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

Who is better?


  • Total voters
    111

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
No, for me Djokovic is the GOAT as he is by far the most successful player in history.
I was simply analyzing your thinking.
If you say that Nadal in the hard outdoor version is superior to Djokovic in the clay version, leveraging the total number of slams on those surfaces, i.e. 6>3, ignoring that the slams on hard outdoors are double those on clay, then for consistency's sake you should also say that Nadal is not the best single-court player in history, given that on clay he achieved the same slams that Djokovic achieved on hard outdoor.

I, on the other hand, think that Djokovic is the GOAT overall, and Nadal is the GOAT on a single surface.
I'm sorry but the tennis calendar is structured in the way that allowed Djokovic to be the most successful player in history, the structure of two slams on hard outdoors, one on clay and one on grass, existed long before the big three.
The best is the one who managed to adapt best.

Regarding the thread issue.
If we analyze the skill on individual surfaces we must also take into account the distribution of tournaments, otherwise we could say that Federer himself was better on hard outdoor than on grass given that on hard outdoor he won 11 slams in total while on grass "only " 8.
While it is well known that Federer expressed his best especially on grass.
If he won more slams on hard outdoors it is precisely because there are twice as many chances, and not because he was better on hard outdoors than on grass.

But you can't ignore that fact. If there were literally more chances for Rafa to win on clay, we would likely be having a very different conversation.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Equivalent, maybe. Djokovic was one player who could be regarded as an equal to Nadal on clay - he defeated Nadal so many times in BO3 format at one stage that I favored him even at RG many times only to be proven wrong. Nadal leads 8-2 in their RG battles. Novak did much better elsewhere on clay in BO3 format, don't have their H2H records, though. Djokovic had the style to match Nadal on clay, but in general, I guess no one can deny Nadal is clearly the better player there.

Their hard court encouners are a little more interesting. They had many memorble matches on HC, perhaps AO 2012 being the most memorable of them all. There's no doubt Novak should be described as the better of the two on HC. However, Novak had more trouble at USO for some reason and trails 1-2 in H2H at Flushing Meadow. AO is a totally different story, of course. Djokovic leads 2-0 in H2H at RLA, which is no surprise. However, it should be noted that one of those two matches could've gone either way, AO 2012, which is the longest slam final ever and the most epic slam final match in my memory(I've been a tennis fan since McEnroe days, so I've watched quite a few matches). It's interesting their first HC slam encounter only happened in 2010, which is somewhat strange considering the fact that so called 'Golden Generation' started around 2007-2008, and they only played 5 times in HC slams.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
You are wrong. Your argument is weak as you rely on a calendar and that is not how a GOAT debate works.
Your whole argument suggest Nadal is GOAT and arguably Federer is above Djokovic. Your argument against Nadal being better on hard than Djokovic is on clay on the fact there are double the amount of Majors on hard court so Nadal had more opportunities. Thats fine as an argument on its own, but by default it then has to mean Nadal is GOAT of the Big 3 Era. He had half the Majors on his best surface yet still led the slam race until he effectively was retired in real terms. Throw in M1000s and Nadal stretches further ahead.
You cannot have it both ways. The big 3 Majors historically are FO W USO. If slam count is everything how do you explain Nadal 20 Federer 14 Djokovic 14. Like it or not USO > AO prestige wise, always has been and still is.
This thread is not about GOAT btw, and i think Djokovic does have a case if we look beyond slams and include 500 events. This is about who was greater between Djokovic on clay and Nadal on hard. I cannot see any argument against Nadal winning that argument.
LOL

Now for convenience we exclude the Australian Open from the count.
It doesn't matter to me that the Australian Open is the slam with the least tradition on the calendar, in the big three era the 4 majors all had the same importance on the calendar.
In Melbourne the players participate to win and not to go on a cycling trip.
Or do you think that Nadal, after his final defeats against Djokovic in 2012 and 2019, had accepted the verdict as if it had been a painless defeat of any 250 tournament?

We know the tennis calendar in the modern era, Djokovic didn't invent it, and it was structured like this long before the big three emerged.
It was absolutely not done to harm Nadal.

