PDA

View Full Version : Nick Bollettieri: "Djokovic is the most complete player of all time"


nimailni
08-24-2011, 10:02 AM
http://www.spox.com/de/sport/mehrsport/tennis/1108/Artikel/nick-bollettieri-interview-us-open-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-andy-murray-tommy-haas-sabine-lisicki.html


Google translation from German:

Tennis guru Nick Bollettieri with SPOX speaks about the upcoming U.S. Open. The 80-year-olds about the dominance of Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and a recipe for the reasons why Andy Murray is in his opinion, never win a Grand Slam title.
SPOX: Mr. Bollettieri, the U.S. Open just around the corner and Novak Djokovic is 2011 with 57 victories in 59 matches. Kann man überhaupt gegen ihn setzen? Can you even put on him?

Nick Bollettieri: Very difficult. Novak Djokovic is without question the favorite and he is also my tip. My God, the boy has only won five times this year against Rafael Nadal. He suggests the best players in the world - and this at a time when we have a much greater width in the tip than in the 80s or 90s. Shall I tell you something?

SPOX: But please, after all.

Bollettieri: I lean times quite far from the window and say that Djokovic is the most complete player of all time. Strength, speed, technique - no one has ever had such a package like Djokovic. And the main reason why he was so strong, is certain his new training program, including his diet and eating habits (at Djokovic had a gluten intolerance have been observed, Ed). Most people thought he would simply not train hard enough, but since this change, he is physically on a whole new level. The longer the point goes, the longer the match goes, the stronger will be Djokovic. But no one but God wins all the time. We'll see how it goes.

r2473
08-24-2011, 10:05 AM
He's the DjGOAT

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 10:10 AM
No he's not. You would think he bandwagon would be overflowing by now,but I guess there is always room for one more.

okdude1992
08-24-2011, 10:12 AM
major lols. his volleys are still crap and his slice isn't too good either

d4o
08-24-2011, 10:15 AM
Since when do people believe nick bollettieri. He can't hit the ground with a tennis racquet in three tries.

SStrikerR
08-24-2011, 10:16 AM
Shut up Nick. This guy's an idiot.

Pinkskunk
08-24-2011, 10:17 AM
[url]...... no one but God wins all the time. We'll see how it goes.

Nick Bollettieri is an old wise man. For that i will pick Novak as the US Open favorite, provided he is not injured.

DjokovicForTheWin
08-24-2011, 10:22 AM
Bollettieri: I lean times quite far from the window and say that Djokovic is the most complete player of all time. Strength, speed, technique - no one has ever had such a package like Djokovic. And the main reason why he was so strong, is certain his new training program, including his diet and eating habits (at Djokovic had a gluten intolerance have been observed, Ed). Most people thought he would simply not train hard enough, but since this change, he is physically on a whole new level. The longer the point goes, the longer the match goes, the stronger will be Djokovic. But no one but God wins all the time. We'll see how it goes.

Jelena concurs.

glazkovss
08-24-2011, 10:24 AM
major lols. his volleys are still crap and his slice isn't too good either

Agree with you. His game is good from the baseline, but when he is pushed forward, it doesnt look so good. Of the top 4 he uses the least amount of shots in his arsenal. And speaking about the upcoming open, Novak is certainly lacking focus nowadays and that won't help him in NY.

okdude1992
08-24-2011, 10:28 AM
Agree with you. His game is good from the baseline, but when he is pushed forward, it doesnt look so good. Of the top 4 he uses the least amount of shots in his arsenal. And speaking about the upcoming open, Novak is certainly lacking focus nowadays and that won't help him in NY.

I would still say he is the favorite. But I agree that Federer, Murray, and even Nadal all have more complete games than Djokovic. Nick B is a moron

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 10:29 AM
His game has always been pretty complete. What was holding him back was mostly his shaky mental + all his fiddling with his serve.

HunterST
08-24-2011, 10:31 AM
I definitely see what Nick is saying. If you think about it, all the other top players have huge strengths with some minor, yet noticeable weaknesses. Rafa was mostly a defensive clay courter. His serve was quite weak and his offense wasn't at the same level as his defense. Obviously he's improved those aspects of his game and is now quite complete. However, He's always, to some extent, battling his natural tendency to be a defensive player.

Roger has a great game, but his backhand can't match up with the two-handers of today.

Djokovic is just solid in every aspect. His game seems cleaner than Nadal's and more modern than Federer's. He's well-rounded, solid, almost generic player.

Definitely not saying that Djokovic is greater than Nadal or Federer. Just that I can see how his game could be seen as more well rounded and complete.

Rippy
08-24-2011, 10:33 AM
Jelena concurs.

lmao :lol:

powerslave
08-24-2011, 10:36 AM
Well there is no doubt about Djokovic's current form however it is amusing to hear someone like Nick using "most complete player of all time" for Djokovic just based on this season's performance. What is the basis ? Win/Loss ratio this year ? Using that yardstick John McEnroe should be at the top spot. It cannot be number of GS titles for sure. He right now in his early/mid twenties i.e prime of his physical fitness so why should it surprise anyone if he has a couple of hot years what would be interesting to see is how good will he play when he is nearing 30 , his total GS titles and obviously career win/loss ratio.

8PAQ
08-24-2011, 10:36 AM
No he's not. You would think he bandwagon would be overflowing by now,but I guess there is always room for one more.

Anyone here knows who is his/her favourite player?

000KFACTOR90000
08-24-2011, 10:43 AM
Well there is no doubt about Djokovic's current form however it is amusing to hear someone like Nick using "most complete player of all time" for Djokovic just based on this season's performance. What is the basis ? Win/Loss ratio this year ? Using that yardstick John McEnroe should be at the top spot. It cannot be number of GS titles for sure. He right now in his early/mid twenties i.e prime of his physical fitness so why should it surprise anyone if he has a couple of hot years what would be interesting to see is how good will he play when he is nearing 30 , his total GS titles and obviously career win/loss ratio.

Good points, I'm loving his confidence right now but "most complete player of all time" just doesn't feel right.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 10:49 AM
This is obviously a wild exaggeration uttered in the heat of the moment. That being said, there is a difference between "most complete" and "most successful".

Lunaticalm
08-24-2011, 10:59 AM
Yes, Djokovic is one of the most complete player atm, but all time is stretching it too far.

ben123
08-24-2011, 11:34 AM
im german and this article was pretty interesting not only about djokovic.

for example another big thing he said:

murray will never win a major in his opinion. when the reporter asked why he answered: lets take beckers words:"murray has no weapons" he added that he agreed on this, murray is just too defensive to win a slam

Shady_Sawyer
08-24-2011, 11:46 AM
major lols. his volleys are still crap and his slice isn't too good either


thats BS...his slice maybe but some of his volleys are incredible. He is no andy roddick. I see as volleys as rock solid. Better than Nadals volleys for sure

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 11:47 AM
thats BS...his slice maybe but some of his volleys are incredible. He is no andy roddick. I see as volleys as rock solid. Better than Nadals volleys for sure

Djokovic an incredible volleyer? Come on,now. And he does not volley better than Nadal. I'd actually say Nadal volleys a tiny bit better than Novak.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 12:56 PM
********. He is getting senile the old orange-farmer!

Look at peak Fed and compare him to Djokovic 2011:

1st Serve: Federer by a mile

2nd Serve: Federer

Return of serve: Djokovic by a mile

Forehand: Federer by a mile

Backhand: Djokovic

Slice: Federer by a mile

Transition from defence to offence: Id say very equal

Volley: Federer

Variation: Federer

Shot selection: Equal

Offense: Federer

Defense: Djokovic by a mile

Overhead: Equal id say

Ability to use the whole court: Equal

Ability to get throw your opponent off rhytm/variation: Federer

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 01:02 PM
No he's not. You would think he bandwagon would be overflowing by now,but I guess there is always room for one more.

Dude, you don't like the guy.......don't read threads about him.........

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 01:04 PM
********. He is getting senile the old orange-farmer!

Look at peak Fed and compare him to Djokovic 2011:

1st Serve: Federer by a mile

2nd Serve: Federer

Forehand: Federer by a mile

Backhand: Djokovic

Slice: Federer by a mile

Transition from defence to offence: Id say very equal

Volley: Federer

Variation: Federer

Shot selection: Equal

Offense: Federer

Defense: Djokovic by a mile

Overhead: Equal id say

Ability to use the whole court: Equal

Ability to get throw your opponent off rhytm/variation: Federer

How about ability to return serve? Kinda important in this sport, no?

Manus Domini
08-24-2011, 01:04 PM
thats BS...his slice maybe but some of his volleys are incredible. He is no andy roddick. I see as volleys as rock solid. Better than Nadals volleys for sure

If anyone with volleys better than Nadal has incredible volleys, Gasquet is the GVOAT

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 01:09 PM
How about ability to return serve? Kinda important in this sport, no?

Yes mr wiseguy, i forgot that one. And that belongs to Djokovic.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 01:13 PM
Djokovic an incredible volleyer? Come on,now. And he does not volley better than Nadal. I'd actually say Nadal volleys a tiny bit better than Novak.

According to you Novak sucks at everything. We get it already. Why must you post your dislike of him so frequently? Please explain.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 01:15 PM
Yes mr wiseguy, i forgot that one. And that belongs to Djokovic.

Conveniently. Do you know from what psychological aspect one fiercely embraces a certain sports figure(s) as an idol? I can elaborate if you're in the dark on this one......

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 01:18 PM
According to you Novak sucks at everything. We get it already. Why must you post your dislike of him so frequently? Please explain.

Way to put words in my mouth. Where did I say he sucks at everything? Are you really going to try and tell me he is an incredible volleyer,and is the most complete player of all time? Even his biggest ***** can't be that tardish.

Gizo
08-24-2011, 01:20 PM
Djokovic has a very balanced game. He unquestionably has the best forehand/backhand combination in the game right now, and the best serve/return of serve combination as well. He is an excellent mover, and his mental strength and fitness have improved considerably, with his Miami final victory when he out-fought and out-lasted Nadal proving to be a crucial victory.

PSNELKE
08-24-2011, 01:20 PM
Lulz. No wonder Andre called him "Nick the Dīck."

celoft
08-24-2011, 01:21 PM
Interesting.

LOL.

The so called most complete player of all time won't hit double digits at the slams.

Djoko will probably have a career like JMac, Agassi, Lendl level.

Bandwagoning is a funny thing and makes people say ludicrous things as well.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 01:21 PM
Way to put words in my mouth. Where did I say he sucks at everything? Are you really going to try and tell me he is an incredible volleyer,and is the most complete player of all time? Even his biggest ***** can't be that tardish.

