Djokovic: A Hard Court Specialist?

As we enter into the clay court season we also enter the only time of the year where the major tournaments move to surfaces out with hard courts. Novak Djokvoic is hoping to begin a clay court season that will culminate in a much desired Roland Garros crown. In years past we have heard doubts over Federer's greatness when he was still chasing that elusive French Open title and many questioned Nadal's prowess outside of clay. Now that Djokovic has already established himself in the history of tennis with six slams, and is marching forward to adding more, does he need to prove something outside of his beloved hard courts due to his own lofty standards and by the standards of his contemporaries?

Now I am aware that Djokovic is one RG title away from completing the career grand slam and despite the title of this article I do not think he is a hard court specialist. On one hand he has won every clay masters including Rome twice and most likely will add more in the coming months. He has won Wimbledon but has never won either Queens or Halle, however, he hasn't even entered these in recent years and there is, of course, a lack of any grass masters. Clearly Djokovic is an excellent clay and grass court player and I am not arguing against this. On the other hand, however, his record at RG and W combined is three finals and one win, not shabby by any means but perhaps lacking by his own lofty standards. In addition, Nadal's record at Wimbledon alone is five finals and two wins and Federer still was getting to multiple finals at RG before he got a win without even mentioning their records at other slams. Djokovic has beaten Nadal once at Wimbledon and Federer once at Roland Garros but has lost all other meetings to them at slam level outside of hard and his lone meeting with Murray at a slam other than the AO or USO ended in defeat also (his record is 2-9 overall against these three at RG and W).

If we are to hold Djokvovic up to the same standard as other greats such as Fedal or even players such as Mcenroe Connors and Agassi, who are at a similar figure in slams, then yes I do think he needs to do more at slams outside of hard courts, with five of his six wins coming on this surface. As I said, he is clearly an excellent player outside of hard but I think his relatively weak record at slams on clay and grass is a gap in his C.V. and I think he does still have something to prove at RG and W. I think he needs to clock up some more finals and wins to really fill that gap.

What do others think? Do you think he has already established greatness on clay and grass? Would a RG crown be enough to plug the gap?

I wouldn't say he is a hard court specialist. I think it's fair to say he's much better on hard courts (arguably in the top handful ever) but he's one of the favourites at every event in the tennis calendar.

4 clay Master titles and an RG final proves him a very good but not-quite-great clay court player.

His Wimbledon win came in a period when he'd have won an event even if it was held on ice but, more commonly, I don't think he's great on grass.

There is an interesting aspect though about what his record needs to be to push him up the notional "All Time League Table". As you rightly say, his record is skewed toward hard courts and his slam record is heavily skewed to just the Australian Open.

If he were to win RG, especially if he beats Rafa to do so, that is very significant to his CV. 7 slams, including at least one win at every slam, would be enough to group him with Agassi, Lendl and Mac in my opinion, and ahead of Becker, Edberg and Wilander.

HM Murdoch wrote:I wouldn't say he is a hard court specialist. I think it's fair to say he's much better on hard courts (arguably in the top handful ever) but he's one of the favourites at every event in the tennis calendar.

4 clay Master titles and an RG final proves him a very good but not-quite-great clay court player.

His Wimbledon win came in a period when he'd have won an event even if it was held on ice but, more commonly, I don't think he's great on grass.

There is an interesting aspect though about what his record needs to be to push him up the notional "All Time League Table". As you rightly say, his record is skewed toward hard courts and his slam record is heavily skewed to just the Australian Open.

If he were to win RG, especially if he beats Rafa to do so, that is very significant to his CV. 7 slams, including at least one win at every slam, would be enough to group him with Agassi, Lendl and Mac in my opinion, and ahead of Becker, Edberg and Wilander.

I agree that winning RG puts him on level with the players you mention and above the others too. Agassi had a very similar record with only one win at both RG and W. I think if he wants to get to the next tier i.e Nadal/Borg/Sampras/Federer/Laver then he will have to go beyond one RG and one W.

Regardless whether he beats Nadal or not will be an achievement. Beating Nadal along the way would be a bonus as was Nadal beating Federer and Djokovic, arguably the two best hard court players ever, on his way to his hc slam victories. I think its only a matter of time before he wins RG if he keeps going the way he is going. Eventually Nadal has to lose at some point, in any sport you just cannot keep winning and he's lost only once there and fended off his two biggest rivals for so long that something has to give. Having said that though Djokovic's h2h of 2-9 is not a great stat but he has time to change that.

Good article I think Djokovic plays well on all surfaces and that consistency that he brings regardless of indoor, clay, grass, or hardcourt is what has allowed him to finish in the top 2 for 3 straight years and win as much as he has. I think he needs to take Nadal soon at RG or risk missing out on his opportunity. Fortunately for him no young gun seems to be approaching of a level to challenge him and Nadal for supremacy on clay. However the cumulative effect of all these close and heartbreaking losses from positions were he could have beaten Nadal is not a positive thing. It will only increase the pressure again if he does get Nadal on the ropes at RG. I actually think Novak's game translates incredibly well to clay because of his balanced groundies, movement, fitness, and ability to handle heavy kick.