Consequently, the most successful of the 3 was Djokovic, having been the one who adapted best.

Once you reach a certain point you have to accept reality for what it is, without making too many virtuosities of trying to convince yourself that it happened differently.
 

Racquet_smash

Professional
Djokovic is easily the better player on clay, but Nadal is the greater player on outdoor hard. Rafa was always vulnerable to a host of players on hard, and it can be argued he overachieved winning 6 slam titles (three of them by beating 'HC GOATs' in the final).
So was Djokovic especially in Bo5. If he wasn't vulnerable he would have won every time he met other opponents when he was in top form, but he didn't, see Federer in 2011, Wawrinka in 2015 or Thiem in 2019.

This is largely why i don't consider Djokovic the 3rd best clay player of the open era, at Roland Garros he ended up being mostly a very consistent flat track bully, while he was significantly better in best of 3 events.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
But you can't ignore that fact. If there were literally more chances for Rafa to win on clay, we would likely be having a very different conversation.
I am not ignorant of anything, I know very well that if the slams had been distributed differently, instead of two on hard outdoor and one on clay, there had been two on clay and one on hard outdoor, Nadal would most likely be the most successful tennis player in history by now by a margin.

But it doesn't work like that.

Otherwise, let's try to imagine what basketball would have been without the introduction of the 24-second rule.
Football without offside.
Cycling without time trials.
Alpine skiing without combined skiing (among other things abolished in recent years).
Formula 1 without the advent of electronics.
And I could go on forever.
It would change the entire dynamic of those sports, and no one knows how the story as we know it would have developed.

In tennis, the calendar with the 4 majors structured on 3 surfaces with the hard outdoor one dominating, existed long before the big three arrived, ergo, from this point of view no one did anything to advantage Djokovic or disadvantage Nadal.
Both have had to adapt to the tennis calendar as we know it in the modern era.
Simply Djokovic, having been between him and Nadal, the best player on two out of three surfaces, or even 3 out of 4 surfaces if we also consider the hard indoor surface as a surface in itself, was the one who adapted best.

I repeat, if the slam calendar had been distributed with two out of four tournaments on clay, Nadal would have been the most successful player in history, but this was in a world parallel to ours, but in the real world things went differently.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
I am not ignorant of anything, I know very well that if the slams had been distributed differently, instead of two on hard outdoor and one on clay, there had been two on clay and one on hard outdoor, Nadal would most likely be the most successful tennis player in history by now by a margin.

But it doesn't work like that.

Otherwise, let's try to imagine what basketball would have been without the introduction of the 24-second rule.
Football without offside.
Cycling without time trials.
Alpine skiing without combined skiing (among other things abolished in recent years).
Formula 1 without the advent of electronics.
And I could go on forever.
It would change the entire dynamic of those sports, and no one knows how the story as we know it would have developed.

In tennis, the calendar with the 4 majors structured on 3 surfaces with the hard outdoor one dominating, existed long before the big three arrived, ergo, from this point of view no one did anything to advantage Djokovic or disadvantage Nadal.
Both have had to adapt to the tennis calendar as we know it in the modern era.
Simply Djokovic, having been between him and Nadal, the best player on two out of three surfaces, or even 3 out of 4 surfaces if we also consider the hard indoor surface as a surface in itself, was the one who adapted best.

I repeat, if the slam calendar had been distributed with two out of four tournaments on clay, Nadal would have been the most successful player in history, but this was in a world parallel to ours, but in the real world things went differently.

I didn't say you were ignorant, I said you can't ignore that there is one clay Slam.

Djokovic won as many hard court majors with twice as many chances as Nadal did with only one available to him. Conversion rate is higher for Nadal. And his h2h against Novak at the US Open is in his favor. Therefore, someone could argue that Nadal is the best single-court player in history and is superior to Djokovic on hard courts.

I've already said I think the difference is pretty slight, but what @messiahrobins posted wasn't inherently illogical.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
I didn't say you were ignorant, I said you can't ignore that there is one clay Slam.

Djokovic won as many hard court majors with twice as many chances as Nadal did with only one available to him. Conversion rate is higher for Nadal. And his h2h against Novak at the US Open is in his favor. Therefore, someone could argue that Nadal is the best single-court player in history and is superior to Djokovic on hard courts.

