Where would Djokovic rank in the Open Era on clay if he wins RG 2019?

[raulram]

Right now the general consensus is Djokovic is the 6th best clay courter of the Open Era behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander, probably in that order. There are some who would rank him only 7th or 8th, ranking him below 1 or 2 out of any combination of Courier, Bruguera, Federer, Muster, or Vilas, but most would probably have him 6th at this moment.

So the question is what if he wins another RG or RG 2019 as many believe he has a high likelihood of doing. Does he:

A)Remain in 6th behind the 5 guys who all have 3+ RG titles, which Djokovic would still not have. Obviously a 2nd RG title would also end any possible arguments for Courier, Bruguera, etc...ranking over him, given that his overall results on clay blow away any of those who also would have 2 RG titles.

B)Pass Wilander into 5th place based on his overall results on clay, his many more Masters titles, RG finals and semis, superior longevity on the surface, and arguably higher peak level.

C)Pass Kuerten into 4th place based on his overall results on clay outside of 1 less RG win being far superior. Kuerten's win percentage on clay is much lower than even Federer's. Kuerten's peak level on clay is regarded as insanely high, which is one reason he is probably the consensus #3 or #4 in the Open Era, despite his lack of success outside his RG titles.

D)Pass Lendl into 3rd place behind only Nadal and Borg who he will never come close to catching.

I would probably opt for C. A 2nd RG title would move him past Wilander and Kuerten on my list, as his results outside of his lack of RG titles are so far superior to theirs, and enough to compensate for 1 less RG title. I definitely would not even consider ranking him above Lendl without a 3rd RG title though.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

The Kodes, the Couriers, the Brugueras

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Couriekovic.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

i never get why people put kuerten above wilander...

 

[KINGROGER]

Overtakes Fed outright but behind those others.

 

[Sport]

3th behind Federer and Nadal. No matter what de does, he will have less than 17 Grand Slams at RG 2019.

 

[timnz]

i never get why people put kuerten above wilander...

It's very close. Same number of Roland Garros wins. Wilander reached 2 more finals at Roland Garros (never understood those who think it is better to lose before the final than make a final). Kuerten has one more Masters 1000 on clay. My belief is that 2 more Roland Garros' finals beats 1 more Masters 1000 win. Hence, I would put Wilander slightly ahead.

 

[BrokenGears]

I think he would best Wilander

 

[TennisPinkBabe]

Djokovic is still behind Federer at the FO

 

[BrokenGears]

Djokovic is still behind Federer at the FO

lmao

 

[raulram]

i never get why people put kuerten above wilander...

I suspect it is based on perceptions his peak play is much higher. Which I can understand, Kuerten at his best would probably destroy Wilander.

 

[raulram]

It's very close. Same number of Roland Garros wins. Wilander reached 2 more finals at Roland Garros (never understood those who think it is better to lose before the final than make a final). Kuerten has one more Masters 1000 on clay. My belief is that 2 more Roland Garros' finals beats 1 more Masters 1000 win. Hence, I would put Wilander slightly ahead.

Kuerten's win percentage on clay is also shockingly low. It is even significantly lower than both Djokovic and Federer for instance.

One thing to remember though is in addition to the butchered hip shortening Kuerten's career, which otherwise would likely have won 5 or 6 RG titles if we assume the likely scenario of his winning atleast 2 of 4 from 2002 to 2005. The clay field in Kuerten's day was far tougher than Wilander's. Wilander really only had Lendl to worry about, Borg was long gone, McEnroe's prime was over after 84 and other than his god year of 84 he wasnt a true top clay courter anyway, Becker was no factor, neither was Edberg. Kuerten had to deal with Ferrero, Moya, Corretja, Bruguera, basically the whole Spanish Armada of clay court greats who all but Bruguera were in their primes, plus Rios, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Medvedev in their primes as well. Notice I am not even giving him credit for facing washed up stars like Muster or Courier, and I wouldnt have even mentioned Bruguera at all if he didnt make the 97 RG final, even without those his competition on clay is star far above Wilander who faced only 1 opponent overall. Of course that is subjective but when achievements are extremely close and virtually dead even as you have broken down, that is when the subjective arguments like competition come in.