How old are you? You still didn't answer my question. Why must you post so frequently about a player you are clearly not a fan of. Again, PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 01:22 PM
How old are you?

How old are you?

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 01:24 PM
Interesting.

LOL.

The so called most complete player of all time won't hit double digits at the slams.
Djoko will probably have a career like JMac, Agassi, Lendl level.

Bandwagoning is a funny thing and makes people say ludicrous things as well.

I think he will hit double digits in slams simply because there is no competition for him.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 01:24 PM
Conveniently. Do you know from what psychological aspect one fiercely embraces a certain sports figure(s) as an idol? I can elaborate if you're in the dark on this one......

Please do! Enlighten me

stringertom
08-24-2011, 01:24 PM
Djoker: Most Complete Player of all Time (MCPOAT)? Hmmm...having a great season, but nowhere near MCPOAT. Just as a deck of cards has only 2 jokers per 54, the Djoker does not equal the full package as compared to Budge, Laver, prime Connors (why couldn't he learn a serve?), Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Fed and Nadal. A year or two more dominance would earn him consideration, not eight months.

Gizo
08-24-2011, 01:25 PM
I agree with Veroniquem that the most complete player and best player can mean different things.

For instance Stich was clearly a more complete player than Agassi, as Stich had pretty much every shot in the book, while Agassi was quite a one-dimensional player. However Agassi was clearly the much better player and had a much greater greater career.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 01:25 PM
Interesting.

LOL.

The so called most complete player of all time won't hit double digits at the slams.

Djoko will probably have a career like JMac, Agassi, Lendl level.

Bandwagoning is a funny thing and makes people say ludicrous things as well.

Only he should care how his career ends up and I doubt any top pros care what message board imbeciles label them.

ben123
08-24-2011, 01:27 PM
are you all just ignoring it or is it no surprise for you that he said murray will never ever win a grandslam

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 01:29 PM
are you all just ignoring it or is it no surprise for you that he said murray will never ever win a grandslam

I don't agree with him on that one,either. I think Murray will win a slam,and just may win more than one.

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 01:29 PM
He isnt the most complete if you are talking about the all court game but for the modern game he has a perfectly complete game when his serve is working. Volleys and slices arent that important or effective anymore, you just need to do both adequately if needed and you are fine.

celoft
08-24-2011, 01:31 PM
I think he will hit double digits in slams simply because there is no competition for him.

He won't. 8 slams tops for him.


I don't agree with him on that one,either. I think Murray will win a slam,and just may win more than one.

I concur.


Djoker: Most Complete Player of all Time (MCPOAT)? Hmmm...having a great season, but nowhere near MCPOAT. Just as a deck of cards has only 2 jokers per 54, the Djoker does not equal the full package as compared to Budge, Laver, prime Connors (why couldn't he learn a serve?), Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Fed and Nadal. A year or two more dominance would earn him consideration, not eight months.

Djoko has to win slams for 8 years in a row like Borg(1974-1981), Sampras(1993-2000) and Federer(2003-2010) did to be in any GOAT conversation.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Please do! Enlighten me

Well to scratch the surface on the subject since it is so frequent on message boards (nuthuggers, bandwagon, fanboys , haters, etc), here goes:

1. In a child's early development there are essential needs such as food, nurture, feeling of safety, comfort which are primarily provided by the mother for the most part until puberty (differs slightly for males and females but I'm going to elaborate using the general male model only).

2. When this child approaches puberty and starts attempting to identify himself as a man and no longer a boy, this causes him to reject the mother for a period of time in order to establish himself as an individual or as an adult. He needs a male role model or father figure

3. A present and accepting father or father figure is critical in this child's transition/development into manhood. It is in this period in the child's life that he is seeking to identify with his same sex role model to model him self after and seek the necessary approval and guidance. This approval of the same sex role model builds confidence, security and sets the framework for proper development into manhood. The lack of this acceptance and approval leaves a void which the child will be looking to fill for the rest of his life without even knowing why.

4. What you see on these boards when someone fiercely defends their "favorite" athlete (that they have never had any contact with) is the exposing of the absent male role model in a critical period of their development. They "hate" and reject any threat(other players, fans, family) as they have finally identified with someone. In their mind their favorite player would embrace them and accept them. This is how the fill the void of their childhood in their world.

What I see whenever I observe someone who "hates" or "over embraces" a professional athlete, politician, actor etc is that their childhood had an unfortunate void in it that is trying to be filled.

Any questions?

Pacific3000
08-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Naw, he's the most irritating maybe.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Well to scratch the surface on the subject since it is so frequent on message boards (nuthuggers, bandwagon, fanboys , haters, etc), here goes:

1. In a child's early development there are essential needs such as food, nurture, feeling of safety, comfort which are primarily provided by the mother for the most part until puberty (differs slightly for males and females but I'm going to elaborate using the general male model only).

2. When this child approaches puberty and starts attempting to identify himself as a man and no longer a boy, this causes him to reject the mother for a period of time in order to establish himself as an individual or as an adult. He needs a male role model or father figure

3. A present and accepting father or father figure is critical in this child's transition/development into manhood. It is in this period on the child's life that he is seeking to identify with his same sex role model to model him self after and seek the necessary approval and guidance. This approval of the same sex role model builds confidence, security and sets the framework for proper development into manhood. The lack of this acceptance and approval leaves a void which the child will be looking to fill for the rest of his life without even knowing why.

4. What you see on these boards when someone fiercely defends their "favorite" athlete (that they have never had any contact with) is the exposing of the absent male role model in a critical period of their development. They "hate" and reject any threat(other players, fans, family) as they have finally identified with someone. In their mind their favorite player would embrace them and accept them. This is how the fill the void of their childhood in their world.

What I see whenever I observe someone who "hates" or "over embraces" a professional athlete, politician, actor etc is that their childhood had an unfortunate void in it that is trying to be filled.

Any questions?

Touchč!
Im happy that you finally got your masters degree in psychology...but listen, what has this got to do with what i wrote earlier? :)

Gizo
08-24-2011, 01:59 PM
He isnt the most complete if you are talking about the all court game but for the modern game he has a perfectly complete game when his serve is working. Volleys and slices arent that important or effective anymore, you just need to do both adequately if needed and you are fine.

Agreed. In the modern game, the important attributes are the serve, return of serve, forehand, backhand, speed, fitness, mental strength and fighting spirit. Djokovic is strong in each of those 8 areas, improving in most of them from 2010 and particularly from his relatively disastrous period coaced by Todd Martin.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 02:02 PM
Touchč!
Im happy that you finally got your masters degree in psychology...but listen, what has this got to do with what i wrote earlier? :)

Only you know the details :)

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 02:06 PM
I don't agree with him on that one,either. I think Murray will win a slam,and just may win more than one.

Do you think Djokovic will win another slam?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 02:08 PM
Only you know the details :)

Alright man! Yeah!

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 02:14 PM
Well to scratch the surface on the subject since it is so frequent on message boards (nuthuggers, bandwagon, fanboys , haters, etc), here goes:

1. In a child's early development there are essential needs such as food, nurture, feeling of safety, comfort which are primarily provided by the mother for the most part until puberty (differs slightly for males and females but I'm going to elaborate using the general male model only).

2. When this child approaches puberty and starts attempting to identify himself as a man and no longer a boy, this causes him to reject the mother for a period of time in order to establish himself as an individual or as an adult. He needs a male role model or father figure

3. A present and accepting father or father figure is critical in this child's transition/development into manhood. It is in this period in the child's life that he is seeking to identify with his same sex role model to model him self after and seek the necessary approval and guidance. This approval of the same sex role model builds confidence, security and sets the framework for proper development into manhood. The lack of this acceptance and approval leaves a void which the child will be looking to fill for the rest of his life without even knowing why.

4. What you see on these boards when someone fiercely defends their "favorite" athlete (that they have never had any contact with) is the exposing of the absent male role model in a critical period of their development. They "hate" and reject any threat(other players, fans, family) as they have finally identified with someone. In their mind their favorite player would embrace them and accept them. This is how the fill the void of their childhood in their world.

What I see whenever I observe someone who "hates" or "over embraces" a professional athlete, politician, actor etc is that their childhood had an unfortunate void in it that is trying to be filled.

Any questions?




Hello Mr Freud :) Very honored to meet you.
Can you tell me about your after death experience? I want to hear the details. Did you know Federer had never even heard of you? What an *** right? You'll have to forgive him because he's just a tennis player, you know, reads magazines rather than books et al.

FloridaAG
08-24-2011, 02:15 PM
He is definitely one of the most complete retirers of all time

aceX
08-24-2011, 02:38 PM
He is definitely one of the most complete retirers of all time

How many times has he retired this year?

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 02:39 PM
Only once I think.

lendlmac
08-24-2011, 02:42 PM
I would still say he is the favorite. But I agree that Federer, Murray, and even Nadal all have more complete games than Djokovic. Nick B is a moron

Murray? who can't win a GS and CHOKES 75% of the time under pressure has a more complete game than Joker? Really? Tell us...enlighten us to Murray's GS successes count for us the number of GS won by Murray...oh wait......being a complete failure.....complete player INCLUDES mental strength.... oh wait...

tool

Romismak
08-24-2011, 02:47 PM
You all ,,experts,, do you honestly think anyone at home behind PC know more about tennis than Bollettieri? i donīt think so. It is questionable if Novak is the most complete player ever or not, but we can make some analysis and compare him - old players that used SV style are already out of this, because maybe they were complete in 80s-90s but today with modern baseline game those SV style guys like McEnroe looked not so complete after all. From 90s maybe Agassi is good for complete player and from now- Roger has versatility, but his game is not so ,,complete,, like you think, Nadal obviously out of question here, than we have Djokovic - great 2H BH, solid FH, now solid Serve, super deffense, super movement, best ROS, average volleys- for this decade - but volleys are not so important novadays- but still volleys he should improove and even his serve isnīt nothing special for No.1 guy, but overall he has 6,7 things great or very good from 8- only volleys are not great or very good. Show me another player who was 6,7 from 8- at very high level- maybe Agassi at his prime, but we can say that this Nole is even quicker, better and so on.. So i think Nole is really most complete guy ever.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 02:52 PM
Hello Mr Freud :) Very honored to meet you.
Can you tell me about your after death experience? I want to hear the details. Did you know Federer had never even heard of you? What an *** right? You'll have to forgive him because he's just a tennis player, you know, reads magazines rather than books et al.