I've already said I think the difference is pretty slight, but what @messiahrobins posted wasn't inherently illogical.
Yes, but it's a shame that the Australian Open also exists in the equation, a slam where Nadal didn't have the same success that Djokovic had at Roland Garros.

In general, I who created this thread precisely because of the uncertainty of the issue, am not ruling anything out.
In the end I chose that Djokovic's clay version is superior to Nadal's hard outdoor version, but you can prefer the opposite without getting scandalized.

I simply say that stating that Nadal's hard outdoor version is superior to Djokovic's clay version by leveraging the fact that he has won twice as many slams while ignoring that there is also double the possibilities, for consistency then whoever makes this argument should also say that Nadal is not the best player on a single surface if the calculation of slams on clay for Nadal and hard outdoor for Djokovic is identical.

Instead, like the vast majority of people, I know how to evaluate that winning 14 slams on clay is much more difficult than winning 14 on hard outdoors, precisely because there are half the possibilities, I say that Nadal is the best player on a single surface, but at the same time I also know how to weigh the reason why Nadal on hard outdoors has won twice as many slams as Djokovic in the clay version, which is the exact same thing.

Just as I know how to estimate that if the surfaces in the majors were distributed differently, perhaps two clay courts instead of just one, Nadal in that case would have been the most successful player in history.
It would have been, but since the tennis calendar is structured differently, the most successful player is not Nadal but Djokovic, and this must be judged and taken into account when having a debate on the GOAT.

All very linear in reasoning without any inconsistency.
Unlike those who use double standards depending on what is most convenient in terms of taking the defense of their favorite in the debate.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Yes, but it's a shame that the Australian Open also exists in the equation, a slam where Nadal didn't have the same success that Djokovic had at Roland Garros.

In general, I who created this thread precisely because of the uncertainty of the issue, am not ruling anything out.
In the end I chose that Djokovic's clay version is superior to Nadal's hard outdoor version, but you can prefer the opposite without getting scandalized.

I simply say that stating that Nadal's hard outdoor version is superior to Djokovic's clay version by leveraging the fact that he has won twice as many slams while ignoring that there is also double the possibilities, for consistency then whoever makes this argument should also say that Nadal is not the best player on a single surface if the calculation of slams on clay for Nadal and hard outdoor for Djokovic is identical.


Instead, like the vast majority of people, I know how to evaluate that winning 14 slams on clay is much more difficult than winning 14 on hard outdoors, precisely because there are half the possibilities, I say that Nadal is the best player on a single surface, but at the same time I also know how to weigh the reason why Nadal on hard outdoors has won twice as many slams as Djokovic in the clay version, which is the exact same thing.

Just as I know how to estimate that if the surfaces in the majors were distributed differently, perhaps two clay courts instead of just one, Nadal in that case would have been the most successful player in history.
It would have been, but since the tennis calendar is structured differently, the most successful player is not Nadal but Djokovic, and this must be judged and taken into account when having a debate on the GOAT.

All very linear in reasoning without any inconsistency.
Unlike those who use double standards depending on what is most convenient in terms of taking the defense of their favorite in the debate.

I'm not scandalized by the statement that Djokovic is better on clay than Nadal is on hard court. There's plenty of good arguments suggesting that.

The bold part is what I take issue with. There are also arguments in Rafa's favor.

- Djokovic had two chances per year to win a major on hard courts and "only" won 14. He had half as many chances to win a clay major and won 3.

- Nadal won one chance per year to win a major on clay and won 14. Nadal had twice as many chances to win a hard court major and won 6.

So, Rafa won 20 between the surfaces and Novak won 17. That's the underlying logic behind @messiahrobins statement.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
I'm not scandalized by the statement that Djokovic is better on clay than Nadal is on hard court. There's plenty of good arguments suggesting that.

The bold part is what I take issue with. There are also arguments in Rafa's favor.

- Djokovic had two chances per year to win a major on hard courts and "only" won 14. He had half as many chances to win a clay major and won 3.

