Which of the following represents the highest clay level?

Which of the following represents the highest clay level?

  • Fed 06

    Votes: 27 33.8%

  • Fed 09

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Djokovic 2011

    Votes: 31 38.8%

  • Wawrinka 2015

    Votes: 12 15.0%

  • Lendl 1984

    Votes: 6 7.5%

  • Wilander 1988

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Total voters
    80
Captain Grant said:
Peak Nadal was Djoko's 2011 pigeon even on clay and it took greatest servebotting Fed's performance ever to take out Novak at FO.

Novak 2011 vs Rafa 2011 at FO would have been just as painful as their RG 2015 encounter.
Click to expand...

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, trolla, still zero FO titles. He could have a hell of a wing party though.

stock-photo-2237423-party-food-on-silver-platter.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think you certainly could add some peak years by guys like Moya.

As for Nadal, how can anyone argue against his 2008? The guy broke serve every other game, literally, for an entire year on clay. To find a year so frightening on clay you have to go back to Borg.

Look at this list. Borg the top 2, then Nadal next. No coincidence that his RG in 2008 is right up there at the top.

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html

Nadal's 2013 RG is way down on that list, still good, but nothing like 2008.
 
Last edited:
Gary Duane said:
I think you certainly could add some peak years by guys like Moya.

As for Nadal, how can anyone argue against his 2008? The guy broke serve every other game, literally, for an entire year on clay. To find a year so frightening on clay you have to go back to Borg.

Look at this list. Borg the top 2, then Nadal next. No coincidence that his RG in 2008 is right up there at the top.

Nadal's 2013 RG is way down on that list, still good, but nothing like 2008.
Click to expand...
wHICH website is this? The one I told you about?
 
Ok, Nadal - 9 - is the supreme authority in this matter, and we all know that.

Besides that, there are 4 other guys worth mentioning in Open Era*:
Borg - 6
Wilander - 3
Lendl - 3
Kuerten - 3
*(Lacoste, Cochet and Decugis may be the best french men ever)

I would add to the mix Borg 1979 and Kuerten 2000.



Comparing only present era, I believe only 3 seasons stand out, because since Ferrero 2003, no one else has won 2 big clay titles in the same year:

Federer - 2009 ( 1 x 1 vs Nadal - with injuries*)
Djokovic - 2011 (2 x 0 vs Nadal - injuries free)
Djokovic - 2015 ( 2 x 0 vs Nadal - injuries free but lower level**)

*he pulled out of Wimbledon already on June 17th and abandoned Davis.
** finished Top5 for the 12th consecutive year but it was his worst since 2004.


In terms of achievements, Federer-2009 was definitely better. Best match quality should be that 5 setter Nadal had in RG SF 13.

But in terms of "highest clay level" (not one match, not achievements, but all clay avg level ex. Nadal), only someone who defeated Nadal at his peak should be awarded such title: Djokovic-2011.



PS: Federer-2006 is not there since: (1) he never proved to be the best on clay in any big clay tournament; (2) he had a losing record 1 x 3 vs Nadal.
 
What is the point in this history lesson? I intentionally excluded Nadal and Borg here because they are OBVIOUSLY the most accomplished clay players ever. I am actually more interested in comparing the likes of Fed and Djokovic to some of the luckier winners of the FO like Wilander and Lendl who never had to run into the juggernaut of Nadal. Lendl of course had to deal with Borg in 1980 and held his own. But Wilander...

Anyway, I think my top two choices would have been Fed 2006 and Djokovic 2011. It will be a shame if Djokovic never wins the French because I honestly feels that he has played some of the best and most consistent tennis at the tournament in the Open Era but has come up short because of Nadal's dominance.
 
xFedal said:
wHICH website is this? The one I told you about?
Click to expand...
I think so. I've used it before myself. It's the one with all the data about % of wins in slams. Pretty cool site. Is that the one you are talking about?

I see I left out the link, which I just added above.

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html

Nathaniel mentioned it to me. A couple other people I think. Meanwhile, I wish the person who made the site would update!
 
cockneyDjoker said:
Maybe not, but he can't hit winners like that for a whole match, not even in his prime
Click to expand...
Of course not. They each have their strengths. Saying "Djokovic and it isn't close though" is pretty arrogant. As much as I like Federer I am not the delusional type that thinks that 06-07 Fed would beat Djoker everywhere. Good days/bad days each are going to get their wins.
 
I picked Lendl 1984. Mainly because I simply can't define "highest clay level" as being something where a player doesn't win the French Open. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care if the opponent is Nadal/Borg etc. Lendl hadn't yet won any grand slams. When the French Open came, he went through Wilander and then McEnroe (who was GOATing in 84 and won almost everything he played in).