Freud was good in his time, kinda like 7 time Wimbledon Champion William Renshaw. Much has changed since those times.

I don't judge people, I just can't help but point out some obvious facts. Obvious in my profession at least.

stormholloway
08-24-2011, 02:52 PM
I definitely see what Nick is saying. If you think about it, all the other top players have huge strengths with some minor, yet noticeable weaknesses. Rafa was mostly a defensive clay courter. His serve was quite weak and his offense wasn't at the same level as his defense. Obviously he's improved those aspects of his game and is now quite complete. However, He's always, to some extent, battling his natural tendency to be a defensive player.

Roger has a great game, but his backhand can't match up with the two-handers of today.

Djokovic is just solid in every aspect. His game seems cleaner than Nadal's and more modern than Federer's. He's well-rounded, solid, almost generic player.

Definitely not saying that Djokovic is greater than Nadal or Federer. Just that I can see how his game could be seen as more well rounded and complete.

Utter nonsense. Federer's backhand has matched up just fine with two handers. Every single slam final he's won has been against a top tier two handed player. He just schooled Djokovic at the French. Backhand looked pretty good there. Right now he is playing like crap, but to say his backhand can't match up against the two handers is silly.

Djokovic has improved his volleys but he's nowhere as "complete" as Federer. Even Nadal's volleys are better.

rossi46
08-24-2011, 03:01 PM
Those tanning machines can do funny things to your brains

KHSOLO
08-24-2011, 03:05 PM
Since when do people believe nick bollettieri. He can't hit the ground with a tennis racquet in three tries.

LOL, nice ! hahahaha :)

CocaCola
08-24-2011, 04:19 PM
Nicky stating the obious.

MichaelNadal
08-24-2011, 04:21 PM
Nicky stating the obious.

http://i44.tinypic.com/97pbwj.gif

BackhandExpert101
08-24-2011, 04:31 PM
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Overheadsmash
08-24-2011, 04:37 PM
I don't agree with him on that one,either. I think Murray will win a slam,and just may win more than one.

I saw Andy up close at cinci and was the most impressed with his game. His downfall is that he complains to his coaches too much and is not as focused as he should be. If he can overcome that, I think he has the game to beat all of these guys. His movement and ball striking were really good.

West Coast Ace
08-24-2011, 04:39 PM
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.Wow! Troll of the Month Candidate.

For an 80 yr old, Nick can jump on a bandwagon with the best of them. :)

Outbeyond
08-24-2011, 04:50 PM
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Only a BackhandExpert would know these things. Let us know what you learn from the 102 course next semester!

Overheadsmash
08-24-2011, 05:10 PM
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Haha good one.

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 05:14 PM
I saw Andy up close at cinci and was the most impressed with his game. His downfall is that he complains to his coaches too much and is not as focused as he should be. If he can overcome that, I think he has the game to beat all of these guys. His movement and ball striking were really good.

I agree with you. It's Andy's mental strength and tendency to lose focus that has cost him in the past. If he can fix those things,and learn to control his emotions on court,he has a very good shot at winning some slams.

Netspirit
08-24-2011, 05:36 PM
Djokovic is a clear baseliner.

His strengths are: groundstroke consistency, flexibility, serve returns.
His weaknesses are: volleys, slice, overhead smash.

His serve, his speed and his dropshots are "normal" - decent enough for a top10 player, but nothing to make a movie about.

He is definitely not an all-court player, and absolutely not "the most complete ever".

OddJack
08-24-2011, 05:42 PM
Bulliteri is full of bull

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 05:44 PM
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.


That about sums it up.

Sid_Vicious
08-24-2011, 05:48 PM
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Looks like tennis_fan_182 has been referring these forums to his friends.

missbungle
08-24-2011, 06:20 PM
major lols. his volleys are still crap and his slice isn't too good either

Bolletieri has never heard of "volleys" and "slices". They are a total mystery to him. Hence why he thinks Djokovic is a complete player.

BackhandExpert101
08-24-2011, 06:25 PM
Djokovic is a clear baseliner.

His strengths are: groundstroke consistency, flexibility, serve returns.
His weaknesses are: volleys, slice, overhead smash.

His serve, his speed and his dropshots are "normal" - decent enough for a top10 player, but nothing to make a movie about.

He is definitely not an all-court player, and absolutely not "the most complete ever".

Say whaaaaaa?!

:shock:

Djokovic is the fastest man in tennis.

Tennis_Monk
08-24-2011, 06:30 PM
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Brilliant post. We need more of such posts.

Iam now so disappointed and feeling cheated. How can so many analysts,pundits, tennis fans not pick up this simple one dimensional player?. They even went on to say that he is probably the closest to GOAT. Shame on them.

Now that you have unravelled some of the mysteries of Roger Federer, may be you can also help us solve the mystery of 16 grandslams won with a one dimensional game that too with just a Forehand and Movement (Gonzo anyone?)

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 06:37 PM
That's easy. Weak era especially on hard court and especially until 2007 (when Murray and Djoko came on board.) Weak era on grass before 2007 too when Rafa started to master it.

corners
08-24-2011, 06:38 PM
I definitely see what Nick is saying. If you think about it, all the other top players have huge strengths with some minor, yet noticeable weaknesses. Rafa was mostly a defensive clay courter. His serve was quite weak and his offense wasn't at the same level as his defense. Obviously he's improved those aspects of his game and is now quite complete. However, He's always, to some extent, battling his natural tendency to be a defensive player.

Roger has a great game, but his backhand can't match up with the two-handers of today.

Djokovic is just solid in every aspect. His game seems cleaner than Nadal's and more modern than Federer's. He's well-rounded, solid, almost generic player.

Definitely not saying that Djokovic is greater than Nadal or Federer. Just that I can see how his game could be seen as more well rounded and complete.

Yeah, you've got it. And I think the point is that he has the most complete game to exploit the era he's playing in. In a grass-court era his game would be seriously lacking in some crucial areas - his volleys are OK, but not nearly good enough, and his overhead would be a serious liability. But on the tour now, with slow or medium slow courts at nearly every event, his game has almost no weakness.

On clay his movement isn't quite as good as it is on hardcourts, which is one of the reasons Fed was able to beat him at the French. And his head can still go off, especially if his daddy is being hard on him.

Ranking the critical skills to today's game, I would say:

Forehand:
Nadal 10
Federer 10
Djokovic 9
Murray 8

Backhand:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 8
Murray 9.5

Serve:
Federer 9.5
Djokovic 9
Nadal 8
Murray 9

Return:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 9
Murray 9.5

Movement:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9.5
Federer 9
Murray 9

Defense:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 10
Federer 8.5
Murray 9.5

Net play (tactics, volleys & overheads):
Federer 9
Nadal 8
Djokovic 7.5
Murray 8

Mental:
Nadal 10
Federer 9
Djokovic 8
Murray 7.5

Confidence at present:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 8
Federer 7.5
Murray 7.5

Totals (just for kicks):

Djokovic 83.5
Nadal 81.5
Federer 79.5
Murray 77.5

1970CRBase
08-24-2011, 06:41 PM
Yeah, you've got it. And I think the point is that he has the most complete game to exploit the era he's playing in. In a grass-court era his game would be seriously lacking in some crucial areas - his volleys are OK, but not nearly good enough, and his overhead would be a serious liability. But on the tour now, with slow or medium slow courts at nearly every event, his game has almost no weakness.

This.

Complete or not is a relative thing to the current conditions.

SLD76
08-24-2011, 06:41 PM
Wow! Troll of the Month Candidate.

For an 80 yr old, Nick can jump on a bandwagon with the best of them. :)

I was just going to say...rofl!

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 06:46 PM
I agree Roger isnt a complete player in a historic sense. He has one of the all time best forehands, excellent movement, and a very good serve. However his backhand, return of serve, and net game are all mediocre. Djokovic has a more complete game when playing well, he is outstanding off both wings, he is more patient and doesnt make a huge # of unforced errors everytime he plays someone who gets alot of balls back, he returns serve much better than Roger and while he can lose confidence in his serve it is still very good when he is on.

As for the Roger vs Gonzalez comparision Roger has an even better forehand than Gonzalez, has light years better movement and overall defense, has a much better 1st serve and light years better second serve, and is mentally much tougher. His return and volleys while not that good are easily better than Gonzalez's poor ones as well. Of course he is both a much better and more complete player than 1 shot wonder/0 masters titles Gonzalez, but that doesnt make him the most complete ever.

Netspirit
08-24-2011, 06:50 PM
Say whaaaaaa?!

:shock:

Djokovic is the fastest man in tennis.

No, not even close. Federer in his prime, Nadal in his prime, Coria, Hewitt, Chang and a lot of other players were clearly faster than Djokovic now. Djokovic appears fast because of his "last moment" dives and splits, and that's why I called his flexibility his strength. He's almost as good as Monfils there.

Unlike Federer, Djokovic is a baseliner first and foremost. Federer is an all-court player, he has every shot and trick in his book, while Djokovic is far behind in the shotmaking department.

Sid_Vicious
08-24-2011, 06:59 PM
No, not even close. Federer in his prime, Nadal in his prime, Coria, Hewitt, Chang and a lot of other players were clearly faster than Djokovic now.

Djokovic appears fast because of his "last moment" dives and splits, and that's why I called his flexibility his strength. He's almost as good as Monfils there.

Very close, I would say. Prime Federer was definitely not as fast as Djokovic. Nadal, Chang, and Coria do have more explosive foot-speed than Djokovic, but Djoko's footspeed is not far behind. Monfils, on the other hand, is by far quicker than all the guys mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuf12Uw1dk

cc0509
08-24-2011, 07:00 PM
That's easy. Weak era especially on hard court and especially until 2007 (when Murray and Djoko came on board.) Weak era on grass before 2007 too when Rafa started to master it.

Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!

Also for your information,Nadal and Federer are pretty much from the same era. Federer started winning slams in 2003 and Nadal won his first in 2005. That means there is only 2 tennis years that separates them. You yourself always brag how Nadal was a child prodigy. So you are admitting Nadal started winning younger and thus was pretty much the same era as Federer who was a later bloomer. If Federer had a weak era so did Nadal I am afraid.

Djokovic and Murray? How many times did they defeat Federer in HC slam finals? I will tell you, NEVER. Real strong competition for Federer in slam finals and this was even after 2007 when Federer was past his prime.