 

[Towser83]

3th behind Federer and Nadal. No matter what de does, he will have less than 17 Grand Slams at RG 2019.

He means on clay, not overall

 

[NBP]

lmao

Not sure what is funny

 

[raulram]

Not sure what is funny

I think he thought the poster meant Djokovic would be behind Federer at RG even with a 2nd title. Which I presume isnt what the individual had meant. If it somehow what was meant it is pretty hilarious and delusional however.

As it is I think Djokovic and Federer are pretty much dead tied at RG, Federer has 1 more final, Djokovic more semis and even more quarters. In Masters events Djokovic is clearly ahead, not just being ahead 8 to 6, but a far more impressive variety. Combining the two I have Djokovic ahead of Federer, while everyone else is a much harder and less direct comparision to both- Muster the kind of clay 500 events and also stellar in Masters, but sucks at RG, Courier and Bruguera who are great at RG and not so great elsewhere, Vilas the kind of 250 and 500 events but struggles at RG.

 

[justasport]

Fifth ahead of Wilander

 

[BGod]

Fed lost 4 finals and a semi to KoC IN HIS PRIME.

Novak will still be below him. Fed wishes he got Stan & Murray in 2 finals.

I only put Borg & Nadal ahead of Roger because context is important.

 

[DSH]

why is the purpose of making these kind of thread?
but, anyway, the serbian is at best the 3rd favourite at rg 2019.

 

[raulram]

why is the purpose of making these kind of thread?
but, anyway, the serbian is at best the 3rd favourite at rg 2019.

3rd behind who? I could see putting him behind Nadal, but behind anyone else is laughable. Zverev has done nothing at a slam yet, so unless he wins the Australian Open I fall out of my chair if that is who you are thinking. Thiem ahead of Djokovic for any slam right now is even more comical.

 

[DSH]

the austrian will destroy the serbian at rg 2019.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic is not the 6th best/greatest in open era for me on clay. That would be Federer.

Maybe Djokovic should stop getting butchered by Thiem or beaten by Cecchinato at RG and display good enough form at RG to get to a semi before we start this discussion.
He will be 32 by the time of next RG.

From 74 onwards, when the era of heavy topspin came into prominence (Borg, Vilas etc.) , there have been only 2 winners above 30 - Gomez in 90 (who was 30 and few months) and Nadal of course in 17/18.

Djokovic will be quite a bit older than Gomez and of course Nadal's the clay GOAT and Djokovic isn't near him.
Yeah, the field has been below par in 17/18, but its still Djokovic wasn't good enough to even reach the semi in either of those years.

 

[raulram]

Djokovic is not the 6th best/greatest in open era for me on clay. That would be Federer.

Maybe Djokovic should stop getting butchered by Thiem or beaten by Cecchinato at RG and display good enough form at RG to get to a semi before we start this discussion.
He will be 32 by the time of next RG.

From 74 onwards, when the era of heavy topspin came into prominence (Borg, Vilas etc.) , there have been only 2 winners above 30 - Gomez in 90 (who was 30 and few months) and Nadal of course in 17/18.

Djokovic will be quite a bit older than Gomez and of course Nadal's the clay GOAT and Djokovic isn't near him.
Yeah, the field has been below par in 17/18, but its still Djokovic wasn't good enough to even reach the semi in either of those years.

In 2017 and early 2018 Djokovic was playing horribly and in a major slump on all surfaces, so now out of his slump, his RG result particularly of 2017 is not even of minor relevance to evaluate his 2019 chances. It would be like evaluating Nadal's 2017, 2018, and 2019 RG chances based on his horrible showing in 2015, and his 'would have been' horrible showing in 2016 had he not WD, when he was a total non factor on tour on any surface those years, similar to Djokovic during his own ghastly 18 month slump which is now over.

As for age rules those can all go out the window considering we are living in the era where nearly 40 year old Serena and Federer are dominating, and most of the ATP and WTA top 15s are in their 30s. It is an old persons game now, has been trending that way for atleast 4-5 years now. 30-32 are practically the middle ages of tennis today, 25-28 are up and coming ages in the game today.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Right now the general consensus is Djokovic is the 6th best clay courter of the Open Era behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander, probably in that order.

Where is Muster? Vilas? The recency bias here again rears its head.