McEnroe has frequently talked about how crushing that loss in '84 was. Although, he also said that he used that loss as fuel to complete one of the greatest tennis seasons in history.
 
Garhi Shot First said:
Well, it wasn't a flawless performance, if that's what you mean...? It was a great performance, though, at least in my opinion. :)
Click to expand...

No, I mean it wasn't a good performance under any stretch of imagination.

Four consecutive forehand errors from Wawrinka to be broken in the first set, followed by four forehand errors by Nadal in the following game to return the break. Then in the second set Nadal did something like three unforced errors to be broken again.

Nadal was crap, Wawrinka was nothing special and was destroyed by Federer next round. So, no, not a great match from Wawrinka.
 
By the way, crap options on the pool, one hard-courter, one fast-courter, two players from the first generation of graphite rackets and only one clay-courter that played with updated equipment. Quite expected, given that the OP is a clueless about clay court tennis.
 
BlackSilver said:
No, I mean it wasn't a good performance under any stretch of imagination.

Four consecutive forehand errors from Wawrinka to be broken in the first set, followed by four forehand errors by Nadal in the following game to return the break. Then in the second set Nadal did something like three unforced errors to be broken again.

Nadal was crap, Wawrinka was nothing special and was destroyed by Federer next round. So, no, not a great match from Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
I guess we had a different viewing experience, which is cool :), but you are misremembering how the points played out in those first two games. They hit some errors, yes, but also some winners. Stan's first game reached deuce at least twice. Nadal set up his final BP on a dropper that Stan couldn't reach and then broke on another dropper that Stan could only knock back into the net. Neither one of them were playing their top clay form (certainly Rafa was nowhere near his peak clay form, which is essentially unplayable), but good tennis can still be played outside of peak performances. There were some fine shots and amazing points in this match. Great atmosphere, too.

Anyway, I don't really look at errors when determining how "great" a match is but at how the players respond to errors and fight back despite a bad game here or there. This match was all about fighting despite not playing their best. If we were to only look at errors, then Stan's match vs Djokovic at the 2013 AO would have to be considered one of his worst: he hit 93 UFEs to 69 winners. He should have closed out the 2nd set, but he got tight. Still, it's one of the classic matches, at least in my opinion. :) Focusing on errors detracts from how Djokovic fought back to take control of that match, and how Stan fought back after that to take it into overtime in the 5th.

Also, I don't see how the results of a later round could be used to measure the quality of a player's performance in a previous round..? o_O For instance: Anderson went away against Stan at USO this year, but that doesn't mean he was nothing special against Murray.
 
Garhi Shot First said:
I guess we had a different viewing experience, which is cool :), but you are misremembering how the points played out in those first two games. They hit some errors, yes, but also some winners. Stan's first game reached deuce at least twice. Nadal set up his final BP on a dropper that Stan couldn't reach and then broke on another dropper that Stan could only knock back into the net. Neither one of them were playing their top clay form (certainly Rafa was nowhere near his peak clay form, which is essentially unplayable), but good tennis can still be played outside of peak performances. There were some fine shots and amazing points in this match. Great atmosphere, too.

Anyway, I don't really look at errors when determining how "great" a match is but at how the players respond to errors and fight back despite a bad game here or there. This match was all about fighting despite not playing their best. If we were to only look at errors, then Stan's match vs Djokovic at the 2013 AO would have to be considered one of his worst: he hit 93 UFEs to 69 winners. He should have closed out the 2nd set, but he got tight. Still, it's one of the classic matches, at least in my opinion. :) Focusing on errors detracts from how Djokovic fought back to take control of that match, and how Stan fought back after that to take it into overtime in the 5th.

Also, I don't see how the results of a later round could be used to measure the quality of a player's performance in a previous round..? o_O For instance: Anderson went away against Stan at USO this year, but that doesn't mean he was nothing special against Murray.
Click to expand...

No. it's not cool. And I am not misremembering anything. I watched that match a month ago, maybe less and I am sure of what I am saying. And who the hell said "first two games" ? I said that both were broken making four unforced forehand errors. I didn't said were in the two first games.

Wawrinka vs Djokovic in AO is an overrated match.

And finally, there are fine shots and good points in most tennis matches.
 
TearTheRoofOff said:
In each instance was it the same Nadal on the same day in the same form? Was it the same matchup dynamic? How was the quality of the tennis in each match? Nuance.
Click to expand...
2011 Nadal beat 16 top10 other than Djokovic (8 on clay).

