Was Djokovic better at Roland Garros than at Wimbledon?

Was Djoker better at RG or SW19?

  • He was better on the red clay

    Votes: 14 29.2%

  • He was better on the crisp grass

    Votes: 34 70.8%
  • Total voters
    48
That some Djokovic fans try and argue he is the best grass courter of all time shows how brain dead that fan base as a whole is.

It also completely negates their own "you have to accept Djokovic is the GOAT without question, he has the slam record" argument. Djokovic does not hold or even share a single grass record. Most Wimbledons, no, most Wimbledon finals no, longest Wimbledon title or match win streak, no. Most grass titles or longest grass win streak, hell no, not even a percentile there. So grass GOAT without a single stat in his favor, yet we have to accept he is GOAT by stats, LOL! They flush their own Djokovic is GOAT argument down the drain by attempting an absurd Djokovic is grass GOAT claim, without even realizing it.
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
There is no way Djokovic belongs to the same tier on grass as Sampras and Federer when he’s 0-6 vs prime Sinner, Alcaraz and Murray on grass. His record vs good grass players who are same aged or younger than him is embarrassing. No amount of wins vs Shapovalov, Norrie and RBA will convince anyone of his grass skills.
Click to expand...
That is false. He’s 2-6 against Prime Sinner, Alcaraz and Murray. He beat Sinner in 2022 and 2023
 
gamelovergold said:
Novak was good on clay there is no denying it but his grass court results far surpass anything Novak did on clay.

If 3 FO > 7 WIM because NOVAK was better in clay but could not produce result.
The day is not far enough when you will push 22>24 because 22 were earned very hard way . 11 of them beating Roger Novak in the finals and in remaining 11 there maybe SF or QF against them.
When this process will repeated again
Then 20 > 24 because ROGER was fighting Nadal and was doing enough but then Novak rose and for a period of 2013 to 2016 Roger was locked down by Rafa and Novak.
2017 Roger fought hard and started a new wind that pushed his tally to 20.
ROGER was a better player but his results suggest otherwise so in your book
20 >22>24.
Click to expand...
You're changing my argument.
 
gamelovergold said:
You are completely mistaken if you are by any logic pushing 3RG >7 WIM .
I only followed your logic and it ended up in 20 >22>24.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that those two things are the same. One is surface specific the other is not. It's quite easy to understand the difference, everyone else sits well with it. Basic logic is not that hard to follow.
 
4UTRMoutet said:
You are assuming that those two things are the same. One is surface specific the other is not. It's quite easy to understand the difference, everyone else sits well with it. Basic logic is not that hard to follow.
Click to expand...
I am not assuming . I know that your thread only speaks of clay vs grass case but it will not take much time to spread in hard court also.
 
USO2010 said:
Djokovic above Sampras or Fed on grass? Imagine 25 year old Fed losing 5 straight sets to 25 year old Murray on grass....

USO goat has to go to Pete.

Djokovic can be the AO longevity goat, I suppose. AO peak is debatable.
Click to expand...
I love these new posters that fit right in the forum, almost as if they were old hands here :unsure:
 
dking68 said:
That is false. He’s 2-6 against Prime Sinner, Alcaraz and Murray. He beat Sinner in 2022 and 2023
Click to expand...
Sinner wasn’t even top 10 in the 2022 match and not even top 5 in the 2023 match. He hadn’t even won his first big title. That’s not prime Sinner.
 
Last edited:
So many silly takes lol. Elevating Djokovic over others with more titles at certain tournaments is strange logic and his fan base is brain dead because accomplishments are what counts, but 3 Roland Garros vs 7 Wimbledon titles is somehow worth a comparison.
 
TheAssassin said:
So many silly takes lol. Elevating Djokovic over others with more titles at certain tournaments is strange logic and his fan base is brain dead because accomplishments are what counts, but 3 Roland Garros vs 7 Wimbledon titles is somehow worth a comparison.
Click to expand...
Elevating him to #1 on grass is absurd since he had the worst grass field in history and STILL holds no statistical marks on grass at all. Also he obviously isn't the best in terms of peak grass level, average grass level, adaptability to grass, being a natural grass player, for a real laugh best competition. So his only possible claim to grass GOAT would be numbers and he doesn't even have that, not even tied for a single record. So grass GOAT is :-D :-D :-D :-D

As for 3 French vs 7 Wimbledons sure. I did not vote for clay though.
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
Sinner wasn’t even top 10 in the 2022 match and not even top 5 in the 2023 match. He hadn’t even won his first big title. That’s not prime Sinner.
Click to expand...
He was number 4 in the race in the 2023 match

In 2022 he was hampered by injuries and never really reached his true ranking.
 