- Nadal won one chance per year to win a major on clay and won 14. Nadal had twice as many chances to win a hard court major and won 6.

So, Rafa won 20 between the surfaces and Novak won 17. That's the underlying logic behind @messiahrobins statement.
Let's not get around the issue at will.

I contested the theory that stating that Nadal's hard outdoor version is superior to the Djokovic clay version because he won twice as many slams is a misleading thesis since there are twice as many possibilities on hard outdoor than on clay.

So I was told that this reasoning should also be made in the debate for the GOAT.
But this is not how it works, given that in the GOAT question the calendar as it is structured must be taken into consideration and not a hypothetical calendar.
If it is said that Nadal on hard outdoor is superior to the Djokovic clay version because 6>3, then in the same way whoever makes this wrong reasoning should also make 14=14, another wrong reasoning but at least consistent with the above thought 6>3.

What you are saying is irrelevant to the specific thread.
It is obvious that in the sum clay+hard outdoor Nadal was a better player than Djokovic, but this does not automatically mean that Nadal in the hard outdoor version was a better player than Djokovic clay, for the simple reason that it is obvious that Nadal clay is superior to Djokovic hard outdoor.
But here we are discussing who was better between Djokovic clay and Nadal hard outdoor and not who was better between Djokovic clay-hard outdoor and Nadal clay-hard outdoor.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Why this poll didn’t include hard indoors for Nadal?
OP wants to complicate things.
To make the debate interesting.
If I had asked the question about hard in general and not about hard outdoor, it would have been a plebiscite in favor of the Djokovic clay version compared to the Nadal hard outdoor/indoor version, precisely because Nadal at indoor level has achieved practically nothing significant in his career apart from a masters 1000 in Madrid.
Ergo, at that point the thread would not have made sense to be created.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Let's not get around the issue at will.

I contested the theory that stating that Nadal's hard outdoor version is superior to the Djokovic clay version because he won twice as many slams is a misleading thesis since there are twice as many possibilities on hard outdoor than on clay.

So I was told that this reasoning should also be made in the debate for the GOAT.
But this is not how it works, given that in the GOAT question the calendar as it is structured must be taken into consideration and not a hypothetical calendar.
If it is said that Nadal on hard outdoor is superior to the Djokovic clay version because 6>3, then in the same way whoever makes this wrong reasoning should also make 14=14, another wrong reasoning but at least consistent with the above thought 6>3.

What you are saying is irrelevant to the specific thread.
It is obvious that in the sum clay+hard outdoor Nadal was a better player than Djokovic, but this does not automatically mean that Nadal in the hard outdoor version was a better player than Djokovic clay, for the simple reason that it is obvious that Nadal clay is superior to Djokovic hard outdoor.
But here we are discussing who was better between Djokovic clay and Nadal hard outdoor and not who was better between Djokovic clay-hard outdoor and Nadal clay-hard outdoor.

It's relevant in the sense that if we say Rafa is the favorite at all clay majors and Novak at all hard court majors (not exactly accurate, because Fed), and then see how many the other player can "steal" essentially, not only does Rafa defend his own (he is better on clay than Novak is on hard), he is also able to "steal" more of Novak's (better on hard than Novak is on clay). It's logical.

I don't ascribe to this because it ignores Fed (who handed both of them losses on hard).
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
It's relevant in the sense that if we say Rafa is the favorite at all clay majors and Novak at all hard court majors (not exactly accurate, because Fed), and then see how many the other player can "steal" essentially, not only does Rafa defend his own (he is better on clay than Novak is on hard), he is also able to "steal" more of Novak's (better on hard than Novak is on clay). It's logical.

I don't ascribe to this because it ignores Fed (who handed both of them losses on hard).
Absolutely not.
The reason why Nadal can steal more slams from Djokovic on hard outdoors than Djokovic can steal from Nadal on clay is because Nadal is a better player on clay than Djokovic is on hard outdoors.
So there is no automatic correlation between stealing more slams from the other on your "weaker" surface = being a better player than the other on the "weaker" surface.
It was Nadal who was too superior on clay rather than Djokovic who was too weak on clay, you know?