LOL at Rafa starting to MASTER grass. Has he ever defended a grass slam title? How many slams does he have on grass? Two right. Rafa's competition is not difficult on grass now he is just not as good on grass as he is on clay. Give me a break.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 07:02 PM
I saw Andy up close at cinci and was the most impressed with his game. His downfall is that he complains to his coaches too much and is not as focused as he should be. If he can overcome that, I think he has the game to beat all of these guys. His movement and ball striking were really good.

I put Murray before Del Po. If Murray can get his head together he will be dangerous. It is a big "if" though.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 07:02 PM
Only a BackhandExpert would know these things. Let us know what you learn from the 102 course next semester!


:lol::lol::lol:

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 07:26 PM
Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!


I agree. It was a weak era all around and Federer, Nadal, and now Djokovic are all capatilizing on it. Guys like Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, and Edberg all had it so much harder with very deep fields and lots of strong players on all surfaces (and no I am not saying all those players are better than Federer and Nadal but their competition sure was). The fact Djokovic could end up giving this era 3 men who have won career slams and won double digit slams, when previously only about 5 men in history had done either (and not all the same ones) is telling enough. Along with the fact Djokovic has a good chance to have the 3rd 5 slam year in the last 8 years, and while Federer didnt win 3 slams in 2005 he lost only 4 matches so you might as well add that to the group as well.

In the old days you used to have specialists on clay and grass. Now there is no such thing. It is the same 1-3 players winning everything on every surface. There are no specialists, and the top 10 is full of scrubs with 30% the ability of the top few. Just compare for instance the likes of Robredo, Monfils, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer to prime Federer, Nadal, current Djokovic, LOL! It used to be you had to have 80% the ability of a #1 to make the top 10.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 07:36 PM
Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!

Also for your information,Nadal and Federer are pretty much from the same era. Federer started winning slams in 2003 and Nadal won his first in 2005. That means there is only 2 tennis years that separates them. You yourself always brag how Nadal was a child prodigy. So you are admitting Nadal started winning younger and thus was pretty much the same era as Federer who was a later bloomer. If Federer had a weak era so did Nadal I am afraid.

Djokovic and Murray? How many times did they defeat Federer in HC slam finals? I will tell you, NEVER. Real strong competition for Federer in slam finals and this was even after 2007 when Federer was past his prime.

LOL at Rafa starting to MASTER grass. Has he ever defended a grass slam title? How many slams does he have on grass? Two right. Rafa's competition is not difficult on grass now he is just not as good on grass as he is on clay. Give me a break.



We've already gone through that thousands of times on this board (yawn). Before 2008, Nadal's achievements off clay were very limited, if not non existent (except for 2005, only time before 2008 when Rafa won 2 tier 1 events- masters- on hard, Fed had a free pass in slams).
In 2007, Djoko and Murray were still babies, yet they both managed to beat Fed in best of 3 but Fed would rack up a few more slams before Nadal became more of a threat on hard and grass and Djoko came into his own.
Davy has always sucked in slams (he's never denied it). Nalby was completely inconsistent. Hewitt went AWOL and Roddick was Fed's b-tch. That's why Fed ended up with 16 slams. (partially). No challenger other than on clay.

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 07:41 PM
I always hoped Davydenko would win a slam. To me his game was like a better version of Kafelnikov's and Kafelnikov won 2 slams. However he never had the mental strength to rise for the big moments like Kafelnikov who never won a Masters yet still won 2 slams. He definitely had the game to beat Federer, it was obvious watching them play many times, but he was almost always too mentally weak, especialy in best of 5.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 07:47 PM
He always bent over for Fed. One thing that cannot be denied is that Fed is the most hyped player of all time. It was something bizarre to witness. I had people around me claiming Fed would win 15 Wimbledon titles. It was like being suddenly thrown into a real life version of "fly over a cuckoo's nest". Megalomania gone mad.

mandy01
08-24-2011, 07:52 PM
Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!

Also for your information,Nadal and Federer are pretty much from the same era. Federer started winning slams in 2003 and Nadal won his first in 2005. That means there is only 2 tennis years that separates them. You yourself always brag how Nadal was a child prodigy. So you are admitting Nadal started winning younger and thus was pretty much the same era as Federer who was a later bloomer. If Federer had a weak era so did Nadal I am afraid.

Djokovic and Murray? How many times did they defeat Federer in HC slam finals? I will tell you, NEVER. Real strong competition for Federer in slam finals and this was even after 2007 when Federer was past his prime.

LOL at Rafa starting to MASTER grass. Has he ever defended a grass slam title? How many slams does he have on grass? Two right. Rafa's competition is not difficult on grass now he is just not as good on grass as he is on clay. Give me a break.
Dude, why do you bother? Even in this supposedly stronger era, Roger was the one to beat the hottest guy on tour currently while El Martir has his five losses to Djokovic in his head even when he isn't playing him.
As to Nadal supposedly coming into his prime in 2008. LOL, despite his supposed prime, Nadal has reached only two HC slam finals in three years. That's a lot worse than Roger did on his worst surface.

15_ounce
08-24-2011, 07:54 PM
What a lot of bull crap. Djoker hasn't even had a career grand slam yet, and he's yet to win Roland Garros and US Open.


Djokovic the most complete player of all time:

He can roar like a lion
He can surrender like a pusssycat
He can melt in the heat
He can joke like a clown

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/roddickwatch/animated%20gifs/novak.gif

cc0509
08-24-2011, 07:54 PM
We've already gone through that thousands of times on this board (yawn). Before 2008, Nadal's achievements off clay were very limited, if not non existent (except for 2005, only time before 2008 when Rafa won 2 tier 1 events- masters- on hard, Fed had a free pass in slams).
In 2007, Djoko and Murray were still babies, yet they both managed to beat Fed in best of 3 but Fed would rack a few more slams before Nadal became more of a threat on hard and grass and Djoko came into his own.
Davy has always sucked in slams (he's never denied it). Nalby was completely inconsistent. Hewitt went AWOL and Roddick was Fed's b-tch. That's why Fed won 16 slams. (partially). No challenger other than on clay.

I don't care how many times we have gone through it on this forum before, I don't agree with it.

Nadal defeated Federer in Miami in 2004 and gave him a difficult match in 2005. If Nadal could beat and stick with Federer there why couldn't he win HC slams? What you say makes no sense, sorry.

Federer still won HC slams past 2007 and Nadal could not stop him (aside from in 2009 at the AO), nor could Murray or Djokovic. In 2007 Djokovic did not defeat Federer in the USO final when he was a baby according to you. But, the following year in 2008 Djokovic won the AO did he not? So much for your Djokovic as a baby not being able to win slams! :rolleyes: And Murray? Could not defeat Roger in 2008 at the USO--when Roger was past his prime already. Then in 2010 was Murray still considered a baby? That Murray still could not defeat Federer at the AO. So all this baby stuff is hogwash.

This is a strong era? Aside from the top 4 whom I have already talked about above, this is the biggest clown era ever. Look at the rest of the top 10. Soderling, Monfils, Fish, Berdych, Almagro. Have any of them won any slams? I must have missed that. In 2004 you had Roddick, Hewitt, Moya, Agassi. Did they not win slams? I am pretty sure they did.

Clarky21
08-24-2011, 07:56 PM
Djokovic looks like he's going to barf in that gif posted above.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 07:56 PM
To mandy01: I didn't say that even after 2008, Rafa was a huge threat on hard, I just said that before 2008 he was not one at all and those are the years (2004-2007) when Fed piled up most slams. He didn't have a credible rival on hard during that time. At least, not in slams.

mandy01
08-24-2011, 08:00 PM
To mandy01: I didn't say that even after 2008, Rafa was a huge threat on hard, I just said that before 2008 he was not one at all and those are the years (2004-2007) when Fed piled up most slams. He didn't have a credible rival on hard during that time. At least, not in slams.by your logic, he hasn't had one even after 2008 considering he was still winning HC slams and mind you, 2 slam finals don't come close to rivaling someone on a surface. It's not like Nadal has made any significant difference in that regard. Roger on the other hand, till AO 2010 was almost a regular in slam finals across all surfaces. So stop making Nadal out to be the hero he isn't. Not on Hard anyway.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 08:03 PM
Dude, why do you bother? Even in this supposedly stronger era, Roger was the one to beat the hottest guy on tour currently while El Martir has his five losses to Djokovic in his head even when he isn't playing him.
As to Nadal supposedly coming into his prime in 2008. LOL, despite his supposed prime, Nadal has reached only two HC slam finals in three years. That's a lot worse than Roger did on his worst surface.

True. It totally depends on my mood--i.e. if I am in the mood to argue about things that are so completely obvious or not!

Yes, it took Nadal 4 years since winning his first slam in 2005 to get to the finals at the 2009 AO to meet Roger in a HC slam. Yet Roger was meeting Nadal at the FO in finals on Roger's worst surface since 2005, that is 2 years after Roger's first slam. All of this baby and prime Nadal talk is complete nonsense.

Sid_Vicious
08-24-2011, 08:03 PM
I see what you mean. Nadal is perhaps the most overhyped clay court legend to ever play this game. All 6 of his FOs were won against weak and incompetent players like Federer(most hyped loser in tennis history) and the Spanish Armada. Djokovic was simply not a threat on clay in past years. 2011 is the start of Djokovic's peak clay court tennis and he already beat Nadal to the cleaners twice in straight sets. The lack of a main rival will always be well noted when people look at Nadal's inflated RG count of 6. However, that is not his fault. Nadal is still a great player but he is overrated. :(

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 08:05 PM
Mandy01: after 2007 doesn't matter. The reason why Fed reached 16 in the end is his 3 seasons with 3 slams each: 2004, 2006, 2007. Well, on top of his great talent- that we all know and admire- I'm arguing there was a big absence of challenger on hard, which made it easy for Fed to win both AO and USO those years.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 08:08 PM
I see what you mean. Nadal is perhaps the most overhyped clay court "legend" (:lol:) to ever play this game. All 6 of his FOs were won against weak and incompetent players like Federer(most hyped loser in tennis history) and the Spanish Armada. Djokovic was simply not a threat on clay in past years. 2011 is the start of Djokovic's peak clay court tennis and he already took Nadal to the cleaners twice in straight sets. The lack of a main rival will always be well noted when people look at Nadal's inflated RG count of 6.



Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 08:08 PM
To mandy01: I didn't say that even after 2008, Rafa was a huge threat on hard, I just said that before 2008 he was not one at all and those are the years (2004-2007) when Fed piled up most slams. He didn't have a credible rival on hard during that time. At least, not in slams.