The question implies that we must accept the premise that quantity of titles have nothing to do with this?
 
Last edited:
As I typically stipulate, I am a big Djokovic fan but I try not to let that imbalance my perspective in certain niche arguments. Nowhere is this more the case than in the discussion of the best players on grass. While Djokovic has won Wimbledon 7 times and attained some significant longevity records there, I can never get around the fact that by the eye-test I don’t think he is ahead of Sampras, Federer or Borg, and possibly not McEnroe or Becker either; and then perhaps not Laver, Gonzales and other pre-Open Era greats. I think Djokovic has been the biggest benefactor of the lowering of relevance that grass court tennis has been on since at least the 90s. Factoring in quality of competition is another factor. Djokovic just hasn’t had the same level of competition that even Federer had (on grass) to say nothing of Sampras, or Becker or Borg. So it’s a difficult case, because while he does have the hardware to put himself in contention to be considered one of the all time best, I don’t think a closer examination of the facts bear that result out.

On clay, I feel kind of opposite. I think, all things being equal, he is the third best clay court player of the open era (at least). I’d put him ahead of Lendl, Courier, Muster, Vilas, Wilander, Federer, Alcaraz without question. Borg and Nadal would then be comfortably ahead of Djokovic. In addition to the 3 French open titles and 4 further finals, he won Rome 6 times. The point I really want to emphasize though is this. Nadal is not just the king of clay, but the God of clay. I was looking at his stats the other day, and in bo5 matches played in his career, on clay, his record was 137-4 (the 4th loss being his last match against Zverev, so 137-3 prior to that). Obviously Nadal’s dominance on clay needs to further establishing. But it’s further worth noting that of those 137 wins, only 5 of them ever went to a fifth set (Coria, Federer, Isner, Djokovic, FAA) - 132 times he didn’t even need a fifth set. So I say all of that to then lay this statistic out: starting in 2011 (when Djokovic obviously reached his peak) Djokovic went 9-11 against Nadal on clay. Prior to 2011 Djokovic of course had never beaten Nadal on clay (precious few ever had). But from 2011 onward Djokovic battled him nearly to a dead heat, and isolated to the 2011-2024 timeframe Djokovic even led by a single match win at one point in the middle of that run. Now, this isn’t in anyway to suggest Djokovic and Nadal were themselves as even on that surface as this stats appears. We are only starting in 2011, by then Nadal had already won the French open 5 times and registered his 81 match win streak. Many of the 20 matches in that data set were 2/3 sets, not 5, and Nadal won the majority of the ‘really’ big matches within that 20. But it is designed to give some indication as to just how good Djokovic was on clay; good enough to battle the God of the surface for over a decade almost to a dead heat. (While simultaneously obliterating Nadal on his own favored surface, hard courts, from 2013 onward).

Discussions on surface dominance or greatness as compared to isolated to specific majors (like Wimbledon) can yield different answers. But for the Open Era, speaking of surfaces, I would say:

Clay
1 Nadal
2 Borg
3 Djokovic
4 Lendl
5 Muster


Grass
1 Sampras
2 Federer
3 Borg
4 Becker
5 McEnroe
 
Djokovic is better than Federer on grass simply because:

1. Check grass slams, Wimbledon. Federer leads by 1. A one slam difference tells us to check tiebreakers.

2. Check tiebreakers. Djokovic is 3-1 against Federer at Wimbledon.

It’s quite clear that if one is to claim Federer as the GOAT on grass, Djokovic already has a better claim.
 
soldat said:
Djokovic is better than Federer on grass simply because:

1. Check grass slams, Wimbledon. Federer leads by 1. A one slam difference tells us to check tiebreakers.

2. Check tiebreakers. Djokovic is 3-1 against Federer at Wimbledon.

It’s quite clear that if one is to claim Federer as the GOAT on grass, Djokovic already has a better claim.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understood the concept of tie-breakers. Little hint: the word TIE is in it.
 
insideoutforehanders said:
Elevating him to #1 on grass is absurd since he had the worst grass field in history and STILL holds no statistical marks on grass at all. Also he obviously isn't the best in terms of peak grass level, average grass level, adaptability to grass, being a natural grass player, for a real laugh best competition. So his only possible claim to grass GOAT would be numbers and he doesn't even have that, not even tied for a single record. So grass GOAT is :-D :-D :-D :-D

As for 3 French vs 7 Wimbledons sure. I did not vote for clay though.
Click to expand...
I agree he doesn't have the best case for being #1 on grass, Fed and Sampras are ahead. Djokovic being better on clay than he is on grass is an even more outlandish claim than that, yet every third person in the poll so far exposed himself as a dodo. And even with the poll not being public, we can easily guess from which camps those votes came.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
insideoutforehanders said:
That some Djokovic fans try and argue he is the best grass courter of all time shows how brain dead that fan base as a whole is.

It also completely negates their own "you have to accept Djokovic is the GOAT without question, he has the slam record" argument. Djokovic does not hold or even share a single grass record. Most Wimbledons, no, most Wimbledon finals no, longest Wimbledon title or match win streak, no. Most gahrass titles or longest grass win streak, hell no, not even a percentile there. So grass GOAT without a single stat in his favor, yet we have to accept he is GOAT by stats, LOL! They flush their own Djokovic is GOAT argument down the drain by attempting an absurd Djokovic is grass GOAT claim, without even realizing it.
Click to expand...
Yeh, Federer had the most WB titles because he defeated Roddick 3 times, Philippoussis once and an injured Cilic once. What an accomplishment!

The Blond Blur said:
He definitely faced tougher competition on clay that’s for damn sure.ir
Click to expand...
Djokovic defeated Federer 3 times and Nadal twice. Don't give that geriatric Federer, he came in fully armored. In fact, in '15, Djokovic broke him for the first time in the final.

Federer was called that after the fact. After Djokovic was impregnable, was Federer given that nickname!

Djokovic stood apart from Federer and Nadal in that he won 69% of his top 10 opponents, representing 27% of his matches. Federer and Nadal only won 64% of their top 10 opponents, representing 22% of their matches. In fact, in '11 he started a string of defeating at least 20 t10 opponents. He had 5 such years, with a high of 31 in '15.

Federer and Nadal? Federer never defeated as much as 20 t10 opponents in any single year. The most he defeated was 19 in '06, right smack in the middle of the weak era. Nadal had one year in which he defeated at least 20, 24 in '13.

I repeat: 5, 1 and 0 for Djokovic, Nadal and Federer.
 
TheAssassin said:
I agree he doesn't have the best case for being #1 on grass, Fed and Sampras are ahead. Djokovic being better on clay than he is on grass is an even more outlandish claim than that, yet every third person in the poll so far exposed himself as a dodo. And even with the poll not being public, we can easily guess from which camps those votes came.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I agree there.

In fairness the people who overrate Djokovic on clay are two fold. Some are Djokovic fans. Most are Nadal fans with a fairly obvious motive. And a few are even Federer and Wawrinka fans with their own fairly obvious motive.

In fairness I do think Djokovic is the 3rd or 4th best/greatest clay courter of the Open Era at this point which is not that different from his grass rank IMO. However it just probably shows less depth on clay, not so much this era specifically, but in general, on clay than grass. Djokovic is definitely better on grass regardless I agree. And on clay overall Nadal and even Borg are overall oceans above the rest (with Nadal overall oceans above Borg), while on grass nobody is that far ahead of everyone else.
 