Being more dominant on one's preferred surface which is equivalent to the other's weaker surface does not imply being less "weak" than the other on the "weaker" surface.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Sorry but to say the slams have equal prestige displays a lack of understanding of the history of the game. The only debate is which is 2nd, FO or USO

Sorry, but I'd back my understanding of the history of the game over yours...

big 3 era in particular, the slams have become equal in prestige. Sure, it wasn't the case in past eras but, like I said, they've been equal for long enough now.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
thoughts on Djokovic's wins against RG '06 Gonzalez and RG '12 Tsonga? also how would you compare AO '09 Federer to the '95 AO & USO versions of Sampras & Agassi?
I would say that AO 09 Fed was better than those players you mentioned to varying degrees. IMO the 06 win over Gonzalez was an early sign of Djokovic's talent, and the 2012 win over Tsonga was a great win overall. I would give Fed in 2009 the slight nod over PETE in 1995 at the AO, and a slightly bigger nod over Andre at the USO. But he was worse than the winner of those two matches.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
Absolutely not.
The reason why Nadal can steal more slams from Djokovic on hard outdoors than Djokovic can steal from Nadal on clay is because Nadal is a better player on clay than Djokovic is on hard outdoors.
So there is no automatic correlation between stealing more slams from the other on your "weaker" surface = being a better player than the other on the "weaker" surface.
It was Nadal who was too superior on clay rather than Djokovic who was too weak on clay, you know?

Being more dominant on one's preferred surface which is equivalent to the other's weaker surface does not imply being less "weak" than the other on the "weaker" surface.

For me, the bold is true. For others, maybe not.

Still, there's a strong case that the gap between Nadal-Djokovic on clay is larger than the gap between Djokovic-Nadal on hard. Is this only because Nadal is better on clay than Djokovic is on hard? To @messiahrobins and me, the answer is no.
 

Racquet_smash

Professional
For me, the bold is true. For others, maybe not.

Still, there's a strong case that the gap between Nadal-Djokovic on clay is larger than the gap between Djokovic-Nadal on hard. Is this only because Nadal is better on clay than Djokovic is on hard? To @messiahrobins and me, the answer is no.
Further evidence of this is when Djokovic met other good players in solid form that were not Nadal. Even if we cut him some slack for the pre 2011 events, where he lost to Melzer or Kohlschreiber, he still lost several times to opponents he was the clear favourite against going into the match, in 2011 losing to Federer, in 2015 to Wawrinka, in 2019 to Thiem.
 
Sorry, but I'd back my understanding of the history of the game over yours...

big 3 era in particular, the slams have become equal in prestige. Sure, it wasn't the case in past eras but, like I said, they've been equal for long enough now.
Not judging by what you have posted.
If you think the Big 3 judge the slams as equally important you really are out of touch. I can tell you for a fact not one pro player, not one, has the slams of equal stature. Wimbledon is top, as a Nadal fan surely you would be aware of that if you had read his book, it is blatantly obvious what he thinks the biggest slam is as he explicitly says its Wimbledon. Australian Open is 4th, the debate is FO v USO.
 
I'm not scandalized by the statement that Djokovic is better on clay than Nadal is on hard court. There's plenty of good arguments suggesting that.

The bold part is what I take issue with. There are also arguments in Rafa's favor.

- Djokovic had two chances per year to win a major on hard courts and "only" won 14. He had half as many chances to win a clay major and won 3.

- Nadal won one chance per year to win a major on clay and won 14. Nadal had twice as many chances to win a hard court major and won 6.

So, Rafa won 20 between the surfaces and Novak won 17. That's the underlying logic behind @messiahrobins statement.
Again bang on
 
I didn't say you were ignorant, I said you can't ignore that there is one clay Slam.

Djokovic won as many hard court majors with twice as many chances as Nadal did with only one available to him. Conversion rate is higher for Nadal. And his h2h against Novak at the US Open is in his favor. Therefore, someone could argue that Nadal is the best single-court player in history and is superior to Djokovic on hard courts.

