SecondToNone
Semi-Pro
Once Djokovic gets 100 wins at RG he's 3rd best on clay. He already has double digits clay masters.
Yes or no. Djokovic top 3 in open era on all 3 playing surfaces
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
If alcaraz wins 4?
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
2 of the 3 surfaces was back in 2015 itself.
3/4 slams barely behind till this year and barely ahead this year.
3/4 slams barely behind till this year and barely ahead this year.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
That guy was a real comedian. Other nuggets of him were that Hingis lost all the games and sets she lost on purpose because she knew that if she gets serious she would never lose a point and wanted to torture her opponents, that she lost against Dokic on purpose because she was afraid Jelena would be beaten by her crazy father otherwise and that the Majoli who beat Hingis in 97 FO was super-Majoli playing a level way above her standards. His whole narrative was that Hingis at AO 97 (who had one of the easiest draws ever) played on a level better than every men in history, a level which magically disappeared again once she lost matches.
Guy was a real piece of work but it was fun when he clashed with our other (Graf-) fanatic Joe Pike. Those were fanboy clashes for the ages.
GoatNo1
Professional
and he is not in the top 3 on grass even in his own time!
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal is ahead of Andy Murray.
GoatNo1
Professional
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
Every single Nadal performance is good when he reached R16. He dominated the field for a while. And he was definitely second best at one time.
Andy wasn't
GoatNo1
Professional
andy was the best by far in 2013 and 2016 on grass with queens and W wins!
rafa lost close in his peak and definitive in his prime 4 years in a row vs 100+ players, 2012-2015!
moreover, both rafas and muzza's fans value OG equally with slams and only muzza has won one on grass 2012! Even that in rafas peak years like W13.
Last edited:
Lauren_Girl'
Hall of Fame
He lost EIGHT times against Nadal in RG, so why not??
That's not saying he would have 11 RG if it weren't for Nadal... I don't think he was beating Federer in 2006 and 2007.
But still lost 3 finals against Nadal and 3 other key matches (2008, 2013 and 2022). Do you think he would've lost the final against Ferrer in 2013? Even in 2008, given Djokovic and Federer's form, he would've been favorite of the final...
It's a pretty safe bet to say he would have more RG than Borg if he didn't play in the same era as the Clay Goat. Borg only has 8 "Championship Series" (former Masters1000) on clay by the way. Djokovic has 11 clay Masters, he won the most prestigious one 6 times. Has beaten Nadal in all clay Masters.
Like I said, I still put Borg #2 and Djokovic #3 but people who put Djokovic #2 have a point...
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
See my last post on this. What you are basically doing is that you assume a hypothetical under the best possible scenario for Novak (removing his by light years toughest opponent) while you leave everything for Borg as it is and say well look under those circumstances Novak ‘could’ be ahead.
It is pretty simple, either we talk what actually happened (in which case Borg is ahead) or we are talking hypotheticals, but then we need to be fair and also assume that Borg hat played the 77 FO and didn’t burn out at 25. In this case he can likely win 10 FOs against tougher opposition to boot (if Djokovic had played in an hypothetical era without Nadal this would have been the weakest clay era since a long time).
As for your “Championships series”: He only played Rome three times, Hamburg once and also skipped some winnable Monte Carlo editions. He also played Boston only thrice winning all three of them. Under the same tour structure Novak had with him playing all three clay masters every year, he would easily have beaten Novak’s 11 even in his short career.
Last edited:
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I thought I made it abundantly clear I do not consider Federer to rank that highly on clay. I am saying by the "without Nadal" logic he could be, showing how ridiculously flawed that logic is, and why it can't be used for Djokovic either, especialy with such a terrible overall clay field to begin with.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Why not? 2015 and 2016 weren't stronger years than what Fed had.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, now. And he still didn't have to overcome him to win his 3 slams this year. But what about until now?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
He did overcome him at the French. Also the guy denied him the CYGS (arguably).
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I don't really view the FO victory when Carlos stopped moving as "overcoming".
RS
Bionic Poster
2008 Nadal would go 9-1 vs those Murray's.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
These half-hypothetically adjusted comparisons a la without “{insert Nadal/Federer/clay/etc.}” are always among the dumbest one can find. Yea, remove Djoko’s/Fed’s biggest obstacle and all of the sudden they can become greater than Lendl who still had to beat his whole competition.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
It is part of the game. At 20 he should have every physical advantage over a 36 years old.
RS
Bionic Poster
If Djokovic won at least one of RG 11/15 were he would had 8/10 + opponents and possibly Nadal too on the other side the net the without Nadal argument would look better relative Borg.