SamSpade said:
As I typically stipulate, I am a big Djokovic fan but I try not to let that imbalance my perspective in certain niche arguments. Nowhere is this more the case than in the discussion of the best players on grass. While Djokovic has won Wimbledon 7 times and attained some significant longevity records there, I can never get around the fact that by the eye-test I don’t think he is ahead of Sampras, Federer or Borg, and possibly not McEnroe or Becker either; and then perhaps not Laver, Gonzales and other pre-Open Era greats. I think Djokovic has been the biggest benefactor of the lowering of relevance that grass court tennis has been on since at least the 90s. Factoring in quality of competition is another factor. Djokovic just hasn’t had the same level of competition that even Federer had (on grass) to say nothing of Sampras, or Becker or Borg. So it’s a difficult case, because while he does have the hardware to put himself in contention to be considered one of the all time best, I don’t think a closer examination of the facts bear that result out.

On clay, I feel kind of opposite. I think, all things being equal, he is the third best clay court player of the open era (at least). I’d put him ahead of Lendl, Courier, Muster, Vilas, Wilander, Federer, Alcaraz without question. Borg and Nadal would then be comfortably ahead of Djokovic. In addition to the 3 French open titles and 4 further finals, he won Rome 6 times. The point I really want to emphasize though is this. Nadal is not just the king of clay, but the God of clay. I was looking at his stats the other day, and in bo5 matches played in his career, on clay, his record was 137-4 (the 4th loss being his last match against Zverev, so 137-3 prior to that). Obviously Nadal’s dominance on clay needs to further establishing. But it’s further worth noting that of those 137 wins, only 5 of them ever went to a fifth set (Coria, Federer, Isner, Djokovic, FAA) - 132 times he didn’t even need a fifth set. So I say all of that to then lay this statistic out: starting in 2011 (when Djokovic obviously reached his peak) Djokovic went 9-11 against Nadal on clay. Prior to 2011 Djokovic of course had never beaten Nadal on clay (precious few ever had). But from 2011 onward Djokovic battled him nearly to a dead heat, and isolated to the 2011-2024 timeframe Djokovic even led by a single match win at one point in the middle of that run. Now, this isn’t in anyway to suggest Djokovic and Nadal were themselves as even on that surface as this stats appears. We are only starting in 2011, by then Nadal had already won the French open 5 times and registered his 81 match win streak. Many of the 20 matches in that data set were 2/3 sets, not 5, and Nadal won the majority of the ‘really’ big matches within that 20. But it is designed to give some indication as to just how good Djokovic was on clay; good enough to battle the God of the surface for over a decade almost to a dead heat. (While simultaneously obliterating Nadal on his own favored surface, hard courts, from 2013 onward).

Discussions on surface dominance or greatness as compared to isolated to specific majors (like Wimbledon) can yield different answers. But for the Open Era, speaking of surfaces, I would say:

Clay
1 Nadal
2 Borg
3 Djokovic
4 Lendl
5 Muster


Grass
1 Sampras
2 Federer
3 Borg
4 Becker
5 McEnroe
Click to expand...
Tight analysis :love:
 
As much as I appreciate the somewhat strong points being brought up here, nobody has bothered to refute the argument I put up at the start so the theory still stands untouched.
 
Into the '14-15 battles, Federer fully expected to win the finals. And his fans were pumped up too, fully expected their hero to win.

This geriatric Federer was the nickname given to him, after he had retired and proved unable to shake Djokovic. That nickname was meant to belittle Djokovic, implying he was able to beat an already declined Federer. I challenge you to find that nickname before the '14-15 finals.

The last time Federer was able to beat Djokovic at HC slam was '09 US, when Federer was only 28. I didn't know at 28, you're entitled for retirement pay!

The last time Federer was able to beat Djokovic at grass slam was '12 WB, when Federer was only 31. Grass is supposed to be lenient on the body, it's not like clay, that's punishment on the body. And his Fedfans are still celebrating his '17 WB triumph without a break, that's three years later than his first WB defeat to Djokovic.
 
SonnyT said:
The last time Federer was able to beat Djokovic at grass slam was '12 WB, when Federer was only 32. Grass is supposed to be lenient on the body, it's not like clay, that's punishment on the body. And his Fedfans are still celebrating his '17 WB triumph without a break, that's three years later than his first WB defeat to Djokovic.
Click to expand...
This is yet another enormous misconception normies who never actually played tennis make. Grass requires a lot of pivoting, starting, stopping, jerking that destroys the knees. If you would recall, Fed's career was ended by knee surgery. Grass is my favorite surface and I can tell you as a fact it's not sunshine and rainbows.
 