I've already said I think the difference is pretty slight, but what @messiahrobins posted wasn't inherently illogical.
If the numbers determine who is greater, Nadal is clearly greater on hard than Djokovic is on clay. @Winner Sinner is trying to move the goalposts and add context, which is fine, but if context is added then it has to apply across the board, and not just when it suits.
 
LOL

Now for convenience we exclude the Australian Open from the count.
It doesn't matter to me that the Australian Open is the slam with the least tradition on the calendar, in the big three era the 4 majors all had the same importance on the calendar.
In Melbourne the players participate to win and not to go on a cycling trip.
Or do you think that Nadal, after his final defeats against Djokovic in 2012 and 2019, had accepted the verdict as if it had been a painless defeat of any 250 tournament?

We know the tennis calendar in the modern era, Djokovic didn't invent it, and it was structured like this long before the big three emerged.
It was absolutely not done to harm Nadal.

Consequently, the most successful of the 3 was Djokovic, having been the one who adapted best.

Once you reach a certain point you have to accept reality for what it is, without making too many virtuosities of trying to convince yourself that it happened differently.
I'll take the players view over yours with all due respect. Read Nadal's book. He openly suggests the AO is the least important Major as he openly states his training block focussed from April-September as that was when he wanted to peak. Federer also was clearly far fitter for the FO W USO than he was at the AO, certainly during his peak years.
There is no logical argument to say Djokovic was greater on clay than Nadal was on hard courts, certainly at slam level anyway.
 

BauerAlmeida

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.

That's because Nadal is better on clay than Djokovic is on hard, not because he is better on hard than Djokovic is on clay.

Regardless, Djokovic was as close to beating Nadal at RG 2013 as Nadal was to beating Djokovic at AO 2012.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
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.

I guess then Djokovic is as good on HC as Nadal is on clay since Djokovic has 14 slams on hard and Nadal has 14 on clay? And if Djokovic manages to sneak on extra HC slam he is better.
 
I guess then Djokovic is as good on HC as Nadal is on clay since Djokovic has 14 slams on hard and Nadal has 14 on clay? And if Djokovic manages to sneak on extra HC slam he is better.
If we go by the numbers (i.e statistics) then yes obviously. 14=14. There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Not judging by what you have posted.
If you think the Big 3 judge the slams as equally important you really are out of touch. I can tell you for a fact not one pro player, not one, has the slams of equal stature. Wimbledon is top, as a Nadal fan surely you would be aware of that if you had read his book, it is blatantly obvious what he thinks the biggest slam is as he explicitly says its Wimbledon. Australian Open is 4th, the debate is FO v USO.

Judging the slams importance vs the prestige behind winning them are two separate things...

They may have favourites based on surface/tradition etc. but they treated each of them just as seriously as the others because they are all of equal importance.

Saying otherwise just proves how out of touch you are buddy.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Slams were of different prestige in the '70s. These days basically every player would prefer to win 2 of any slam over 1 of any other.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Think i lean towards Djokovic here. Djokovic and Federer will both be historically severly underrated on clay because of Nadal. Claydal must be the single biggest anomaly in tennis history.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Djokovic wins another friggin poll. We need to stop this wave.
You can never stop the wave when the momentum shifts. Dems lost court Senate house and presidency.

The momentum has shifted in Roland Garros 2021 which is Titanic history changing event. Since then you are fighting against the wave.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic wins another friggin poll. We need to stop this wave.

 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
You can never stop the wave when the momentum shifts. Dems lost court Senate house and presidency.

The momentum has shifted in Roland Garros 2021 which is Titanic history changing event. Since then you are fighting against the wave.

Yeah, beating a 35 year old Nadal is "Titanic"...

Yet prime Nadal beating prime Federer at Wimbledon and AO finals as well as whipping prime Djok twice at the US Open finals isn't...

Gotta love Djesusbot logic :-D
 
Judging the slams importance vs the prestige behind winning them are two separate things...

They may have favourites based on surface/tradition etc. but they treated each of them just as seriously as the others because they are all of equal importance.