At 4/5 RG's and with a couple considered top wins which is used as evidence currently he couldn't beat other great clay players.
At 4/5 RG's and with a couple considered top wins which is used as evidence currently he couldn't beat other great clay players.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I agree and I attribute a great deal of blame to him.
But the match was all-squared at 1 set all before Carlos stopped moving. Djokovic didn't have to overcome him.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
How exactly? A “without” hypothetical never looks good. Without Nadal, Djokovic would have a really bad clay era to compete against. If we do him the gigantic favour to remove the toughest challenge of his era it is fair to also renove Panatta or assume Borg would have played in 77 or beyond 81. We can’t have it just one way, this is stupid even for hypotheticals.
RS
Bionic Poster
I don't use it or agree with it I just think people would buy it more.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
RS
Bionic Poster
I may be wrong but in hypothetical debate of Djok in other era's gets losses and the context is in part due to the fact great non Nadal competition beat him so it's not proof he dominates. I agree taking Nadal completely doesn't really completely work especially considering you can easily create hypotheticals for Borg winning more too.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
RS
Bionic Poster
Yeah not the exact same hypothetical on it's own I suppose but sometimes they all get mixed into discussions.
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
Well that’s not Djokovic fault. Novak was waiting for him at us open but he didn’t make it and he got injured for Australia.
The fact is Djokovic is usually always there. It’s part of the big reason he’s the best as his consistency is off the charts. Alcaraz did it a Wimbledon and it still took a big effort to just edge Djokovic but Novak can do it slam after slam and bounce back. Alcaraz needs to reach that consistency level but he has plenty of time.
Novak has done it for years. I don’t think you realise how difficult it is to be as consistent as Novak has been over his long career. No one has better consistency than him. Winning 7 matches in best of 5 ever once is so difficult for any player and Novak has made it look easier than it really is.
Phenomenal
Professional
How can you compare Djokovic to Borg who has won 6/8 RG's he played. Not only simply 6>>3 but also look at their winning % or number of times played. Probably he is either 3rd or 4th now.
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
It's insane to compare Djokovic to Borg. Borg was original KOC. He is just as good as Rafa at similar age..
Djokovic is a nobody in front of both.
Djokovic is a nobody in front of both.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
People who say, that Novak cannot be compared to Borg forget, that he was defeated 8 times at RG by Nadal, who is the clay GOAT...3 of those 8 defeats came in the final and 3 in the semis and only 2 in quarter-finals! Remove Nadal as a factor and at very least 5 of those 8 losses convert into wins, 3 of which guarantee him a title of RG champion automatically! LOL And boom - Nocak is suddenly 6 times RG champion and is tied with Borg on 6...add the RG 2013 semis as another factor (becauase let's face it no freaking way Djokovic would have lost final to Ferrer of all people if he beat Nadal in that close semi-final, i mean like come on now!) and he is at 7 and 2nd most successful RG winner after Nadal in the open era! (please note i even said most successful, not the 2nd greatest or even 2nd best!)...and i wouldn't put it past Djoker to beat Roger in 2008 final too if he beat Nadal in the semis, which means that would be 8 titles!...Obviously Federer would benefit from that too and probably would have also won like 4 or 5...but so would Thiem probably be double RG champion by now and likely Wawrinka as well...
Phenomenal
Professional
Lol what?
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
You’d have to be an idiot to call him top 3 on grass with his volley, overhead and net game. He’s top 3 on slow hard only.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Okay i'll admit i that i had a little bit of a brainfart moment, because i totally forgot Novak would still have to beat the player in each of those 3 finals, that would hypothetically replace Nadal, but come on now - Novak wouldn't beat Ferrer in 2012 final?? or Murray in 2014 one, or freaking Schwarzman in 2020 one??! LMAO
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Good to know, that the only way to say that seomone is better on particular surface is by the way he is playing! LMAO Some people should not allow to post on TTW...
Phenomenal
Professional
There are so many if's on that. Nadal was there but also Djokovic not only lost to Nadal either. How many people thought Djokovic would lose to Wawrinka in RG 15. There are so many more instances like that for all BIG 3. Also it doesn't matter. But as i said despite played much more RGs' probably more than double of Borg's but still trails 6-3.