Only one thing is supporting Novak case as a better clay player than better grass player .
That is he was facing Nadal .
If Nadal was not there then Novak coulda woulda shoulda won more FO.
Add Federer decline in grass and Nadal holding his fort and you will get the impression that Novak was better clay court player than grass player.
But it is all done in hindsight when we have all details available.
When it was happening in real time and Novak was winning WIM but FO was unreachable in those moments these type of discussion were not happening.
 
SonnyT said:
Yeh, Federer had the most WB titles because he defeated Roddick 3 times, Philippoussis once and an injured Cilic once. What an accomplishment!


Djokovic defeated Federer 3 times and Nadal twice. Don't give that geriatric Federer, he came in fully armored. In fact, in '15, Djokovic broke him for the first time in the final.

Federer was called that after the fact. After Djokovic was impregnable, was Federer given that nickname!

Djokovic stood apart from Federer and Nadal in that he won 69% of his top 10 opponents, representing 27% of his matches. Federer and Nadal only won 64% of their top 10 opponents, representing 22% of their matches. In fact, in '11 he started a string of defeating at least 20 t10 opponents. He had 5 such years, with a high of 31 in '15.

Federer and Nadal? Federer never defeated as much as 20 t10 opponents in any single year. The most he defeated was 19 in '06, right smack in the middle of the weak era. Nadal had one year in which he defeated at least 20, 24 in '13.

I repeat: 5, 1 and 0 for Djokovic, Nadal and Federer.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
The Blond Blur said:
Lol
Click to expand...
Yeh, minus those five giveaways, Federer was down to 3 legitimate WB titles: 2 defeating Nadal and 1 defeating Djokovic/Murray!

That's better than his records at AO + US. The only AO worth mentioning was '17 over Nadal.
,
He won 5 straight US, defeating Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Djokovic and Murray. They fell into 3 categories: too old (11-year-older Agassi), too incompetent (Roddick and Hewitt), and too young (Djokovic 19 and Murray 20). At least, at WB he won a couple of titles when he wasn't fed straight morons, he couldn't get another US!
 
Last edited:
SonnyT said:
Yeh, minus those five giveaways, Federer was down to 3 legitimate WB titles: 2 defeating Nadal and 1 defeating Djokovic/Murray!

That's better than his records at AO + US. The only AO worth mentioning was '17 over Nadal.
,
He won 5 straight US, defeating Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Djokovic and Murray. They fell into 3 categories: too old (11-year-older Agassi), too incompetent (Roddick and Hewitt), and too young (Djokovic 19 and Murray 20). At least, at WB he won a couple of titles when he wasn't fed straight morons, he couldn't get another US!
Click to expand...
Lol
 
USO2010 said:
I thought it was just me, I said the exact same thing.

Now I’m convinced even more so.
Click to expand...
Hey buddy, what are you afraid of? Tell me, why did Federer not win another US after his 5-year romp? Did I touch some nerves in questioning Federer's ability on HC? Yeh, for a guy who last won a HC slam at age 28 against Djokovic! How could bad luck affect one player for 10 consecutive years?

What I'm saying is that Djokovic proved unbeatable on grass in his prime. Djokovic was no such thing on clay. Of course, there was Nadal, and there was Thiem, who beat Djokovic twice there.

Oh, I forgot! Federer only won AO in '17-18, because Djokovic sustained elbow injury. Or else, AO might be same story as US, no titles after questionable opponents in the 00's, the Baghdatis and Gonzalez of the world.
 
Last edited:
dking68 said:
He was number 4 in the race in the 2023 match
Click to expand...
Everyone gets inflated rankings during CIE. Sinner won 1 250 all year before the match. Zero big titles. It was also his 1st slam SF, and the average seed of his opponents was 93. Other slam results that year were 4R-2R-4R. The gap was too big between his form in that match and even his indoor season form that same year. That’s not prime Sinner.
dking68 said:
In 2022 he was hampered by injuries and never really reached his true ranking.
Click to expand...
Then clearly, he wasn’t prime.
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
Everyone gets inflated rankings during CIE. Sinner won 1 250 all year before the match. Zero big titles. It was also his 1st slam SF, and the average seed of his opponents was 93. Other slam results that year were 4R-2R-4R. The gap was too big between his form in that match and even his indoor season form that same year. That’s not prime Sinner.