And who besides Roger were Nadal's credible rivals on clay? Roger was the only one meeting him in most of the FO clay finals. Or heck who were Nadal's rivals on clay in any tournament. 70% of his wins have come on clay. Are you telling me Nadal had big competition on clay? He is good on clay and was better than his rivals just as Roger was better than most of his rivals on grass and HC at least until 2008 when Roger had already started his decline. Same thing dear, good competition or not.

Nadal was more than capable of meeting Roger on HC slams surfaces in finals yet he was not able to do it. Forget this baby/prime Nadal s hit.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 08:11 PM
Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.

And you know this how? Are you psychic?

It has been explained to you that even past 2007 when Federer was past his prime Djokovic and Murray the hard court wonders were not able to defeat Fed in slam HC finals so your strong competition past 2007 for Fed makes no sense.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 08:13 PM
How is Nadal's competition on clay affecting Fed's competition on hard in the slightest? It's not. This is a thread about Fed, not Nadal. Fed is the one who is called best tennis player ever by the media, not Nadal. Fed is the one the hype was all about.
Nadal has both Fed and Djoko to contend with on clay, more than Fed had to contend with on other surfaces between 2004 and 2007.

DragonBlaze
08-24-2011, 08:14 PM
Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.

No but Sid_Vicious has done as good of a job as you explaining Nadal's clay achievements. They are clearly extremely inflated since he didnt have a challenger till Djokovic and look what happened then :lol:. So basically Rafa is nowhere near the clay GOAT title and is a very overrated player on clay. Thank you for showing that to us, since it was your logic that allowed us to reach this conclusion.

Nadal has Federer and Djokovic to contend with? Pleaseeee. Firstly accroding to you Federer is already overrated on HC as it is which had weak competition, and yet it has clearly had relatively the greater amount of competition over the last decade or so due to the tour structure. So since Federer is only good on HC but not great, we can leave him out of clay as "competition" since he is much worse on the surface.

And Nadal hasn't been contending with Djokovic at all this year (when he finally matured according to you). He just been showing up to get pummeled :lol:

This is ofcourse all in accordance with your own logic.

Sid_Vicious
08-24-2011, 08:16 PM
Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.

You can make these kinds of arguments for any player. You just picked Federer because you hate him.

If Borg had gotten a rival like Mcenroe earlier on in his career, he might not have won 5 straight wimbledon.

Sampras won 7 slams on grass, but who were his major rivals? Sampras beat 6 different players in the 7 finals he played. If he had a steady rival on grass he would have won something like (~8 grand slams). Note: I am making this number up like you did for Federer with 10.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 08:17 PM
How is Nadal's competition on clay affecting Fed's competition on hard in the slightest? It's not. This is a thread about Fed, not Nadal. Fed is the one who is called best tennis player by the media, not Nadal. Fed is the one the hype was all about.
Nadal has both Fed and Djoko to contend with on clay, more than Fed had to contend with on other surfaces between 2004 and 2007.

NOW Nadal has Djokovic to contend with on clay. Before this year Djokovic was no competition for Nadal on clay. What does Fed being called the best player in the media have to do with what we are talking about? My point is Nadal's competition on clay has never been strong. Federer was his strongest competition. Also Nadal has been called the greatest on clay by the media for years so same difference. I think he is the greatest on clay but to say he had strong competition at any time on clay is not true.

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 08:17 PM
This is a strong era? Aside from the top 4 whom I have already talked about above, this is the biggest clown era ever. Look at the rest of the top 10. Soderling, Monfils, Fish, Berdych, Almagro. Have any of them won any slams? I must have missed that. In 2004 you had Roddick, Hewitt, Moya, Agassi. Did they not win slams? I am pretty sure they did.

Hewitt and Roddick were #2 and #3 so it is silly to compare them to the current guys ranked #5 and lower like Soderling. The field then was basically the same as now, a strong top 4 (though not as strong as now since Nadal, Djokovic, and even old Federer >> Hewitt and Roddick) and a weak top 10 after that. 35 year old Agassi with a major back injury being one of the top players is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the field back then btw. Keep in mind we are all talking how much weaker Federer was at only 28, if not sooner.

PS- if you consider Federer weak competition on clay even for an 18 and 19 year old Nadal who was already dominating Federer and in general on the surface, then I gues you are conceding Federer is not even a top 10 player all time on the surface.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 08:18 PM
And you know this how? Are you psychic?

It has been explained to you that even past 2007 when Federer was past his prime Djokovic and Murray the hard court wonders were not able to defeat Fed in slam HC finals so your strong competition past 2007 for Fed makes no sense.

Er Djoko has already defeated Fed in 2 AO and 1 USO. You want more? You're gonna get more, don't worry. (they're also 6 years younger, something Fed benefited from immensely).
I didn't say Fed would have won 0 slam with more competition. I said he would not have won AO AND USO year after year like he did if there had been better players around then. Maybe you haven't noticed but since 2007, Fed has never won AO and USO in the same season again. Why? Nadal and Djoko mostly.

Sentinel
08-24-2011, 08:18 PM
The moment is saw Đoković with his poodle, I knew he was the most complete player of all time. That's whats missin in Fred and Ralph and all the others.

p.s. Murray's terrier (or spaniel, i forget) doesn't count.

abmk
08-24-2011, 08:22 PM
funny how federer's RoS is getting under-rated. At his prime, it was nearly as good as any , especially vs the big servers

cc0509
08-24-2011, 08:22 PM
Er Djoko has already defeated Fed in 2 AO and 1 USO. You want more? You're gonna get more, don't worry. (they're also 6 years younger, something Fed benefited from immensely).
I didn't say Fed would have won 0 slam with more competition. I said he would not have won AO AND USO year after year like he did if there had been better players around then. Maybe you haven't noticed but since 2007, Fed has never won AO and USO in the same season again. Why? Nadal and Djoko mostly.

The fact that he was past his prime has nothing to do with it I guess. :rolleyes:

Let's see how many slams Rafa wins past his prime, ok?

abmk
08-24-2011, 08:23 PM
No but Sid_Vicious has done as good of a job as you explaining Nadal's clay achievements. They are clearly extremely inflated since he didnt have a challenger till Djokovic and look what happened then :lol:. So basically Rafa is nowhere near the clay GOAT title and is a very overrated player on clay. Thank you for showing that to us, since it was your logic that allowed us to reach this conclusion.

Nadal has Federer and Djokovic to contend with? Pleaseeee. Firstly accroding to you Federer is already overrated on HC as it is which had weak competition, and yet it has clearly had relatively the greater amount of competition over the last decade or so due to the tour structure. So since Federer is only good on HC but not great, we can leave him out of clay as "competition" since he is much worse on the surface.

And Nadal hasn't been contending with Djokovic at all this year (when he finally matured according to you). He just been showing up to get pummeled :lol:

This is ofcourse all in accordance with your own logic.

LOL, that is some pwnage :)

Tony48
08-24-2011, 08:23 PM
Yeah, you've got it. And I think the point is that he has the most complete game to exploit the era he's playing in. In a grass-court era his game would be seriously lacking in some crucial areas - his volleys are OK, but not nearly good enough, and his overhead would be a serious liability. But on the tour now, with slow or medium slow courts at nearly every event, his game has almost no weakness.

On clay his movement isn't quite as good as it is on hardcourts, which is one of the reasons Fed was able to beat him at the French. And his head can still go off, especially if his daddy is being hard on him.

Ranking the critical skills to today's game, I would say:

Forehand:
Nadal 10
Federer 10
Djokovic 9
Murray 8

Backhand:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 8
Murray 9.5

Serve:
Federer 9.5
Djokovic 9
Nadal 8
Murray 9

Return:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 9
Murray 9.5

Movement:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9.5
Federer 9
Murray 9

Defense:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 10
Federer 8.5
Murray 9.5

Net play (tactics, volleys & overheads):
Federer 9
Nadal 8
Djokovic 7.5
Murray 8

Mental:
Nadal 10
Federer 9
Djokovic 8
Murray 7.5

Confidence at present:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 8
Federer 7.5
Murray 7.5

Totals (just for kicks):

Djokovic 83.5
Nadal 81.5
Federer 79.5
Murray 77.5

I pretty much agree with all of that. Although I'd give Federer a 7.5 or an 8 the mentality department (see 2009 U.S. Open final). Federer rarely faces pressure from most opponents (because he's so good), but when it's unexpected, he tends to crumble, IMO.

Fuji
08-24-2011, 08:30 PM
Well to scratch the surface on the subject since it is so frequent on message boards (nuthuggers, bandwagon, fanboys , haters, etc), here goes:

1. In a child's early development there are essential needs such as food, nurture, feeling of safety, comfort which are primarily provided by the mother for the most part until puberty (differs slightly for males and females but I'm going to elaborate using the general male model only).

2. When this child approaches puberty and starts attempting to identify himself as a man and no longer a boy, this causes him to reject the mother for a period of time in order to establish himself as an individual or as an adult. He needs a male role model or father figure

3. A present and accepting father or father figure is critical in this child's transition/development into manhood. It is in this period in the child's life that he is seeking to identify with his same sex role model to model him self after and seek the necessary approval and guidance. This approval of the same sex role model builds confidence, security and sets the framework for proper development into manhood. The lack of this acceptance and approval leaves a void which the child will be looking to fill for the rest of his life without even knowing why.

4. What you see on these boards when someone fiercely defends their "favorite" athlete (that they have never had any contact with) is the exposing of the absent male role model in a critical period of their development. They "hate" and reject any threat(other players, fans, family) as they have finally identified with someone. In their mind their favorite player would embrace them and accept them. This is how the fill the void of their childhood in their world.

What I see whenever I observe someone who "hates" or "over embraces" a professional athlete, politician, actor etc is that their childhood had an unfortunate void in it that is trying to be filled.

Any questions?

I don't really over identify with any male player, I enjoy all of them to some extent. Same with male movie stars / anyone famous. Does this mean I was perfectly raised? :?

-Fuji

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 08:31 PM
Nadal has Federer and Djokovic to contend with? Pleaseeee. Firstly accroding to you Federer is already overrated on HC as it is which had weak competition, and yet it has clearly had relatively the greater amount of competition over the last decade or so due to the tour structure. So since Federer is only good on HC but not great, we can leave him out of clay as "competition" since he is much worse on the surface.





The 1st master Fed won was on clay and he also won RG. There is a big difference between saying Fed is ridiculously hyped and Fed sucks. (Clearly Fed and Djoko are better slam players than Davy or Nalby on ANY surface) I am not arguing that Fed is a mediocre player. I am only arguing that he is not the James Bond the media are portraying, lol and that his total # of slams is vastly inflated by the lack of competition on hard during his prime, especially since 2 of the slams and 6 of the masters are on hard. If they were clay instead, Nadal would currently be hailed as Superman with 20 slams in tow.