Muster won 40 total clay titles in his career and Vilas won 48 clay titles. Vilas accomplished something on clay not even Rafa could do, winning 14 clay titles in one year! Obviously both take a hit because they won the FO only once each, but they have to be on any list of the greatest clay court players of the past 50 years.

 

[abmk]

Kuerten's win percentage on clay is also shockingly low. It is even significantly lower than both Djokovic and Federer for instance.

One thing to remember though is in addition to the butchered hip shortening Kuerten's career, which otherwise would likely have won 5 or 6 RG titles if we assume the likely scenario of his winning atleast 2 of 4 from 2002 to 2005. The clay field in Kuerten's day was far tougher than Wilander's. Wilander really only had Lendl to worry about, Borg was long gone, McEnroe's prime was over after 84 and other than his god year of 84 he wasnt a true top clay courter anyway, Becker was no factor, neither was Edberg. Kuerten had to deal with Ferrero, Moya, Corretja, Bruguera, basically the whole Spanish Armada of clay court greats who all but Bruguera were in their primes, plus Rios, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Medvedev in their primes as well. Notice I am not even giving him credit for facing washed up stars like Muster or Courier, and I wouldnt have even mentioned Bruguera at all if he didnt make the 97 RG final, even without those his competition on clay is star far above Wilander who faced only 1 opponent overall. Of course that is subjective but when achievements are extremely close and virtually dead even as you have broken down, that is when the subjective arguments like competition come in.

oh yeah ?
Was it a dream or did Wilander actually beat Lendl, Clerc, Gerulaitis, Vilas in one of the toughest draws of the open era (just like Kuerten in 97 RG) ?
Was it a dream or was Noah actually a factor in RG 83/RG 84/RG 87 (facing off vs Wilander on these 3 occasions)

Were guys like Chesnokov, Leconte, Gomez, Agassi later on not part of the field ?

Kuerten's time had some more depth, but Wilander had to face off vs Lendl who was clearly tougher than anyone Kuerten had to face.
Difference in competition is nowhere near what you are making it out to be.

 

[raulram]

oh yeah ?
Was it a dream or did Wilander actually beat Lendl, Clerc, Gerulaitis, Vilas in one of the toughest draws of the open era (just like Kuerten in 97 RG) ?
Was it a dream or was Noah actually a factor in RG 83/RG 84/RG 87 (facing off vs Wilander on these 3 occasions)

Were guys like Chesnokov, Leconte, Gomez, Agassi later on not part of the field ?

Agassi was extremely young Wilander's last year as even a contender in 88. They are hardly contemporaries, I will give Wilander credit for beating Agassi in the 88 semis since even baby Agassi was playing very well that day and it was a good win. But that is already the entire extent of their coexistence.

LeConte, Gomez, Chesnokov are good but definitely below the clay field Kuerten faced with the Spanish Armada of Ferrero, Moya, Corretja, in addition to Rios, Agassi, Kafelnikov all as competition. Nearly all of those are better than the 3 you mentioned, I dont think anyone will deny Ferrero > any of those on clay (or Agassi for that matter), or most of those others > Leconte or Chesnokov on clay. And there was also more depth, a larger number of threats, in addition to thes that existed as demonstrated by the names we both gave being more. The only way Wilander had it tougher is the obvious one, facing Lendl, which negates some of Kuerten's advantage, but that is it, every other way Kuerten faced a much tougher clay field. Are you seriously denying Kuerten faced a tougher clay field than Wilander did? Bruguera in 97 basically negates Agassi in 88, neither was anywhere near their primes but they were still were a required beat in a late round, Agassi was probably closer to his prime in 88 than Bruguera in 97, but Bruguera on clay > Agassi on clay.

 

[abmk]

In 2017 and early 2018 Djokovic was playing horribly and in a major slump on all surfaces, so now out of his slump, his RG result particularly of 2017 is not even of minor relevance to evaluate his 2019 chances. It would be like evaluating Nadal's 2017, 2018, and 2019 RG chances based on his horrible showing in 2015, and his 'would have been' horrible showing in 2016 had he not WD, when he was a total non factor on tour on any surface those years, similar to Djokovic during his own ghastly 18 month slump which is now over.