Then clearly, he wasn’t prime.
Click to expand...
He improved immensely. From 2022-2023

At the 2022 AO, he lost in a non competitive 3-setter to Tsitsipas. A year later at the 2023 AO, he lost in five tight sets to Tsitsipas, and was actually the better player in that match ( Sinner - 26 break point opportunities , Tsitsipas 11) (62 return points for Sinner and 47 for the Greek)

At 2022 Wimbledon, he led 2-0 against Djokovic, and at the 2022 USO he had match point on eventual champ Alcaraz.

He was #4 in the race after the 2023 Wimbledon championships.
 
dking68 said:
He improved immensely. From 2022-2023

At the 2022 AO, he lost in a non competitive 3-setter to Tsitsipas. A year later at the 2023 AO, he lost in five tight sets to Tsitsipas, and was actually the better player in that match ( Sinner - 26 break point opportunities , Tsitsipas 11) (62 return points for Sinner and 47 for the Greek)

At 2022 Wimbledon, he led 2-0 against Djokovic, and at the 2022 USO he had match point on eventual champ Alcaraz.

He was #4 in the race after the 2023 Wimbledon championships.
Click to expand...
Like I said, the gap in his level between Wimbledon 23 and indoor season 23 or AO 24 is simply too big for me to consider him prime. I don’t consider almost beating Tsitsipas (everybody can beat Tsitsipas) or leading Djokovic 2-0 (which Musetti, Anderson, Djere and Seppi have also done) some blinding signal that he’s prime. Let’s agree to disagree.
 
About even I guess. His Wimbledon titles are obviously vastly inflated due to facing a declining Fed and Rafa on grass and no other competitors other than Murray after 2016. On the other hand he had to run through the clay GOAT at RG several times although his record at clay masters is also pretty good.
 
4UTRMoutet said:
we see that at RG Djokovic has had 0 early upsets before the quarterfinals whereas at Wimbledon he has suffered a 3rd round upset in 2016 to Querrey.
Click to expand...
[from '11-'23] losses to Federer, Murray, Querrey, retirement, and Alcaraz, are better than losses to Federer, Nadal x5, Wawrinka, Thiem x2, Cecchinato, regardless of picking QF as a cutoff. in terms of disgracefulness of opponent to lose to, retirement ~ Cecchinato, Querrey ~ '17 Thiem, Murray <= Wawrinka, Alcaraz < '19 Thiem, '12 Federer < '11 Federer, even if we toss out all the Nadal losses.

if we then bring in '05-'10 and '24-'26, we have 2 retirements, walkover, Nadal x2, Kohlschreiber, Melzer, Sinner, and Fonseca, vs retirement, Grosjean, Ancic, Safin, Haas, Berdych, Alcaraz, and Sinner x2. walkover ~ retirement, retirements ~ Haas and Safin, Melzer and Kohlschreiber > Ancic and Grosjean, Nadal x2 and Sinner < Alcaraz and Sinner x2, and Fonseca ~ Berdych, so doesn't really tip the scale
4UTRMoutet said:
If we count up "opportunities to win the title" which adds up together slam titles and slam finals, we see Djokovic has 7 opportunities at RG versus 9 opportunities at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
garbled mess follows, so let me propose this reframing and recount.

RG top tier contender across eras: '08, '11-'16, '20-'23 = 11
Wimbly "" (adding in '20): '11-'15, '18-'23 = 11

so no real difference
4UTRMoutet said:
Now many might point to Djokovic's lowest surface win rate being clay (roughly 80%) compared to a considerably larger 85% win rate on grass.
Click to expand...
Djokovic's win rate on clay excluding Nadal: 84.2%
"" on grass excluding no one: 85.5%
"" on hard excluding Federer: 85.7%

still pretty significant gap
 
Thiem on clay is better than anyone Djokovic has faced at Wimbledon in 2021-22. that a crazy thought? Don't think so.