2006 Nadal beat 6 top10 other than Federer (4 on clay).
 
I'm not sure why those last 2 are even included here, tbh :D I don't think 1984 even necessarily represents Lendl's highest level on clay (86 or 87) let alone one of the best ever. That goes for Wilander too (watch the 17 year old knock off 4 top 5 players - and 3 former Roland Garros finalists! - in succession in 1982!)

Stan is incredible the last couple of rounds of Roland Garros (quarters and finals anyway) and he did well to knock off a hopeless Rafa in Rome, but putting it here is also probably a stretch. Ditto Fed 2009, as impressive as he was against Haas... Should he even have gotten into that position to begin with? Del Potro probably beats him if his body could be relied on, and the Madrid final was essentially a walkover for someone of his class after that semi final.

So yeah, for me it comes down to Roger's 06 and Novak's 11, and I don't really have much hesitation in the decision. Roger may have more losses, but they're all to a guy he has a massive match up disadvantage against, and the fact that they were all respectable defeats, and the Rome one an absolute all timer for me gives him the edge over Novak, who for all his monstrous unstoppableness in the best of 3 portion of the clay season basically failed in that RG semi final in a way that makes you wonder far more than Backhanderer's close losses to Topspin McBouncyface.
 
Lew II said:
2011 Nadal beat 16 top10 other than Djokovic (8 on clay).

2006 Nadal beat 6 top10 other than Federer (4 on clay).
Click to expand...

Step your game up @Lew II and you're making me do your work for you. :p

2006 Nadal on clay
-- 66.0% service points won, 84.2% service games won
-- 45.9% return points won, 40.2% return games won
-- points dominance 1.35 || games dominance 2.55
2006 RG final -- 25 winners/28 unforced errors/45 forced errors

2011 Nadal on clay
-- 66.4% service points won, 83.4% service games won
-- 47.3% return points won, 43.9% return games won
-- points dominance 1.41 || games dominance 2.64
2011 RG final -- 39 winners/27 unforced errors/48 forced errors (bigger 1st serve in this RG and 2nd serve is about the same as 2006)

So although Nadal lost two matches on clay in 2011 compared to 0 in 2006, this suggests he was a better player on clay in 2011 than 2006. An athlete will always be physically stronger at 25 than he is at 20 anyways. So it's easy to downplay 2011 and say Nadal was not that good just because he didn't go undefeated when it isn't necessarily true.
 
Last edited:
Let's not start any crap discussions about this - Roger's 2006 Roma level is easily the best on that list.

I was barracking for Rafa like a loon the entire match, but Roger had match points and would have deserved to win as much as Rafa.
 
nowhereman said:
Are you talking about clay overall or just at the French? Because Wawrinka doesn't belong on this list if you're talking about all clay tournaments. He only got his sh*t together at RG, he was a dud for the rest of the clay season.
As for the question, I'm gonna say Djoko 2011. I think the 2 back-to-back wins over Nadal put him above anyone else, even though he lost to Fed at RG.
Click to expand...

Let’s not forget that in typical Wawrinka fashion he was far from great in that 2015 Roland Garros Semifinal he was just lucky that Tsonga was a puddle that day.
 
MCallanan said:
Let’s not forget that in typical Wawrinka fashion he was far from great in that 2015 Roland Garros Semifinal he was just lucky that Tsonga was a puddle that day.
Click to expand...

Credit where credit is due please, Stan was a beast saving BPs and that rattled Tsonga into making unnecessary errors in 3rd set TB and 4th set, but Wawrinka's clutchness came first. Same situation as Berdych 2014 AO semi, Stan being the worse player but refusing to budge under pressure and then Berd/JWT cracked. Mental strength was the biggest improvement to turn him into Stanimal I think, those two matches were perfect examples of that setting him apart from previously superior Berdych and Tsonga.
 
NoleFam said:
Step your game up @Lew II and you're making me do your work for you. :p

2006 Nadal on clay
-- 66.0% service points won, 84.2% service games won
-- 45.9% return points won, 40.2% return games won
-- points dominance 1.35 || games dominance 2.55
2006 RG final -- 25 winners/28 unforced errors/45 forced errors

2011 Nadal on clay
-- 66.4% service points won, 83.4% service games won
-- 47.3% return points won, 43.9% return games won
-- points dominance 1.41 || games dominance 2.64
2011 RG final -- 39 winners/27 unforced errors/48 forced errors (bigger 1st serve in this RG and 2nd serve is about the same as 2006)

So although Nadal lost two matches on clay in 2011 compared to 0 in 2006, this suggests he was a better player on clay in 2011 than 2006. An athlete will always be physically stronger at 25 than he is at 20 anyways. So it's easy to downplay 2011 and say Nadal was not that good just because he didn't go undefeated when it isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...