ALL IN
08-24-2011, 08:40 PM
I don't really over identify with any male player, I enjoy all of them to some extent. Same with male movie stars / anyone famous. Does this mean I was perfectly raised? :?

-Fuji

Sounds like you were! :)

cc0509
08-24-2011, 08:43 PM
PS- if you consider Federer weak competition on clay even for an 18 and 19 year old Nadal who was already dominating Federer and in general on the surface, then I gues you are conceding Federer is not even a top 10 player all time on the surface.



I am not saying Federer was weak competition for Nadal. I am saying who besides Federer was strong competition for Nadal on clay? Nobody. Federer was the only one getting to the FO finals against Nadal mostly year after year and even Federer was not such big competition for Nadal on clay. Nadal is better on clay than Federer.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 08:47 PM
I am not saying Federer was weak competition for Nadal. I am saying who besides Federer was strong competition for Nadal on clay? Nobody. Federer was the only one getting to the FO finals against Nadal mostly year after year and even Federer was not such big competition for Nadal on clay. Nadal is better on clay than Federer.



Yep but Fed didn't have the equivalent of a Nadal, meaning a rival worthy of that name on hard between 2004 and 2007. What he had in finals was clowns like Baghs or novices like just 20 Djoko in 2007.

Fuji
08-24-2011, 08:48 PM
Sounds like you were! :)

Perfect! :) I'm glad to hear it!

-Fuji

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 08:50 PM
I am not saying Federer was weak competition for Nadal. I am saying who besides Federer was strong competition for Nadal on clay? Nobody. Federer was the only one getting to the FO finals against Nadal mostly year after year and even Federer was not such big competition for Nadal on clay. Nadal is better on clay than Federer.

What we are saying though it is the same thing with Federer on hard courts. Between 2004-2007 who was Federer's competition on hard courts. 0 hard court slam semis yet Nadal. Djokovic who only made the top 10 for the first time in 2007. Murray was a total nobody until summer 2008. So I guess his two pigeons Roddick and Hewitt, that is it. Saying Roger would be as dominant with prime Nadal and Djokovic as his main hard court competition (add Murray if you are talking about the whole tour and the Masters, even though we know he is a total mug in slam finals to date) is just as much a personal opinion and speculation as those like veroniquem who are saying he would win no more than 10 slams overall in that case.

Yes Nadal didnt have alot of competition on clay, so neither had much competition overall at all, but atleast he had Federer and Federer on clay >> Roddick and Hewitt on hard courts (particularly if you count Federer as a top 10 all time on clay, which Roddick and Hewitt clearly arent on hard courts despite hard courts being only a prominent surface for 30 years now).

Also if Roddick and Hewitt count as any kind of legitimate competition for Federer despite being his whooping boys, Djokovic would have to count as competition for Nadal on clay too. Djokovic-Nadal had more tough matches on clay even before this year than Federer has with Roddick on hard courts after all.

Lastly of course Nadal is better than Federer on clay. Most people including experts now consider Nadal the greatest clay court player in history. That doesnt mean someone is weak since they are clearly weaker than him. Just like I am sure you consider Federer the greatest hard court player in history, and would say that shouldnt automatically mean a rival is weak on hard courts since they are clearly weaker than him on it.

veroniquem
08-24-2011, 08:53 PM
This is a strong era? Aside from the top 4 whom I have already talked about above, this is the biggest clown era ever. Look at the rest of the top 10. Soderling, Monfils, Fish, Berdych, Almagro. Have any of them won any slams? I must have missed that. In 2004 you had Roddick, Hewitt, Moya, Agassi. Did they not win slams? I am pretty sure they did.




Right now is a very strong era with multiple slam winners at the top of the rankings. It's the equivalent of Sampras/Agassi with Becker/Edberg and even Lendl still in the mix in the 90s.
2005-2007 was a 2 player era but they happened to be strong on different surfaces. On hard it was a no man's land era for reasons I've already explained in my earlier posts.
2004 was just Fed and no one else, not even on clay.

CyBorg
08-24-2011, 08:57 PM
Nick says so. Must be fact.

Magnus
08-24-2011, 09:17 PM
Novak is the complete basline player, but he lacks some shots, most notably the slice. He doesn't hit it well enough and often enough. Of course he doesn't need to right now, but he might will in the futre. His serve lacks some variety. He doesn't use a lot of different spins and his accuracy could be better.
I think its his amazing footwork and fitness that does the trick for him nowdays, its nearly flawless.

zagor
08-24-2011, 10:50 PM
How is Nadal's competition on clay affecting Fed's competition on hard in the slightest? It's not. This is a thread about Fed, not Nadal. Fed is the one who is called best tennis player ever by the media, not Nadal. Fed is the one the hype was all about.

Actually it isn't, this is a thread about Nick's statement about Novak. Furthemore most complete player does in no way translate to being the best ever.

Nadal has both Fed and Djoko to contend with on clay, more than Fed had to contend with on other surfaces between 2004 and 2007.

LOL no, aside from this year Novak has never been any competition to Nadal on clay whatsover, Nadal has lost zero sets in RG to Novak in their 3 meetings. Overall Novak has hardly been Nadal's rival at all until this year(one single year) when he finally beat him in a slam.

Heck say Safin has been a much bigger rival to Fed on HC than Novak is to Nadal on clay.

Furthemore Fed didn't avoid Novak on HC, he played him 6 times in HC slams which is the same number of times for example Sampras and Agassi played each other. Novak is one of Fed's biggest rivals on HC and vice versa, overall it's one of the biggest rivalries on HC in the open era.

zagor
08-24-2011, 10:59 PM
Also if Roddick and Hewitt count as any kind of legitimate competition for Federer despite being his whooping boys, Djokovic would have to count as competition for Nadal on clay too. Djokovic-Nadal had more tough matches on clay even before this year than Federer has with Roddick on hard courts after all.

Disagree, Roddick and Hewitt atleast pushed Fed to some pretty tough/close 4 setters in HC slams and they themselves are HC slam winners and multiple HC slam finalists.

Novak on the other hand has to date failed to take a single set off Nadal at RG and still hasn't reached a RG final. Do I expect/hope that to change in the future? Yes but as of now that's the way things stand.

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 11:07 PM
Djokovic and Nadal had some outstanding matches on clay in 2008 and 2009. Hamburg 2008, Monte Carlo 2009, Madrid 2009. Nadal was in real danger of losing all of those but pulled through. Yes they havent had a great match at Roland Garros yet but Djokovic has only met Nadal at Roland Garros once since 2008 and that was the 2008 French semis. That was possibly Nadal's best tournament ever on clay, Djokovic still managed 12 games which is much better than anyone else did vs Nadal at that years French (Federer managed 4). Djokovic has been a much tougher opponent for Nadal on clay than Federer has from 2008 onwards, that is for sure.

I always felt Djokovic beating Nadal on clay this year was long overdue given what a challenge he has been the last few years (minus 2010 when Djokovic was in crap form and they didnt play on clay).

Murrayfan31
08-24-2011, 11:08 PM
Novak Djokovic will win the US Open. Name a particular shot that Djokovic struggles with? It used to be the forehand. It is no longer a weakness. In some cases, it is more lethal to his backhand. Though his backhand is incredibly consistent. The rest of the tour will have to play for second for awhile. Murray might be the only one that matches up well to Djokovic.

zagor
08-24-2011, 11:16 PM
Djokovic and Nadal had some outstanding matches on clay in 2008 and 2009. Hamburg 2008, Monte Carlo 2009, Madrid 2009. Nadal was in real danger of losing all of those but pulled through. Yes they havent had a great match at Roland Garros yet but Djokovic has only met Nadal at Roland Garros once since 2008 and that was the 2008 French semis. That was possibly Nadal's best tournament ever on clay, Djokovic still managed 12 games which is much better than anyone else did vs Nadal at that years French (Federer managed 4). Djokovic has been a much tougher opponent for Nadal on clay than Federer has from 2008 onwards, that is for sure.

I always felt Djokovic beating Nadal on clay this year was long overdue given what a challenge he has been the last few years (minus 2010 when Djokovic was in crap form and they didnt play on clay).

We're talking about Fed and Nadal here, slams are what it's all about for these guys. Do you for a second believe that Nadal would trade his RG title this year for Madrid/Rome in which Novak beat him?

Sorry, I like Novak and all but I can't call him a big rival to Nadal on clay when he didn't even push him to 4 at RG so far, that's just the way I see it for now. Probably won't matter that much in the future anyway as if Novak continues to work this hard he should do great at FO for the next 1-2 years and in all likability we'll see a good battle between them there.

Marius_Hancu
08-24-2011, 11:32 PM
B's stunted understanding of tennis is well known: he's never grown a player well equipped in the S-V area.

Opaque thinking.

beast of mallorca
08-24-2011, 11:36 PM
Novak Djokovic will win the US Open. Name a particular shot that Djokovic struggles with? It used to be the forehand. It is no longer a weakness. In some cases, it is more lethal to his backhand. Though his backhand is incredibly consistent. The rest of the tour will have to play for second for awhile. Murray might be the only one that matches up well to Djokovic.

Are you forgetting Federer then ? He's a 5x US Open champ, and this is his best chance to win his last GS before he declines any further. He'll just have to hope not to meet Tsonga/Berdych in the quarters, then he'll have his chance.

5555
08-25-2011, 01:00 AM
You all ,,experts,, do you honestly think anyone at home behind PC know more about tennis than Bollettieri?
+1

This is the most important post on this thread.

fps
08-25-2011, 02:37 AM
+1

This is the most important post on this thread.

True, but think about what Bollettieri is part of the tennis industry and generating hype is good for the sport, so his words have to be considered from that angle too, building up the new number 1. It's important for the sport that no-one sees a new guy getting to the top as a sign of the decline of two greats, but as a young man stepping up and surpassing the previous levels of tennis.

Every sport needs to give the impression it's better now than it ever has been.

15_ounce
08-25-2011, 02:53 AM
You all ,,experts,, do you honestly think anyone at home behind PC know more about tennis than Bollettieri? i donīt think so. It is questionable if Novak is the most complete player ever or not, but we can make some analysis and compare him - old players that used SV style are already out of this, because maybe they were complete in 80s-90s but today with modern baseline game those SV style guys like McEnroe looked not so complete after all. From 90s maybe Agassi is good for complete player and from now- Roger has versatility, but his game is not so ,,complete,, like you think, Nadal obviously out of question here, than we have Djokovic - great 2H BH, solid FH, now solid Serve, super deffense, super movement, best ROS, average volleys- for this decade - but volleys are not so important novadays- but still volleys he should improove and even his serve isnīt nothing special for No.1 guy, but overall he has 6,7 things great or very good from 8- only volleys are not great or very good. Show me another player who was 6,7 from 8- at very high level- maybe Agassi at his prime, but we can say that this Nole is even quicker, better and so on.. So i think Nole is really most complete guy ever.