Without Nadal and Thiem, Djoker wins RG 2019, 2020 and 2022. 6 RG titles with equal post-prime competition.
 
insideoutforehanders said:
Well I know what you are afraid of. That Djokovic will never leave his wife and fall in love with you instead. Early hint for you: your fear is indeed correct, he never will, so find a new love obsession. Assuming you aren't an AI bot which seems more likely.
Click to expand...
Yeh, don't personal now! The minute you discuss something about tennis, they get personal!

Angrybirdstar said:
[from '11-'23] losses to Federer, Murray, Querrey, retirement, and Alcaraz, are better than losses to Federer, Nadal x5, Wawrinka, Thiem x2, Cecchinato, regardless of picking QF as a cutoff. in terms of disgracefulness of opponent to lose to, retirement ~ Cecchinato, Querrey ~ '17 Thiem, Murray <= Wawrinka, Alcaraz < '19 Thiem, '12 Federer < '11 Federer, even if we toss out all the Nadal losses.

if we then bring in '05-'10 and '24-'26, we have 2 retirements, walkover, Nadal x2, Kohlschreiber, Melzer, Sinner, and Fonseca, vs retirement, Grosjean, Ancic, Safin, Haas, Berdych, Alcaraz, and Sinner x2. walkover ~ retirement, retirements ~ Haas and Safin, Melzer and Kohlschreiber > Ancic and Grosjean, Nadal x2 and Sinner < Alcaraz and Sinner x2, and Fonseca ~ Berdych, so doesn't really tip the scale

garbled mess follows, so let me propose this reframing and recount.

RG top tier contender across eras: '08, '11-'16, '20-'23 = 11
Wimbly "" (adding in '20): '11-'15, '18-'23 = 11

so no real difference

Djokovic's win rate on clay excluding Nadal: 84.2%
"" on grass excluding no one: 85.5%
"" on hard excluding Federer: 85.7%

still pretty significant gap
Click to expand...
HAHAHA! Melzer and Kohlschreiber in Djokovic's early youth! Fonseca and Sinner in Djokovic's old age!

Why don't you discuss that, at HC slams, Federer knocked off Roddick & Baghdatis in his PRIME, and yet couldn't win a single slam in the 10's with a healthy Djokovic? Evidence certainly of Federer unable to beat Djokovic past '09 US!

Certainly, anyone can lose, but for Federer meeting misfortune for 10 straight years at AO & US, at a phase where he hadn't reached 30 yet?

Discussion of who Djokovic lost to is beside the point! It was because you wouldn't want to discuss Federer! And that's fine too.
 
Last edited:
Angrybirdstar said:
Djokovic's win rate on clay excluding Nadal: 84.2%
"" on grass excluding no one: 85.5%
"" on hard excluding Federer: 85.7%

still pretty significant gap
Click to expand...
Good point but the caveat here is that Djoker barely plays grass warmups and goes straight into Bo5, where he’s generally been able to maintain high %s

For example in 2019, 21, 22 etc he had a lot of bum losses on clay in the non RG events before focusing in for RG. Would probably have been the same with 3-4 grass leadup events in those years but instead he goes straight in and plays himself in during the early rounds at Wim
 
On a serious note I think 7 to 3 is too wide of a gap to explain away even though it's closer than the numbers suggests obviously due to Nadal.

I think even at a 2 title difference rather than 4 then it could be argued but 4 is too big a bridge.
 
I mean if we had a 'Nadal' on grass and Fed(on grass equivalent) for clay the counts will probably be reversed. It's too close to call still imo. However it's always fun to read the 'Novak on clay is better' proclamations(and the implied 'wim-flation count') from the usual suspects
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Megafanoftennis100
  • Poll Poll
Which is more likely, peak Djokovic defeating peak Federer at Wimbledon or peak Djokovic defeating peak Nadal at Roland Garros?
2 3
Replies
135
Views
7K
mike danny
mike danny
Sport
Is Djokovic overrated on clay?
2 3
Replies
129
Views
9K
nolefam_2024
N
G
  • Poll Poll
Is Roland Garros Djokovic's best chance for additional slams?
Replies
11
Views
661
Matrix968
M
Kralingen
Active players with a better clay resume than Jannik Sinner
2
Replies
85
Views
5K
CHillTennis
CHillTennis
Fedeonic
At least 6 titles in 2 Grand Slams
Replies
7
Views
1K
-NN-
-NN-
Back
Top