Also it's usually complicated, somewhat dumb to compare era's anyway. People weren't playing that long. Most of the things were different. But Borg is way ahead of Novak at RG.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
The only one of the 3 i could imagine Novak having a "Wawrinka moment" is against Murray in 2014 RG final, but considering how Novak was clubbering Nadal in that final, until rain completely disrupted his rhythm i wouldn't even bet on that...and Novak probably had huge urge to avenge his recent loss at the Wimbledon to Murray anyway, so he would also be extra motivated...i can't see the same unexpected loss happening against Ferrer or Schwarzman, unlike Wawrinka they just don't have weapons, that are required to take Novak out...much less so in a GS final...the only other person other than Wawrinka and Nadal, who had weapons against Novak to beat him in later stages of RG is Thiem in his prime...nobody else was good enough, especially chokers like Ferrer and tiny man Schwarzman...
RaulRamirez
Legend
C'mon, man, Novak played Rafa 10 times at RG., beating him twice and (I think) Rafa won RG the other 8 years.
Has any pair of players met more often at a single slam in OE history?
RaulRamirez
Legend
Probably top 3 on all, though not a hill for me to debate from or die on.
HC is a no-brainer.
On grass, Borg may have a case for #3, after Fed/Sampras, as 5-in-a-row is awesome, but I'd probably lean to Novak's whole body of work there.
Do we give Borg additional points because he retired early, or just evaluate on an amazing prime there? Do we penalize Novak for his great longevity of elite play there?
As for RG, I can see the case for Lendl (but not Kuerten, and probably not Wilander) for #3 behind Rafa and Bjorn -- have to think more on that one, but a general lean to Novak given the huge Rafa factor. If it happens to be Lendl, I'm cool with that.
I'd like to give more support to both Vilas and Muster on clay, but they just didn't have the numbers at RG, especially Muster. They were kind of the anti-Kuertens.
HC is a no-brainer.
On grass, Borg may have a case for #3, after Fed/Sampras, as 5-in-a-row is awesome, but I'd probably lean to Novak's whole body of work there.
Do we give Borg additional points because he retired early, or just evaluate on an amazing prime there? Do we penalize Novak for his great longevity of elite play there?
As for RG, I can see the case for Lendl (but not Kuerten, and probably not Wilander) for #3 behind Rafa and Bjorn -- have to think more on that one, but a general lean to Novak given the huge Rafa factor. If it happens to be Lendl, I'm cool with that.
I'd like to give more support to both Vilas and Muster on clay, but they just didn't have the numbers at RG, especially Muster. They were kind of the anti-Kuertens.
If Borg ends up with 10 then Lendl and Wilander end up with one at best changing the view of how great they were on clay, doesn't it
His retirement certainly allowed 17 yr old Wilander to win it or a player like Noah
In any case these hypotheticals are dumb, Borg owned clay and only Rafa showed higher level of dominance on it
You lose every match you don't play. It was all Borg's problem retiring early.
I agree. 6>3. Borg should be ahead of Djokovic on clay.
Don't forget to tell those who ranked Borg over Djokovic on grass. 7>>5.
Awe, it's so Djokovic's fault Alcaraz failed to go far enough to him at AO and USO huh? Oh it's all Djokovic's problem Alcaraz couldn't help himself from cramping, isn't it?
RaulRamirez
Legend
Well, you don't lose them, but you can't get false credit for wins, either. But it kind of comes down to what you value: peak level or career level. I almost always go by career value.
I guess there are exceptions that come to mind, using an example from American football and going way back in time. Gale Sayers only played 4 or so healthy seasons before retiring early, but he was so amazingly good in those seasons that I'd still rank him very high. Not really analogous to Borg.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
So we are going to act as if he played prime/peak Nadal 10 times there?
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
I guess only Monica Seles can get an exception. Borg made conscious decision.
RaulRamirez
Legend
That seems fair.
He is easily Top 3 on all surfaces.... Any era.
Nadal being the Clay GOAT during his era only enhances Novak's legacy.
Even if Alcaraz wins 5-6 RGs, everyone shall question the lack of Nadal like mountain on the surface and a great All Court player and current GOAT like Federer on Grass.
The only Wimbledon he has is over a 36 year old Novak having an off day and he still needed 5 sets to get over despite being 16 years younger and supposedly supremely talented.
Nadal being the Clay GOAT during his era only enhances Novak's legacy.
Even if Alcaraz wins 5-6 RGs, everyone shall question the lack of Nadal like mountain on the surface and a great All Court player and current GOAT like Federer on Grass.
The only Wimbledon he has is over a 36 year old Novak having an off day and he still needed 5 sets to get over despite being 16 years younger and supposedly supremely talented.
Similar threads
- Poll