We didn't say we're experts. If you're an expert yourself, you don't sound so expert. You contradicted yourself there.

As for Bollettieri, I don't respect the way he turns kids into soulless, robotic animals and a tennis academy into a cash cow.

Shady_Sawyer
08-25-2011, 03:04 AM
Dedicated to all the clowns who say Djokovic's volleys suck


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kGXedxiCXA


and this too


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Adg1-O3NE0&t=0m37s

MrFlip
08-25-2011, 03:16 AM
Nick's comments are pure $ for his double-handed academy.

DM07
08-25-2011, 03:36 AM
I can kind of see what he means. This year he's basically shown himself to be a more balanced, more aggressive version of Nadal, with fewer weaknesses. He probably won't win as many slams as Nadal because he's peaked at such a later age, but I'd go as far as to say that peak-Djokovic is a better all round tennis player than peak-Nadal. All he needed was to sort out his fitness and mentality.

But most complete of all time? His volleys and approach play aren't the best, and there isn't always enough variety - he likes getting into a rhythm, so sometimes has problems against Fed and Murray. Surely you'd have to give that title to Bjorn Borg? Speed, fitness, forehand and backhand, good volley when needed ...

djokovic2008
08-25-2011, 04:56 AM
Novak is the complete basline player, but he lacks some shots, most notably the slice. He doesn't hit it well enough and often enough. Of course he doesn't need to right now, but he might will in the futre. His serve lacks some variety. He doesn't use a lot of different spins and his accuracy could be better.
I think its his amazing footwork and fitness that does the trick for him nowdays, its nearly flawless.

When you have an offensive weapon as novak has on the backhand you do not need to slice so often. This is where murray goes wrong, he has a good slice but would rather use that than be agressive with his backhand then the opponent gets on top in the rally. Novak maintains pressure by driving his backhand and not letting his oppenent off the hook by needlessly going for slice. Slice is good for mixing up the pace but not too much of it.

TennisCJC
08-25-2011, 06:35 AM
When Djoko has 17 slams, when can talk about him being the most complete player of all time. I think he will be somewhat dominant for the next 2-3 years and then his performance will fade. Currently, he has 3 slams. I believe he will end up with 8-10 slams which is great.

His serve is still not in the top 10-20 all time great serves and his volleying is only adequate.

Tactically, he is not the best either. He struggles when players don't get into a slam fest with him. He likes Nadal, Soderling, and Berdych type players who basically try to out bash and out run him and no one can out bash or out run him at the moment. He doesn't like Murry and Federer types as they mix speed, spins and depth which he has yet to figure out. Also, he doesn't adjust very quickly tactically either. Nadal backed up and started looping the ball more in Wimby 3rd and 4th sets and Djoko took about a set to figure out all he had to do was move forward as there is no way Nadal can pass him consistently from 8-10 feet behind the baseline. Djoko looked kind of lost in the 3rd and beginning of 4th sets until he figured it out.

15_ounce
08-25-2011, 05:43 PM
When Djoko has 17 slams, when can talk about him being the most complete player of all time. I think he will be somewhat dominant for the next 2-3 years and then his performance will fade. Currently, he has 3 slams. I believe he will end up with 8-10 slams which is great.

His serve is still not in the top 10-20 all time great serves and his volleying is only adequate.

Tactically, he is not the best either. He struggles when players don't get into a slam fest with him. He likes Nadal, Soderling, and Berdych type players who basically try to out bash and out run him and no one can out bash or out run him at the moment. He doesn't like Murry and Federer types as they mix speed, spins and depth which he has yet to figure out. Also, he doesn't adjust very quickly tactically either. Nadal backed up and started looping the ball more in Wimby 3rd and 4th sets and Djoko took about a set to figure out all he had to do was move forward as there is no way Nadal can pass him consistently from 8-10 feet behind the baseline. Djoko looked kind of lost in the 3rd and beginning of 4th sets until he figured it out.

Yeah, even Tomic will cause some troubles for Nole.

d4o
08-25-2011, 05:57 PM
Nick says so. Must be fact.

Nick says so. Must be a lie.

5555
08-26-2011, 12:11 AM
When Djoko has 17 slams, when can talk about him being the most complete player of all time.
The most complete player does not translate to being the best ever.

cknobman
08-26-2011, 06:15 AM
Nole is ONE OF the most complete BASELINE players ever.

That is what Nick meant to say.

Nathaniel_Near
08-26-2011, 09:04 AM
You all ,,experts,, do you honestly think anyone at home behind PC know more about tennis than Bollettieri? i donīt think so. It is questionable if Novak is the most complete player ever or not, but we can make some analysis and compare him - old players that used SV style are already out of this, because maybe they were complete in 80s-90s but today with modern baseline game those SV style guys like McEnroe looked not so complete after all. From 90s maybe Agassi is good for complete player and from now- Roger has versatility, but his game is not so ,,complete,, like you think, Nadal obviously out of question here, than we have Djokovic - great 2H BH, solid FH, now solid Serve, super deffense, super movement, best ROS, average volleys- for this decade - but volleys are not so important novadays- but still volleys he should improove and even his serve isnīt nothing special for No.1 guy, but overall he has 6,7 things great or very good from 8- only volleys are not great or very good. Show me another player who was 6,7 from 8- at very high level- maybe Agassi at his prime, but we can say that this Nole is even quicker, better and so on.. So i think Nole is really most complete guy ever.

Too many people with short term memories. These 8 things that you propose.. prime for prime (Fed kept his going for a number of years):

Backhand

Djokovic - great
Federer - good
Nadal - good

Forehand

Djokovic - very good
Federer - sheer brilliance
Nadal - great

Serve

Djokovic - good
Federer - very good
Nadal - good (just)

Defense

Djokovic - great
Federer - very good
Nadal - unbelievable

Movement

Djokovic - great
Federer - great
Nadal - great

Return of Serve
Djokovic - great
Federer - very good
Nadal - very good

Volleys
Djokovic - mediocre
Federer - good
Nadal - mediocre

Versatility - playing style and court adaptation

Djokovic - good
Federer - great
Nadal - very good

Bare in mind that good is a high mark, but the standards are high here.

Elements for Djokovic which are very good or higher - 5/8
Elements for Federer which *were for a long period of time* very good or higher - 6/8, including an otherworldly forehand. I also believe prime Fed had greater fitness, and mentality and was a superior shot-maker and probably still is.
Elements for Nadal which are very good or higher - 5/8


In short, Djokovic is not the most complete player even of his era. He certainly doesn't feel or look like one when I watch him play.

.. Super solid baseliner with a pressurizing game, great defense and ability to turn a rally around, and currently great, great confidence.

EDIT: Let's add Nadal to these 8 categories, though they don't include some which give Nadal more mad props.

You could perhaps argue that Fed should have 7/8 for a very good prime backhand and Djoker 6/8 for very good versatility, I think not though.

Evan77
08-26-2011, 01:55 PM
So, all of you tennis experts here, are smarter than Nick, lol.

Novak is too strong. It's very hard to hurt him. Deal with it. :)

Subventricular Zone
08-26-2011, 03:05 PM
Another bandwagoner...what else is new?

tennis_pro
08-26-2011, 03:12 PM
So, all of you tennis experts here, are smarter than Nick, lol.

Novak is too strong. It's very hard to hurt him. Deal with it. :)

that doesn't mean he's the most complete player ever

Agassifan
08-26-2011, 04:44 PM
He could be among the 2 or 3 most complete players of all time or ever the MOST complete, but completeness does not mean best. He doesn't have a weapon like Fed's FH in his prime or Fed's effortlessness. Of course, he does a few things better than Prime Fed, but that is not the point.

IvanisevicServe
08-26-2011, 08:46 PM
I think people are forgetting how fast, explosive, and flexible Federer was in 2006 and prior. I'd recommend watching some videos. He was running circles around his opponents. His defense was second-to-none until Nadal came around, and even then, it was pretty close between the two.

What's telling is that he used to be one of the best returners in tennis...and now his return game is mediocre at best. What that tells me is Federer never really had great "court sense" or "feel" at all. What he had was incredible athletic ability and shot making ability. When he lost those attributes, elements of his game plummeted completely.

With that said, I don't think Djokovic has a real weakness. Even his volleys aren't that bad. You don't accumulate a record like he has this season without being a spectacular player.

15_ounce
08-26-2011, 09:56 PM
Andre Agassi said to his father:


Pops, I say, Nick’s ruining my game. It’s all about hitting from the baseline—we never
work on my net game. We never work on serve and volley.



I'd say Nick is epic fail.

Evan77
08-27-2011, 08:11 AM
I was kinda joking. I don't know. The most complete player ever? I think it's Roger. However, Novak is very good.

Why is he #1 right now? He moves so well. His court coverage is fantastic. His BH is great. His FH is great.

I've been his fan since 2006 I think. So, please don't call me a bandwagoner. I've just joined this board. I do post on MTF (which I hate) since '06

I do love his personality tho.

iamke55
08-27-2011, 09:13 AM
Djokovic does have the most complete game ever. Tell Nadal he's gonna play against Federer and he's thinking "oh this will be easy, just hit his backhand every time". Tell Nadal he's gonna play Djokovic and he's thinking "no idea what to do so I'll just hit to his backhand anyway and pray he plays like Federer"

Evan77
08-27-2011, 02:37 PM
Djokovic does have the most complete game ever. Tell Nadal he's gonna play against Federer and he's thinking "oh this will be easy, just hit his backhand every time". Tell Nadal he's gonna play Djokovic and he's thinking "no idea what to do so I'll just hit to his backhand anyway and pray he plays like Federer"

it's funny but so true. :)

JustBob
08-27-2011, 03:09 PM
This from the guy who's Academy (and the Academy system in general) is responsible for producing generations of mindless baseline ball bashers and for the downfall of US elite player development. Bollettieri wouldn't recognize a complete tennis player at 40, let alone at 80...

Clarky21
08-27-2011, 03:10 PM
This from the guy who's Academy (and the Academy system in general) is responsible for producing generations of mindless baseline ball bashers and for the downfall of US elite player development. Bollettieri wouldn't recognize a complete tennis player at 40, let alone at 80...