His Wimbledon win confirmed how weak the era is in on grass at the least.    Thankfully Murray put him to sword on last year final otherwise to think Djoko as multi Wimbledon winner is a horror for me .  

Outside grass however he has very impressive CV and he has improved a lot on clay, to beat Rafa on 3 Clay finals is breath taking in my view, something Fed would be very very proud of to have in his CV.

He is certainly the 2nd best Clay courter at the moment [just at the moment, I am not talking about any era] and I am expecting him to finish as RG champion in 2014 completing the Grand Slam set.

I would be surprised and very happy for him [Rafa] and his fans if he can defend all hi clay points like he has done all his life, something says in my mind it won't be the case this year.

Yeah, I think you would have to say that if Novak isn't a great clay-courter then neither is Roger. Their records are fairly comparable - has Novak now been stopped 6 times by Rafa at the French to Fed's 5? Personally, I consider they are both great clay-courters.

On grass, I think Novak would need more to be considered a great. He looks very uncomfortable on the surface so I would rate him a level below even Murray on that surface at present.

The only reason roger made those French open finals was because he was seeded top 2 and met nadal in the final. Novak would have reached multiple finals but faced nadal in the semis each of those years mentioned.

Had Novak been seeded higher he almost certainly would have reached the final numerous times. Djokovic already has more clay wins against nadal than federer ever did. I would rank djokovic a better clay player than roger despite their 3-3 head to head on the surface. If you asked nadal he would probably say the same

Whilst I think that Born Slippy and Slasher make valid points Federer can still turn around and say he has won a lot outside of grass, with the USO alone. However, Djokovic can't say the same for his results beyond hard courts.

More importantly the point isn't whether Federer or Djokovic are better on clay the point is that Djokovic is still lacking slam results outside of hard courts.

No way is Novak just a HC specialist - it's merely his best surface. He's arguably better off on clay than fast HC, for starters.

Very debatable who's superior on clay between him and Fed. As ever, the record against one player (Nadal) shouldn't really be used as a barometer - titles are a better bet, I'd assume that the two are quite evenly matched in that regard. They're both great clay courters, not much between them and you could make an argument for either. Over the last two years it's definitely been Djokovic. I hope he wins RG, he deserves it.

You undersell Federer's exceptional RG record though, slasher - he's the all-time #2 on the match wins list, only just behind Nadal himself. Regardless of seeding, that sort of stat doesn't spring up by accident.

Djb14, no disputing that. I am just making the case about them as clay court players. Federer is streets ahead of Novak on grass. However in terms of hard court slams won it is 9-5 in favour of Fed, I think Novak will narrow that gap. Grass has always been novaks weakest but he still has a two final appearances at Wimbledon and a number of semis and quarters. He also gave nadal a great match at queens well before his prime, around 2008 I think?? I think if Novak wins the French and a couple more us opens, he will really be among the all time greats

Silver, I am not suggesting federer is not a great clay court player. He has been extremely consistent but there is no doubting how easily nadal beat him over the years. That FO 2008 final was a massacre. Federer excelled against other opponents though outside of rafa and Novak. Definitely a really solid clay courter. On other surfaces fed was unreal

I would like to see Djokovic win RG, at least once, before he leaves the Tennis scene. He is more of a challenge to Nadal on Clay than Federer has been (IMVHO - before Silver takes me task).

He can also erase some bad memories (v Melzer) but then Melzer has also beaten Federer at MC.

I think the Nadal match up makes Novak's clay record look a little better than it is. The fact he has beaten Nadal in three clay finals, something which nobody else has done, makes him seem like a great clay court player.

The actual number of titles and RG finals though, whilst still very good and better than most, is currently still a shade below great IMO.

The comparison with Federer is a close one. At Djokovic's current age, Federer had 4 Masters titles (same as Novak) but 3 RG finals to Novak's 1. (Although their months of birth distort the RG figure somewhat. A better comparison might be to see what Novak has done after the forthcoming RG).

Its the reverse Roddick syndrome though. We can subjectively see Novak is an incredible clay-courter who has been stopped by the all-time greatest clay-courter many times. Tournament wins therefore aren't a good judge. He has won 2/3rds of all clay Masters not won by Rafa since 2008.

laverfan wrote:I would like to see Djokovic win RG, at least once, before he leaves the Tennis scene. He is more of a challenge to Nadal on Clay than Federer has been (IMVHO - before Silver takes me task).

No debate there, LF - I quite agree I'd also like to see Djokovic do it. It'd certainly be well deserved.

Great posts by silver and slasher djoko I think is a better clay court player and I think he has a good chance of finally getting through and winning RG it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion but he does push nadal on that surface like no one else ever has on a consistent basis. BS makes a good point in that the last few years basically Novak has swept the clay events not won by nadal. I think when it is all said and done Novsk will outperform roger's numbers on the dirt. Both in terms of masters and I think he will match and win an RG. Although it will be a tough ask and he does need that slam to validate him on the clay

Novak can't be called a clay court great until he has won RG. But as he has won big titles on clay and been in a RG final, in addition to his Wimbledon title, I believe he can be called an all court player. He's too good a player on grass and clay to be called a hard court specialist surely.

I sincerely hope he wins RG during his career because I think it would be good to add another name the the exclusive list that have done all four. And I think he will do it.