Saying otherwise just proves how out of touch you are buddy.
No, sorry you dont know what you are talking about here. You also have contradicted yourself as if an event is more prestigious it follows it is more important.
However where you epically fail is your comment the players treated them all the same. They clearly didnt as for example Federer skipped thr FO to prep for Wimbledon. Nadal admitted FO and W meant most to him and were more important.
Djokovic to be fair does seem to have treated them equally but he also has treated all events roughly equally by his own admission. Djokovic is on record as saying an event cannot just rely on its history and much of the Fedal v Djokovic rivalry actually stems on the point we are arguing over as they see the tour differently how it should be developed moving forward. Roughly speaking your views are more in line with Djokovic's and mine more in line with Fedal. So i can appreciate where you are coming from and what you say isnt necessarily nonsense, but where you are totally wrong is how most of the locker room see things.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
No, sorry you dont know what you are talking about here.

Nah, you don't...

You also have contradicted yourself as if an event is more prestigious it follows it is more important.

Depends how you define importance...

Each slam gives 2000 points, they each add to slam count equally... you win one you are forever known as a slam winner.

Sorry but trying to discredit AO titles is a weird hill to die on...

However where you epically fail is your comment the players treated them all the same. They clearly didnt as for example Federer skipped thr FO to prep for Wimbledon.

You think Fed skipped RG to prep for Wimbledon? He skipped it because he knew he couldn't win it... played again in 2019 and 21 because he knew he didn't have much time left in his career.

Nadal admitted FO and W meant most to him and were more important.

Nadal having an opinion on them being more important doesn't make it a fact.

Different players will have different opinions...

Djokovic to be fair does seem to have treated them equally but he also has treated all events roughly equally by his own admission. Djokovic is on record as saying an event cannot just rely on its history and much of the Fedal v Djokovic rivalry actually stems on the point we are arguing over as they see the tour differently how it should be developed moving forward. Roughly speaking your views are more in line with Djokovic's and mine more in line with Fedal. So i can appreciate where you are coming from and what you say isnt necessarily nonsense, but where you are totally wrong is how most of the locker room see things.

You wouldn't have a clue how the locker room sees things.
 

Garro

Rookie
Think i lean towards Djokovic here. Djokovic and Federer will both be historically severly underrated on clay because of Nadal. Claydal must be the single biggest anomaly in tennis history.

That's my line of thinking too. Djokovic would have 4-6 more French Opens if you remove Nadal.

Nadal would have 1-3 more hard court slams if you take away Djokovic, and that’s spread across 2 hard courts slams as well.
 
Nah, you don't...



Depends how you define importance...

Each slam gives 2000 points, they each add to slam count equally... you win one you are forever known as a slam winner.

Sorry but trying to discredit AO titles is a weird hill to die on...



You think Fed skipped RG to prep for Wimbledon? He skipped it because he knew he couldn't win it... played again in 2019 and 21 because he knew he didn't have much time left in his career.



Nadal having an opinion on them being more important doesn't make it a fact.

Different players will have different opinions...



You wouldn't have a clue how the locker room sees things.
I know exactly what the locker room thinks as i get a lot of information from the locker room as know a few who know players and coaches. Also to say i wouldnt know something is a stupid comment given you do not know me and is what a teenager might say tbh.
Federer skipped the FO to prep for W, that is a basic fact.
A weird hill to die on is to think just because slams have the same points they have the same prestige. Do you think IW is the same prestige as Paris Masters? If you really do then i stand by my belief that perhaps you have a limited understanding of the history of the game.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I know exactly what the locker room thinks as i get a lot of information from the locker room as know a few who know players and coaches.

No, you think you know what the locker room thinks...

Also to say i wouldnt know something is a stupid comment given you do not know me and is what a teenager might say tbh.

I don't need to know you personally to know you're talking ****.

Federer skipped the FO to prep for W, that is a basic fact.

Because he knew he wouldn't win it anyway...

A weird hill to die on is to think just because slams have the same points they have the same prestige. Do you think IW is the same prestige as Paris Masters? If you really do then i stand by my belief that perhaps you have a limited understanding of the history of the game.

They carry the same importance. Not just points, but they all count as a slam.

Prestige is subjective, each player will have a slam they rate higher for their own personal reasons.

Don't concern yourself with my understanding of the history of the game... worry about yours first because it's clearly lacking.
 