As for age rules those can all go out the window considering we are living in the era where nearly 40 year old Serena and Federer are dominating, and most of the ATP and WTA top 15s are in their 30s. It is an old persons game now, has been trending that way for atleast 4-5 years now. 30-32 are practically the middle ages of tennis today, 25-28 are up and coming ages in the game today.

Nadal was bad in RG 2015.
Doesn't mean he'd be anywhere near in RG 2016.
He was playing considerably better on clay in 2016 than in 2015.

Nadal in 2017 before RG won Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Madrid and only lost in Rome 17. So yeah, he was clear favorite to win RG 17.
If DJokovic does anything remotely close to that in clay season 19, then you can start talking.

 

[raulram]

Nadal was bad in RG 2015.
Doesn't mean he'd be anywhere near in RG 2016.
He was playing considerably better on clay in 2016 than in 2015.

Nadal in 2017 before RG won Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Madrid and only lost in Rome 17. So yeah, he was clear favorite to win RG 17.
If DJokovic does anything remotely close to that in clay season 19, then you can start talking.

Well based on that clay is a good surface for him, and he ends 2018 as clearly the best player in the world, presuming him a top 2 favorite to win RG along with Nadal
makes perfect sense. Notice the bookies odds for RG next year:

https://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/french-open/mens/mens-french-open/winner

OK so they have Nadal as the clear favorite but Djokovic a strong 2nd favorite, far above everyone else.

And regardless what you might say I am sure if you were held at gunpoint and forced to bet your life on someone winning RG next year, but could only give 2 names they would be Djokovic and Nadal. They would not be Nadal and Thiem or Nadal and someone else other than Djokovic.

 

[DSH]

Nadal was bad in RG 2015.
Doesn't mean he'd be anywhere near in RG 2016.
He was playing considerably better on clay in 2016 than in 2015.

Nadal in 2017 before RG won Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Madrid and only lost in Rome 17. So yeah, he was clear favorite to win RG 17.
If DJokovic does anything remotely close to that in clay season 19, then you can start talking.

nadal 2017 will destroy djokovic at rg 2015 and rg 2016
nadal level in 2018 is lower but clearly above that abomination it was in 2015.

 

[abmk]

Agassi was extremely young Wilander's last year as even a contender in 88. They are hardly contemporaries, I will give Wilander credit for beating Agassi in the 88 semis since even baby Agassi was playing very well that day and it was a good win. But that is already the entire extent of their coexistence.

LeConte, Gomez, Chesnokov are good but definitely below the clay field Kuerten faced with the Spanish Armada of Ferrero, Moya, Corretja, in addition to Rios, Agassi, Kafelnikov all as competition. Nearly all of those are better than the 3 you mentioned, I dont think anyone will deny Ferrero > any of those on clay (or Agassi for that matter), or most of those others > Leconte or Chesnokov on clay. And there was also more depth, a larger number of threats, in addition to thes that existed as demonstrated by the names we both gave being more. The only way Wilander had it tougher is the obvious one, facing Lendl, which negates some of Kuerten's advantage, but that is it, every other way Kuerten faced a much tougher clay field. Are you seriously denying Kuerten faced a tougher clay field than Wilander did? Bruguera in 97 basically negates Agassi in 88, neither was anywhere near their primes but they were still were a required beat in a late round, Agassi was probably closer to his prime in 88 than Bruguera in 97, but Bruguera on clay > Agassi on clay.

See my edit :

Kuerten's time had some more depth, but Wilander had to face off vs Lendl who was clearly tougher than anyone Kuerten had to face.
Difference in competition is nowhere near what you are making it out to be.

----------

I haven't fully gone in-depth re: Wilander's CC competition, but from what I know, there isn't a big difference in their respective competitions, even if Kuerten had it harder.

 

[Raining hopes]

AGENDA

 

[abmk]

Well based on that clay is a good surface for him, and he ends 2018 as clearly the best player in the world, presuming him a top 2 favorite to win RG along with Nadal
makes perfect sense. Notice the bookies odds for RG next year:

https://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/french-open/mens/mens-french-open/winner

OK so they have Nadal as the clear favorite but Djokovic a strong 2nd favorite, far above everyone else.

And regardless what you might say I am sure if you were held at gunpoint and forced to bet your life on someone winning RG next year, but could only give 2 names they would be Djokovic and Nadal. They would not be Nadal and Thiem or Nadal and someone else other than Djokovic.

