the Rome tournament 6 times.

Nadal's problem on hard outdoors is that even here he had his comfort zones.
The US Open compared to the Australian Open, Indian Wells compared to Miami, Canada Open compared to Cincinnati.
He wasn't consistent even at his peak on the surface.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Check the T5 and T10 weights—are you surprised that Rafa lags so far behind on HC, while Nole leads on CC? It’s not even close.

HC​
vs Top5​
T5 Weight​
vs Top10​
T10 Weight​
vs T11+​
T11+ Weight​
vs All​
Nole
137 (90-47) 65.69%
16.17%
261 (192-69) 73.56%
30.81%
586 (524-62) 89.42%
69.19%
847 (716-131) 84.53%
Fed​
120 (75-45) 62.50%​
12.78%​
240 (162-78) 67.50%​
25.56%​
699 (621-78) 88.84%​
74.44%​
939 (783-156) 83.39%​
Rafa​
73 (30-43) 41.10%​
10.91%​
150 (75-75) 50.00%​
22.42%​
519 (443-76) 85.36%​
77.58%​
669 (518-151) 77.43%​

CC​
vs Top5​
T5 Weight​
vs Top10​
T10 Weight​
vs T11+​
T11+ Weight​
vs All​
Nole
54 (28-26) 51.85%
15.21%
88 (51-37) 57.95%
24.79%
267 (235-32) 88.01%
75.21%
355 (286-69) 80.56%
Fed​
39 (18-21) 46.15%​
13.13%​
61 (32-29) 52.46%​
20.54%​
236 (194-42) 82.20%​
79.46%​
297 (226-71) 76.09%​
Rafa​
73 (57-16) 78.08%​
13.64%​
128 (102-26) 79.69%​
23.93%​
407 (382-25) 93.86%​
76.07%​
535 (484-51) 90.47%​

Regarding AO vs RG:

Organizers almost always placed Nole and Rafa on opposite sides of the AO draw (same side only once).
Organizers almost always placed Nole and Rafa on the same side of the RG draw (same side 10+ times).

AO: Nole leads 2-0, with DR 2.4 (AO 2019) and 1.21 (AO 2012, even after a ~5-hour SF).
RG: Rafa leads 8-2, with a top DR of 1.6 (RG 2007) and a low of 0.61 (RG 2015). Four of Rafa’s wins were narrow, with DRs between 1.10 and 1.21 (2012–2014, 2022).

The two most lopsided Slam matches between Nole and Rafa were both won by Nole: AO 2019 (DR 2.4) and RG 2015 (DR 1.65).
 
Last edited:

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Joker had higher consistency on clay, but RAFA’s peak on HC (AO 09 and USO 10) were higher than anything Joker’s shown on clay.

Also, RAFA would have a better chance of beating peak Joker at the AO than Joker would have vs peak RAFA at RG. AO 2012 was closer to being Joker’s peak than 2013 was to being RAFA’s peak.
 
Last edited:

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I would say they are equivalent. Neither is stronger than other.

But and this is where we separate out real fans from trolls,
Djokovic is far ahead of nadal on faster courts, indoor hard court and grass.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Nadal is just slow court specialist. I don't know how many slams he would lose of those he has already won if surfaces were a bit faster then like they kept making post 2016. I would assume a slam or 2 less on hc. But no proof yet.

He is slow court bully.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Agreed. Slow court bully and few of the slowest AO during his time. Almost won AO 4 times. But now AO is much faster.

I'll give Nadal his dues on HC, he has 10 HC finals to his name. But I don't really see him as being ahead of Djokovic on clay, from a total body of work perspective.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I'll give Nadal his dues on HC, he has 10 HC finals to his name. But I don't really see him as being ahead of Djokovic on clay, from a total body of work perspective.
10 hc finals and most came on slowest hard courts.

The slams were almost dead slow. You can watch 2009 2012.

Even 2014 was a bit faster I think.
 

Racquet_smash

Professional
Nadal's issue wasn't really consistency here. He made 11 finals at the 2 titles. It's how many times he skipped them or withdrew that makes him seem less consistent (2012, 2014, 2018, 2020 Us Open, 2013, 2018 Australian Open). Djokovic at RG was far from perfect Nadal aside, he had losses to Kohlscreiber, Federer, Wawrinka, Thiem where he was the clear favourite going into the match.

If i have to take the best they can reach i'm taking Nadal without hesitation. The displays at Australian Open 2009, 12, Us Open 2010, 13 were some of the best performances on outdoor hard courts in decades. And he also has a lot of great stuff going on ever outside of slams, Idian Wells or Canada come to mind.
 
Joker had higher consistency on clay, but RAFA’s peak on HC (AO 09 and USO 10) were higher than anything Joker’s shown on clay.

Also, RAFA would have a better chance of beating peak Joker at the AO than Joker would have vs peak RAFA at RG. AO 2012 was closer to being Joker’s peak than 2013 was to being RAFA’s peak.
If, as we are routinely told, the greater player is the one who has most slams then Nadal has to be greater surely? 6-3.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
This question is actually interesting as it poses dilemmas for fans by exposing contrasting views in the way we assess the big 3's achievements.