Qft.

10char

NadalAgassi
08-27-2011, 03:18 PM
For those who are saying Bollettieri is so knowledgable we all have to submit to what he is saying (although in this case I think he is somewhat right) Nick is really one of the most overrated coaches ever. Look at the slam champions he coached and how much of their success he had with them:

Andre Agassi- won exactly ONE of his 8 slams with Nick. Left Nick at 23 years old as a massively underachieving 1 slam winner, then blossomed into an all time great under Brad Gilbert.

Mary Pierce- won 1 of her 2 slams under Bollettieri. OK considering Mary is a bit of a nutcase and 1994 was arguably her best year of tennis ever (and parts of 95) he did pretty well with her.

Monica Seles- won 0 of her 9 slam titles while coached by Bollettieri. She rose to being a French Open Champion and soon an Australian Open Champion and World #1 after leaving him.

Boris Becker- won 0 of his 6 slam titles during his two plus year stint being coached by Bollettieri. Reached 1 slam final.

Jim Courier- reached all of his slam finals after leaving Bolletieri.

He is more famous for being famous than anything. He isnt even close to being one of the Worlds best or most successful coaches. He certainly isnt one of the most astute tactically, all his former students say he only cares about fitness and hard baseline hitting, and that was at a time the best players actually did have some all court skills, variation in spins, and point construction. Not only has he barely coached players to any slam titles, but no top pro has ever stayed with him for the majority of their career, most only for a few yeras. Even before he basically semi retired from serious coaching he wasnt in demand anymore for years. After 1997 or so his only noteable player was Tommy Haas, and off and on Mark Philippousis.

There are far more knowledgable people in tennis than Nick Bollettieri who would not back this particular opinion of his. A great tennis player like Andre Agassi, and a former great tennis player/now famed commentator like John McEnroe I am sure knows far more about tennis than an overhyped coach who has barely coached any champions, and Agassi basically called Bolletteiri a fraud, while McEnroe once said Bolletteiri knows nothing about tennis. I am not saying they are right as they probably have some personal grudges that weighted into their comments on him (especialy Agassi), but their opinions still hold more weight than his do IMO. So to say one has to go along with this opinion just because Nick says it is laughable, despite that I actually do agree with it in part in this case.

JustBob
08-27-2011, 03:34 PM
I said all that in less than 3 lines. :)

Bobby Jr
08-27-2011, 04:25 PM
Nick B knows about 1/10th as much about tennis as people give him credit for. He's demonstrating it perfectly with this recent claim.

15_ounce
08-27-2011, 04:33 PM
Djokovic does have the most complete game ever. Tell Nadal he's gonna play against Federer and he's thinking "oh this will be easy, just hit to his backhand every time". Tell Nadal he's gonna play Djokovic and he's thinking "no idea what to do so I'll just hit to his backhand anyway and pray he plays like Federer"

it's funny but so true. :)

It didn't work at the final of Year End Championship / World Tour Final in London last year though. Fed hits plenty of winners from his backhands. He just ate Nadal's loopy shots with his backhand. Fed can really get serious at his backhands when he really wants to.

15_ounce
08-27-2011, 04:44 PM
This from the guy who's Academy (and the Academy system in general) is responsible for producing generations of mindless baseline ball bashers and for the downfall of US elite player development. Bollettieri wouldn't recognize a complete tennis player at 40, let alone at 80...

For those who are saying Bollettieri is so knowledgable we all have to submit to what he is saying (although in this case I think he is somewhat right) Nick is really one of the most overrated coaches ever. Look at the slam champions he coached and how much of their success he had with them:

Andre Agassi- won exactly ONE of his 8 slams with Nick. Left Nick at 23 years old as a massively underachieving 1 slam winner, then blossomed into an all time great under Brad Gilbert.

Mary Pierce- won 1 of her 2 slams under Bollettieri. OK considering Mary is a bit of a nutcase and 1994 was arguably her best year of tennis ever (and parts of 95) he did pretty well with her.

Monica Seles- won 0 of her 9 slam titles while coached by Bollettieri. She rose to being a French Open Champion and soon an Australian Open Champion and World #1 after leaving him.

Boris Becker- won 0 of his 6 slam titles during his two plus year stint being coached by Bollettieri. Reached 1 slam final.

Jim Courier- reached all of his slam finals after leaving Bolletieri.

He is more famous for being famous than anything. He isnt even close to being one of the Worlds best or most successful coaches. He certainly isnt one of the most astute tactically, all his former students say he only cares about fitness and hard baseline hitting, and that was at a time the best players actually did have some all court skills, variation in spins, and point construction. Not only has he barely coached players to any slam titles, but no top pro has ever stayed with him for the majority of their career, most only for a few yeras. Even before he basically semi retired from serious coaching he wasnt in demand anymore for years. After 1997 or so his only noteable player was Tommy Haas, and off and on Mark Philippousis.

There are far more knowledgable people in tennis than Nick Bollettieri who would not back this particular opinion of his. A great tennis player like Andre Agassi, and a former great tennis player/now famed commentator like John McEnroe I am sure knows far more about tennis than an overhyped coach who has barely coached any champions, and Agassi basically called Bolletteiri a fraud, while McEnroe once said Bolletteiri knows nothing about tennis. I am not saying they are right as they probably have some personal grudges that weighted into their comments on him (especialy Agassi), but their opinions still hold more weight than his do IMO. So to say one has to go along with this opinion just because Nick says it is laughable, despite that I actually do agree with it in part in this case.

Nick B knows about 1/10th as much about tennis as people give him credit for. He's demonstrating it perfectly with this recent claim.

Agreed.

Glad he didn't get into the Hall of Fame this year.

Mustard
08-27-2011, 05:15 PM
Andre Agassi- won exactly ONE of his 8 slams with Nick. Left Nick at 23 years old as a massively underachieving 1 slam winner, then blossomed into an all time great under Brad Gilbert.

Agassi didn't leave Bollettieri. Bollettieri fired Agassi by FedEx soon after 1993 Wimbledon, although Agassi had heard about it in a media report before he had even got the letter. It was a real shock at the time, because Bollettieri had always seemed really taken by Agassi's talent and superstar appeal.

A great tennis player like Andre Agassi, and a former great tennis player/now famed commentator like John McEnroe I am sure knows far more about tennis than an overhyped coach who has barely coached any champions, and Agassi basically called Bolletteiri a fraud, while McEnroe once said Bolletteiri knows nothing about tennis. I am not saying they are right as they probably have some personal grudges that weighted into their comments on him (especialy Agassi), but their opinions still hold more weight than his do IMO. So to say one has to go along with this opinion just because Nick says it is laughable, despite that I actually do agree with it in part in this case.

Yet Agassi and Bollettieri were really close until the split. I wonder why Agassi still has a chip on his shoulder over it since he was a much better tennis player when Gilbert was his coach.

devila
08-27-2011, 07:25 PM
federina's lucky now to be in the top 5. if he had struggled with wooden rackets against the 1980-1986 era players, he wouldn't have won much on clay and slow hardcourt.
djokovic doesn't need his big serve to dominate.... he still was 1 match away from becoming #2 when he had his embarrassing serve and lack of confidence. federina can't win more than 1 title, as long as he shows off bad tactics and slower reaction time.

Mahboob Khan
08-27-2011, 09:10 PM
http://www.spox.com/de/sport/mehrsport/tennis/1108/Artikel/nick-bollettieri-interview-us-open-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-andy-murray-tommy-haas-sabine-lisicki.html


Google translation from German:

Tennis guru Nick Bollettieri with SPOX speaks about the upcoming U.S. Open. The 80-year-olds about the dominance of Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and a recipe for the reasons why Andy Murray is in his opinion, never win a Grand Slam title.
SPOX: Mr. Bollettieri, the U.S. Open just around the corner and Novak Djokovic is 2011 with 57 victories in 59 matches. Kann man überhaupt gegen ihn setzen? Can you even put on him?

Nick Bollettieri: Very difficult. Novak Djokovic is without question the favorite and he is also my tip. My God, the boy has only won five times this year against Rafael Nadal. He suggests the best players in the world - and this at a time when we have a much greater width in the tip than in the 80s or 90s. Shall I tell you something?

SPOX: But please, after all.

Bollettieri: I lean times quite far from the window and say that Djokovic is the most complete player of all time. Strength, speed, technique - no one has ever had such a package like Djokovic. And the main reason why he was so strong, is certain his new training program, including his diet and eating habits (at Djokovic had a gluten intolerance have been observed, Ed). Most people thought he would simply not train hard enough, but since this change, he is physically on a whole new level. The longer the point goes, the longer the match goes, the stronger will be Djokovic. But no one but God wins all the time. We'll see how it goes.

Well, they said the same thing about McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Becker, Sampras, Roger Federer. How about if Federer beats Djokovic in the U.S. Open and goes on to win the final?

RCizzle65
08-27-2011, 11:04 PM
********. He is getting senile the old orange-farmer!

Look at peak Fed and compare him to Djokovic 2011:

1st Serve: Federer by a mile

2nd Serve: Federer

Return of serve: Djokovic by a mile

Forehand: Federer by a mile

Backhand: Djokovic

Slice: Federer by a mile

Transition from defence to offence: Id say very equal

Volley: Federer

Variation: Federer

Shot selection: Equal

Offense: Federer

Defense: Djokovic by a mile

Overhead: Equal id say

Ability to use the whole court: Equal

Ability to get throw your opponent off rhytm/variation: Federer

Only thing I don't agree with is overhead....Federer puts those away easily, Djokovic still seems shaky when he has to hit an overhead. Especially from the baseline, Federer can still put those away, but Djokovic just puts it back in play.

Agassifan
08-27-2011, 11:23 PM
Forehand:
Nadal 10
Federer 10

Movement:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9.5
Federer 9
Murray 9


Is this right now, or in their respective primes? If not the former, LOLOLOLOL

jackson vile
08-28-2011, 06:32 AM
federina's lucky now to be in the top 5. if he had struggled with wooden rackets against the 1980-1986 era players, he wouldn't have won much on clay and slow hardcourt.
djokovic doesn't need his big serve to dominate.... he still was 1 match away from becoming #2 when he had his embarrassing serve and lack of confidence. federina can't win more than 1 title, as long as he shows off bad tactics and slower reaction time.

I did not think of it that way, even Novak (at his worst) was still good enough to be #3 in the world. Says a lot about how complete he is as he is making up ground else where when his serve and forehand were wavering/failing