Nadal 1st, Thiem 2nd.
The odds are based on Djokovic's 2nd half of 2018.
Will change later on as the CC season before RG unfolds in 2019.

Also Zverev right now would not be a good choice in a slam, but with the WTF win and Lendl on his side, lets see how he does in AO 19 and then clay court season in 19.

 

[raulram]

See my edit :

Kuerten's time had some more depth, but Wilander had to face off vs Lendl who was clearly tougher than anyone Kuerten had to face.
Difference in competition is nowhere near what you are making it out to be.

----------

I haven't fully gone in-depth re: Wilander's CC competition, but from what I know, there isn't a big difference in their respective competitions, even if Kuerten had it harder.

I prefer the depth to just facing 1 person. It is like how I would regard many players as having tougher clay competition than either Djokovic or Federer despite that they faced the clay GOAT Nadal, since the rest of the clay field of the time is abysmal, and even Federer/Djokovic didnt intersect near their primes on the surface for long at all or face off often. Notice I dont ever once mention giving Djokovic credit for facing Nadal in a hypothetical comparision with any of these should he win another RG, since IMO just facing 1 person and an otherwise lackluster field is not superior competition.

And obviously Lendl while amazing is no Nadal on clay, not even close, so just Lendl alone covering lackluster depth in the clay field of then is not nearly as strong a case as Nadal negating lackluster depth of the clay field today. So the argument for Wilander having it tough in comparision to guys like Kuerten just due to Lendl is much weaker than even someone arguing Federer or Djokovic had it tougher competition wise just due to Nadal, an argument few even try to make anyway, so making it for Wilander just based on Lendl and nothing else would be even less meaningful.

 

[abmk]

I prefer the depth to just facing 1 person. It is like how I would regard many players as having tougher clay competition than either Djokovic or Federer despite that they faced the clay GOAT Nadal, since the rest of the clay field of the time is abysmal, and even Federer/Djokovic didnt intersect near their primes on the surface for long at all or face off often. Notice I dont ever once mention giving Djokovic credit for facing Nadal in a hypothetical comparision with any of these should he win another RG, since IMO just facing 1 person and an otherwise lackluster field is not superior competition.

And obviously Lendl while amazing is no Nadal on clay, not even close, so just Lendl alone covering lackluster depth in the field is not nearly as strong a case as Nadal negating lackluster depth. So the argument for Wilander having it tough in comparision to guys like Kuerten just due to Lendl is much weaker than even someone arguing Federer or Djokovic had it tougher competition wise just due to Nadal, an argument few even try to make anyway.

except depth was nowhere near lackluster in Wilander's time. I have already shown that to an extent.
The rest of the field in the 2nd half of 2000s and in the 2010s hasn't been great on clay, but I wouldn't call it abysmal. Far from it.

 

[raulram]

Nadal 1st, Thiem 2nd.
The odds are based on Djokovic's 2nd half of 2018.
Will change later on as the CC season before RG unfolds in 2019.

Also Zverev right now would not be a good choice in a slam, but with the WTF win and Lendl on his side, lets see how he does in AO 19 and then clay court season in 19.

To each their own. I have no confidence in Thiem's ability to win a slam at all. And yes he did beat Djokovic the last time they met at RG while Djokovic was in his awful slump, but the last time they played at RG wen Djokovic was in form as he is now, Thiem was utterly destroyed. Now Thiem has improved a lot since then, but even taking something in between those two, would still favor Djokovic.

 

[abmk]

To each their own. I have no confidence in Thiem's ability to win a slam at all. And yes he did beat Djokovic the last time they met at RG while Djokovic was in his awful slump, but the last time they played at RG wen Djokovic was in form as he is now, Thiem was utterly destroyed. Now Thiem has improved a lot since then, but even taking something in between those two, would still favor Djokovic.

except Thiem in RG 2016 -- was his first big match and also wasn't anywhere near his 2017/18 form.

 

[raulram]

except depth was nowhere near lackluster in Wilander's time. I have already shown that to an extent.
The rest of the field in the 2nd half of 2000s and in the 2010s hasn't been great on clay, but I wouldn't call it abysmal. Far from it.