Based on today's "slam count is king" view, Rafa should be greater because he has 6 HC slams vs. Djoko's 3 clay slams. But there are 2 HC slams a year vs. 1 clay slam, meaning that Rafa has more chances to win HC slams than Djoko does clay. However if this is accepted, then what does this mean of the overall slam count? Would this logic be a valid reason to give more weight to the fact that Rafa attained 22 slams with only 1 / 4 slams being on clay, while his rivals have more chances to win slams on their best surfaces?

Djokovic maintained an overall better level on clay throughout his career, than Rafa who dropped off quite hard on HC. Imo - Rafa, had a greater HC peak (especially with AO 09, USO '10 & 13 being highlight reel classics) than Djoko's clay peak. Is someone a better player for slaughtering everyone at their best and then falling off hard, or maintaining top form for 12-15 years?

No doubt, Djokovic would have much more than 3 slams if he didn't play the clay GOAT Rafa, who has been steamrolling everyone for almost 2 decades on clay. But does that mean we now start introducing "subjectivity" into assessing one's stats? Or do the numbers and H2H speak for itself?
And wouldn't Nadal have won many more titles on hard court, including indoors, if he hadn't faced the HC GOAT?
:sneaky:
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Nadal has won twice the number of slams as Djokovic on Hard courts than Djokovic has on clay. Hard court is arguably Nadal's worse surface when he was peak.

Yes, he has, but pound for pound, they are the same.

The same way it is said that Djokovic has more slams on his favorite surface, he also has less slams on his least favorite. And vice verse for Nadal.

I do agree that Hard is arguable, it could be grass, but I think the question is here is how the other did on their rival's best surface.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
If, as we are routinely told, the greater player is the one who has most slams then Nadal has to be greater surely? 6-3.
It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If the slams as they are distributed in the modern era, therefore two on hard outdoor and one on clay, it means that on hard outdoor there are twice the chances of winning a slam compared to clay.
So 6 to 3 is an absolutely fair distribution in this specific comparison.

Otherwise, if the parameters are those you are alluding to, Nadal cannot even be considered the best player in history on a single surface given that he boasts 14 slams on clay which are the same as those that Djokovic boasts on hard outdoors.

When talking about GOAT, everything goes beyond the single surface and the whole package is taken into consideration in terms of how the circuit is structured.
It is obvious that if the slam circuit had been structured with two tournaments on clay and only one on hard outdoor, by now the most successful player in history would be Nadal and not Djokovic.
But the circuit is structured differently and everyone has to adapt, and in all this Djokovic deserves credit for having adapted better than anyone else to every type of surface, dominating like no other the most popular one which remains the hard outdoor .
 

Pheasant

Legend
I’ve given Federer and Djokovic huge kudos for what they’ve done. Anybody can go through my posts to figure that out quickly.

In this case, Nadal can beat anybody on any surface when he is clicking. If you are talking about a short time frame for peak, then I will take Nadal against anybody at a slam event. Nadal split Fed in 2007-08 at Wimbledon. He beat 2010-2013 Djoker at the USO. He was up a break vs world #1 Djoker in the 5th set at the 2012 AO. And he beat Federer at the 2009 AO.

Nadal was a stone-cold killer at slams during his best years. I call them as I see them. Nadal was the most impressive at slams when he was healthy and clicking. The knock against him is that he lacked the health and consistency to hold the key records. But when he was on, he was the deadliest across all surfaces on average.

My vote goes to Nadal in this metric. And I’d say that vs Fed too, just to show that I’m not trashing Djoker here. Nadal has this feather in his cap. And honestly, when you get 3 players of this caliber, then you’ll find that each one has advantages over the other 2. And when I see posters always saying that their fave is better than the other 2 in nearly every category, then I know that they can’t be taken seriously.

This one goes to Nadal. There is a reason why he won 22 slam titles, despite dealing with far more injuries than the other 2 combined.
 

GoatNo1

Hall of Fame
Slam (2 on HC and 1 on CC)
Djokovic clay= 3
Nadal hard outdoor= 6 (2x3= 6)
----
equal (**AO22)

Olympic gold (4 on HC and 1 on CC)
Djokovic clay= 1 (1 on clay in his career)
Nadal hard outdoor= 1 (1x4=4)
----
AD nole

Masters 1000 (5 on HC outdoor and 3 on CC)
Djokovic clay= 11 (3 masters are on clay)
Nadal hard outdoor= 9 (9x3/5=5,4)
----
AD nole

Titles in general
Djokovic clay= 20
Nadal hard outdoor= 24
----
it is far more HC outdoor tournaments than clay tournaments

H2H

Clay

Nadal= 20
Djokovic = 9 (31%)

Hard outdoors
Djokovic = 16
Nadal = 5 (24%)
----
AD nole
 
Last edited:
Top