Don't see 06 Nadal going 5 against Isner at RG no matter how well Johnny bots tbh. 11 had faster balls hence more aggressive play and fewer UEs at the same level. For the masters you could be right though, can't say 11 Nadal was obviously worse except some lack of belief at the end of the Rome final, never had that in 06, BO5 was a factor as well though.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Don't see 06 Nadal going 5 against Isner at RG no matter how well Johnny bots tbh. 11 had faster balls hence more aggressive play and fewer UEs at the same level. For the masters you could be right though, can't say 11 Nadal was obviously worse except some lack of belief at the end of the Rome final, never had that in 06, BO5 was a factor as well though.
Click to expand...

Johnny botted from the tree tops that day with those balls :D and he wasn't the only player to be able to bot like that that tournament. If you remember, quite a few players were not happy with the change. Nadal was totally caught off guard there but pulled it together after that. Not much difference really than 2006 Nadal being pushed hard on clay by Hewitt who had like a 63.8% winning percentage on clay and never even made a clay Masters final, or being pushed hard by Mathieu. I think it balances out really. At the very least it could be said those two years are on the same level, although I would disagree because I feel 2011 was a notch up on a competitive level compared to 2006, but I don't see how 2011 Nadal was worse than 2006.
 
Lew II said:
2011 Federer isn't 2006 Federer.

My point is that 2011 Djokovic won 2 big titles beating Nadal, while 06 Federer won none.
Click to expand...
But according to your logic, 2011 Fed is better than 2011 Djokovic. And everyone knows 2006 fed is better than 2011 Federer. Therefore 2006 fed> 2011 Djokovic according to you

Nadal isn’t a constant, so you can not compare such stats.
 
TheIntrovert said:
But according to your logic, 2011 Fed is better than 2011 Djokovic. And everyone knows 2006 fed is better than 2011 Federer. Therefore 2006 fed> 2011 Djokovic according to you

Nadal isn’t a constant, so you can not compare such stats.
Click to expand...
No this is not my logic.
 
NoleFam said:
Step your game up @Lew II and you're making me do your work for you. :p

2006 Nadal on clay
-- 66.0% service points won, 84.2% service games won
-- 45.9% return points won, 40.2% return games won
-- points dominance 1.35 || games dominance 2.55
2006 RG final -- 25 winners/28 unforced errors/45 forced errors

2011 Nadal on clay
-- 66.4% service points won, 83.4% service games won
-- 47.3% return points won, 43.9% return games won
-- points dominance 1.41 || games dominance 2.64
2011 RG final -- 39 winners/27 unforced errors/48 forced errors (bigger 1st serve in this RG and 2nd serve is about the same as 2006)

So although Nadal lost two matches on clay in 2011 compared to 0 in 2006, this suggests he was a better player on clay in 2011 than 2006. An athlete will always be physically stronger at 25 than he is at 20 anyways. So it's easy to downplay 2011 and say Nadal was not that good just because he didn't go undefeated when it isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...

So 2015 is Peak Fed then? ;)

NoleFam said:
Johnny botted from the tree tops that day with those balls :D and he wasn't the only player to be able to bot like that that tournament. If you remember, quite a few players were not happy with the change. Nadal was totally caught off guard there but pulled it together after that. Not much difference really than 2006 Nadal being pushed hard on clay by Hewitt who had like a 63.8% winning percentage on clay and never even made a clay Masters final, or being pushed hard by Mathieu. I think it balances out really. At the very least it could be said those two years are on the same level, although I would disagree because I feel 2011 was a notch up on a competitive level compared to 2006, but I don't see how 2011 Nadal was worse than 2006.
Click to expand...

I do think 2006/2011 Nadal are on roughly the same level, however Hewitt basically redlined for two sets to make it a little close and Mathieu played at a ridiculous level - actually ridiculous level of hitting from him. Don't know if even Federer in the 2011 final played as well Mathieu did there tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hitman
Only Mats, Rog and Nole have done the calendar HC slam double
2 3
Replies
118
Views
2K
Waspsting
W
Razer
Performance Until the 29th Birthday
Replies
41
Views
1K
Tennfan123
T
Fedeonic
Nadal's 2017 Grand Slam Semis
Replies
16
Views
894
Rago
Rago
Razer
  • Poll Poll
First 24 years of the 21st Century vs Last 24 years of the 20th Century --- Which Era produced better Tennis Players ?
Replies
9
Views
622
Pheasant
Pheasant
Lew II
Slams won beating one of the 3 highest ranked opponents
Replies
35
Views
1K
Phoenix1983
Phoenix1983
Back
Top