Really who other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer has been good on clay? Wawrinka I guess, but that only starting in 2014. That is about it. Del Potro was good at 1 tournament on clay- RG 2009. Murray isnt exactly that impressive a clay courter, despite some good results, and it is his worst surface still by a long way in playing level and comfort. And maybe Theim the last 1-2 years. That about covers everyone, seems pretty lackluster.

 

[raulram]

except Thiem in RG 2016 -- was his first big match and also wasn't anywhere near his 2017/18 form.

I know that, I acknowledged Thiem is much better now, but Djokovic was also far worse when he lost to Thiem at RG during his mega slump than he is today so that match is every bit as meaningless, if not moreso, than the 2016 match. Taking something in between the two would still have Djokovic likely winning.

 

[abmk]

Really who other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer has been good on clay? Wawrinka I guess, but that only starting in 2014. That is about it. Del Potro was good at 1 tournament on clay- RG 2009. Murray isnt exactly that impressive a clay courter, despite some good results, and it is his worst surface still by a long way in playing level and comfort. And maybe Theim the last 1-2 years. That about covers everyone, seems pretty lackluster.

Soderling in 2009/10/11?
Nalby/Davy in some of those years/matches ?
Puerta in RG 05 ?

Gonzalez in RG 09 ?
Ferrer ?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I am going to go with what Wikipedia says, no?

 

[abmk]

I know that, I acknowledged Thiem is much better now, but Djokovic was also far worse when he lost to Thiem at RG during his mega slump than he is today so that match is every bit as meaningless, if not moreso, than the 2016 match. Taking something in between the two would still have Djokovic likely winning.

except we don't yet know how much of his form Djokovic can regain on clay. Especially when he'll be 32 at the time of the next CC season.
So its not necessarily a taking in between the two scenario.
And I don't think even in b/w scenario , Djokovic is favoured. He'd have to come closer to be able to beat an in-form Thiem on clay.

 

[abmk]

nadal 2017 will destroy djokovic at rg 2015 and rg 2016
nadal level in 2018 is lower but clearly above that abomination it was in 2015.

I don't think he'd destroy Djokovic of RG 15/RG 16, but he'd certainly beat him convincingly.

 

[raulram]

Soderling in 2009/10/11?
Nalby/Davy in some of those years/matches ?
Puerta in RG 05 ?

Gonzalez in RG 09 ?
Ferrer ?

OK I forgot Soderling briefly, but he didnt last long enough, and really it was only at RG, nowhere else on the clay circuit. Still yes Soderling briefly greatly improved the depth of the clay field, Del Potro of 2009 too, but it wasnt long enough lasting. 2006-2008 and 2012-today it all really lacked depth.

Davydenko and Nalbandian are pretty strictly hard court/indoor specialists IMO. They are decent on clay, far better than say Roddick or probably Hewitt, but not true contenders either the way they are on any hard court, or any indoor or carpet court.

Ferrer is consistent and good but he isnt a real threat at the very top level. Lets face it amongst the Spanish Armada of the 90s/early 200s we discussed with Kuerten he would probably slot in only around 7th or 8th best behind Ferrero, Bruguera, Moya, Corretja, Costa, even Berastegui and/or Mantilla. Yes indeed though he was the 4th biggest threat on clay most of that almost decade period, which kind of shows my point. You knew he could never take out Federer/Nadal/Djokovic at RG, it was always a certainty he was a no hoper for something like that.

 

[raulram]

I don't think he'd destroy Djokovic of RG 15/RG 16, but he'd certainly beat him convincingly.

He didnt even beat Djokovic convincingly at RG 2013, sort of did at 2014 but with Djokovic being sick in the final. How is he going to convincingly beat (maybe even beat at all) Djokovic of RG 15/RG 16 who were both better than Djokovic of RG 2013, particularly 16? Not to mention Nadal of 2017 being considerably weaker than Nadal of even 2011-early 2014. He has declined so much physically in many respects even a grandpa Federer started beating him regularly for the first time ever basically, yet he was going to do better vs all time peak Djokovic of 15/16 than he managed to do since way back in 2010? I dont think so.