Ok, the only thing I understood from this comment of yours is that Nadal cannot even be considered the best player in history on a single surface, or rather he is in cohabitation, given that;

Slam on clay = Nadal 14
Slam on hard outdoor = Djokovic 14

So the Nadal clay and Djokovic hard outdoor versions are essentially on par.
You are trying to say novak 14 slams (10+4) are equal to 14RG titles.
Adding AO + USO of novak to equal RG titles.
Then rafa (2 AO + 4USO ) is twice novak RG count. Does it make rafa a better hard court player than novak clay court play.
Rafa on RG never lost any final .
only this factor is enough to put him as novak never beat rafa in FO finals
 
No, you think you know what the locker room thinks...



I don't need to know you personally to know you're talking ****.



Because he knew he wouldn't win it anyway...



They carry the same importance. Not just points, but they all count as a slam.

Prestige is subjective, each player will have a slam they rate higher for their own personal reasons.

Don't concern yourself with my understanding of the history of the game... worry about yours first because it's clearly lacking.
You seem to be getting angry. I am just educating you regarding the history of the game. You become a laughing stock when you make daft remarks such as who i do or do not know.
You make yourself a laughing stock when you claim to know what Roger Federer was thinking when he pulled out of the FO. Or did he tell you he knew he would not win it? If you know him personally and he discussed it with you, then i offer an apology of course.
I shall set you a challenge, go on X and find one professional player, just one, who has the slams of equal prestige/importance. Maybe start with Australian players as that may be your best bet to get the answer you seek.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Yeah, beating a 35 year old Nadal is "Titanic"...

Yeah, since they are the same age. He didn't have any age advantage like against Federer. Nadal didn't seem to be losing to many other players at RG at the time, did he?

Acting like he beat 2024 Nadal lol



Yet prime Nadal beating prime Federer at Wimbledon and AO finals as well as whipping prime Djok twice at the US Open finals isn't...

But calling 2010 USO Djokovic prime lol, can't make it up.

And nobody said Nadal's wins weren't great. Everyone rightfully praises the wins vs Federer at Wimbledon/AO and vs Djokovic at USO 2013.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
I know exactly what the locker room thinks as i get a lot of information from the locker room as know a few who know players and coaches. Also to say i wouldnt know something is a stupid comment given you do not know me and is what a teenager might say tbh.
Federer skipped the FO to prep for W, that is a basic fact.
A weird hill to die on is to think just because slams have the same points they have the same prestige. Do you think IW is the same prestige as Paris Masters? If you really do then i stand by my belief that perhaps you have a limited understanding of the history of the game.

Slams have the same importance, they didn't in the '70s, they do now.

They would rather win two titles at their least preferred slam over one at their favorite.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
You seem to be getting angry. I am just educating you regarding the history of the game. You become a laughing stock when you make daft remarks such as who i do or do not know.
You make yourself a laughing stock when you claim to know what Roger Federer was thinking when he pulled out of the FO. Or did he tell you he knew he would not win it? If you know him personally and he discussed it with you, then i offer an apology of course.
I shall set you a challenge, go on X and find one professional player, just one, who has the slams of equal prestige/importance. Maybe start with Australian players as that may be your best bet to get the answer you seek.

Nah, I'm not angry... just calling you out on nonsense
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
You are trying to say novak 14 slams (10+4) are equal to 14RG titles.
Adding AO + USO of novak to equal RG titles.
Then rafa (2 AO + 4USO ) is twice novak RG count. Does it make rafa a better hard court player than novak clay court play.
Rafa on RG never lost any final .
only this factor is enough to put him as novak never beat rafa in FO finals
Ok, I note that you didn't understand anything about my comment which was contesting with that example the theory of the other user who was trying to demonstrate that since Nadal on hard won twice as many slams (6 to 3) compared to the clay version of Djokovic, this put him on a higher level as to which of the two versions (Nadal hard and Djokovic clay) was better.
And I pointed out to him what you are saying, that on hard in slams there are twice as many possibilities, so that 6 to 3 is totally eliminated by this thing.

You have chosen the wrong target on which to express your doubts on the merits.
 
Top