Also many believe Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at RG 2011 had they played. We will never know what would have happened, but what we do know is Djokovic won all 4 sets he played vs Nadal on clay in 2011. Djokovic of 2015/2016 is every bit as strong as 2011, those are his 3 peak years of tennis and clay tennis bar none, and Nadal despite being subpar on clay for his standards in 2011, is not likely better now well past his physical prime in 2017/2018 (which he wasnt really yet in 2011). So the chances of Nadal winning convincingly are very little.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

See my edit :

Kuerten's time had some more depth, but Wilander had to face off vs Lendl who was clearly tougher than anyone Kuerten had to face.
Difference in competition is nowhere near what you are making it out to be.

----------

I haven't fully gone in-depth re: Wilander's CC competition, but from what I know, there isn't a big difference in their respective competitions, even if Kuerten had it harder.

Kuerten's game was also significantly helped by these new strings .......

 

[Ann]

Pudding is best when made from whole milk.

 

[abmk]

OK I forgot Soderling briefly, but he didnt last long enough, and really it was only at RG, nowhere else on the clay circuit. Still yes Soderling briefly greatly improved the depth of the clay field, Del Potro of 2009 too, but it wasnt long enough lasting. 2006-2008 and 2012-today it all really lacked depth.Davydenko and Nalbandian are pretty strictly hard court/indoor specialists IMO. They are decent on clay, far better than say Roddick or probably Hewitt, but not true contenders either the way they are on any hard court, or any indoor or carpet court.

no, they aren't.
Davy went SF, QF, SF, 3R, QF at RG from 2005-09. Only early exit was in 09.
and he was close to making the final in 2005.
Also won 10 CC titles.
gave Nadal one hell of a match in Rome 07.

Nalby was less consistent, but dangerous on clay when in-form. making SF in 04, 06 RG. (&losing to davy in 07 RG)

Point is they are part of depth of the field.

Ferrer is consistent and good but he isnt a real threat at the very top level. Lets face it amongst the Spanish Armada of the 90s/early 200s we discussed with Kuerten he would probably slot in only around 7th or 8th best behind Ferrero, Bruguera, Moya, Corretja, Costa, even Berastegui and/or Mantilla. Yes indeed though he was the 4th biggest threat on clay most of that almost decade period, which kind of shows my point.

Bruguera wasn't a factor after 97.
Ferrer is definitely better than Mantilla. Its not even a contest.
Berasategui wasn't better than Ferrer either except maybe for his 94 run. But that run is not relevant for the 97-01 period.

depth in late 90s, early 00s being clearly better than in Fed/Nadal/djoko time doesn't mean the depth in fed/nadal/djoko time was abysmal. It means it wasn't great.

 

[abmk]

He didnt even beat Djokovic convincingly at RG 2013, sort of did at 2014 but with Djokovic being sick in the final. How is he going to convincingly beat (maybe even beat at all) Djokovic of RG 15/RG 16 who were both better than Djokovic of RG 2013, particularly 16? Not to mention Nadal of 2017 being considerably weaker than Nadal of even 2011-early 2014. He has declined so much physically in many respects even a grandpa Federer started beating him regularly for the first time ever basically, yet he was going to do better vs all time peak Djokovic of 15/16 than he managed to do since way back in 2010? I dont think so.

Also many believe Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at RG 2011 had they played. We will never know what would have happened, but what we do know is Djokovic won all 4 sets he played vs Nadal on clay in 2011. Djokovic of 2015/2016 is every bit as strong as 2011, those are his 3 peak years of tennis and clay tennis bar none, and Nadal despite being subpar on clay for his standards in 2011, is not likely better now well past his physical prime in 2017/2018 (which he wasnt really yet in 2011). So the chances of Nadal winning convincingly are very little.

Nadal of RG 2017 > Nadal of RG 11, 14 by some distance.
Later stages of RG 13 was on similar level with RG 17, but that RG 13 semi , Nadal would've closed it out in 4 sets 8 times out 10.
And RG 17 final was Nadal's best performance in those 2 RGs combined.

Djokovic of RG 15 is not every bit as strong as 2011 if you give importance/emphasis to the last 2 matches of RG.
If Djokovic starts off the way he did in RG 16 final vs Murray, there's no way on earth Nadal of RG 17 lets him back into the match as Murray did.

 

[raulram]

I consider Mantilla and Berasetegui at their best more dangerous than Ferrer. I am not sure if you watched Berasetegui at Roland Garros 94, or even Mantilla at Rome 2003 or Roland Garros 98, but if you did you would probably see what I mean. Ferrer is far more consistent, has more results, so in that sense I guess is better, but I think he less a threat to the top guys. Just imagine having a discussion seriously considering Ferrer taking any of Nadal, Djokovic, or Federer out of RG without laughing. You couldnt even fathom it, he was a punching bag to the top guys. Yes he could sometimes beat Murray at RG, but that is because Murray apart from a blip in 2015/2016 is not a top clay courter. I think you could imagine Mantilla or Berasetegui taking out anyone on a given day at RG, maybe not Nadal, but almost anyone else. That doesnt mean they would, and they would never be favored vs a truly big gun, but it is much easier to imagine than steady eddie Ferrer ever doing it.

As you can notice nobody thus far has Djokovic becoming the 3rd best clay courter of the Open Era even if he wins a 2nd RG, most having him only 4th or 5th behind Lendl and/or Kuerten, a couple even having him just 6th behind Wilander. Despite that with a 2nd RG title his clay achievements would clearly surpass Kuerten/Wilander, even with 1 less RG title as his achievements otherwise blow away theirs (all his Masters wins and the variety of all the biggest clay titles multiple times, RG finals, RG semis, RG quarters, etc...), and atleast on par with Lendl. That is evidence most agree with me on the lack of depth of this clay era.

A serious question though if you dont believe the Djokovic/Fed/Nadal era on clay to lack depth and you dont believe the Wilander/Becker/Edberg/Lendl one to lack depth either, which one do you believe had lackluster depth, if ever? Since I cant think of a time ever that the clay field had less depth than those 2. There was certainly more in the first half of the 90s, in the late 90s/early 2000s, the late 70s/early 80s when Borg ruled, the first part of the Open era, basically any other time I can think of There are still even some who regard Borg the clay GOAT over Nadal, despite that his achievements on clay at this point are utterly dwarfed by Nadal, he literally might have only half the RG titles for instance by next year. All because his clay field/competition is seen as light years stronger than Nadal's.

 

[raulram]

Nadal of RG 2017 > Nadal of RG 11, 14 by some distance.
Later stages of RG 13 was on similar level with RG 17, but that RG 13 semi , Nadal would've closed it out in 4 sets 8 times out 10.
And RG 17 final was Nadal's best performance in those 2 RGs combined.

Djokovic of RG 15 is not every bit as strong as 2011 if you give importance/emphasis to the last 2 matches of RG.
If Djokovic starts off the way he did in RG 16 final vs Murray, there's no way on earth Nadal of RG 17 lets him back into the match as Murray did.

It might seem that way and yes in many ways he looked sharper at RG in 2017 than 2011 but IMO Nadal has declined massively physically. How else to explain that a grandpa nearly 40 year old Federer is beating him consistently for the first time ever, something even peak Federer couldnt ever manage. And many others besides Federer, many of those also aging players even older than Nadal himself (and unlike Federer, lesser players which of course everyone besides Federer and possibly Djokovic who exists today is), are doing better vs Nadal than ever before. He might look good in RG 2017 but he is still more vurnerable than ever due to his loss of speed and some of his important physical traits he relies so heavily on given his incomplete and unorthodox game, vs opponents that specifically hurt him, which Djokovic is pretty much at the top of the list of.

 

[abmk]

It might seem that way and yes in many ways he looked sharper at RG in 2017 than 2011 but IMO Nadal has declined massively physically. How else to explain that a grandpa nearly 40 year old Federer is beating him consistently for the first time ever, something even peak Federer couldnt ever manage. And many others besides Federer, many of those also aging players even older than Nadal himself (and unlike Federer, lesser players which of course everyone besides Federer and possibly Djokovic who exists today is), are doing better vs Nadal than ever before. He might look good in RG 2017 but he is still more vurnerable than ever due to his loss of speed and some of his important physical traits he relies so heavily on given his incomplete and unorthodox game, vs opponents that specifically hurt him, which Djokovic is pretty much at the top of the list of.

because Nadal is the greatest CCer ever and found more ways to compensate on clay than on HC in 2017 ?
Also some credit to Federer for retooling his BH, the new racquet and swinging away freely ?