The fastest player ever - a challenge

N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Djokovic perhaps, yes, only out of anticipation though. So I agree, for a pure split step and reaction/take off I think Rafa has more power in the legs to get them ticking over. Maybe Nole's flexibility in his ankles could actually be part of the slipping? extreme idea but he is a rubber band.

I've just seen to many passing shots from Rafa where I was certain he wouldn't get there. THAT fh passing shot against Fed in the 4th breaker 08 Wimby - who else gets to that?

Federer is a different cat altogether, he is quick, but he almost doesn't look quick perhaps because he never looks rushed. Would have been a good student of John Wooden's.

With Nadal, it's also his upper body strength and what he can do when he actually gets to the ball. The combination is absolutely spectacular, as he's blessed with superb explosiveness, quickness and endurance, as well as strength and resourcefulness. There are probably many very fast ATP tour players who can reach a lot of the balls we think are unreachable, as the margins will be small between the top 20 or so fastest on the tour, but none of them can create as Nadal does, and thus Nadal gets to showcase his abilities even more, as he literally makes more out of his chances and forces more extra shots.

As for Federer, finally, as he ages, he can look rushed and like he's sometimes on the limit. For so many years, this didn't appear to be the case. He had the athleticism and talent to spare to make sure that he could coast with his movement, building himself for longevity and efficiency. I feel like he loses his legs a bit though late in matches with his precise and busy footwork, where as Djokovic's method has less moving parts and in some ways might be more efficient.

It's hard to explain Nadal. His movement style isn't overly efficient and his footwork is also often dazzling and busy and yet he seems to have almost limitless endurance.. though not quite so much these days. He has all the attributes, and is probably the best overall athlete of the era in tennis.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
With Nadal, it's also his upper body strength and what he can do when he actually gets to the ball. The combination is absolutely spectacular, as he's blessed with superb explosiveness, quickness and endurance, as well as strength and resourcefulness. There are probably many very fast ATP tour players who can reach a lot of the balls we think are unreachable, as the margins will be small between the top 20 or so fastest on the tour, but none of them can create as Nadal does, and thus Nadal gets to showcase his abilities even more, as he literally makes more out of his chances and forces more extra shots.

As for Federer, finally, as he ages, he can look rushed and like he's sometimes on the limit. For so many years, this didn't appear to be the case. He had the athleticism and talent to spare to make sure that he could coast with his movement, building himself for longevity and efficiency. I feel like he loses his legs a bit though late in matches with his precise and busy footwork, where as Djokovic's method has less moving parts and in some ways might be more efficient.

It's hard to explain Nadal. His movement style isn't overly efficient and his footwork is also often dazzling and busy and yet he seems to have almost limitless endurance.. though not quite so much these days. He has all the attributes, and is probably the best overall athlete of the era in tennis.

No doubt Nadal's arm/wrist can do a lot on its own, I still think for that precious first few metres out of the blocks he is one of very, very few. Maybe Monfils/Phau can claim to be in his league for 10 metres or so.

For Federer, I think the way he plays, taking the ball early and dancing around backhands was always going to be a big ask into his later years. I think Novak's is more efficient in that he is happy to stand right in the middle and swing from both sides, whereas Fed is looking to make 60-70% of the baseline fh territory, kind of how Pete sat on that mound a metre on the ad court, daring guys to pull him out to his fh.

Nadal, well his methods are exhausting, i get tired just watching him. Phenomenal athlete, the athlete of this generation. I couldn't play 3 games trying to move like he does, let alone swing as hard as he does. Guy is not natural.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
My impression is Djokovic is a better athlete than Nadal
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
My impression is Djokovic is a better athlete than Nadal

I can't see that. Novak struggles a lot moving back for overheads, god help him if he ever tries a backhand overhead, leave that to the athletes.

He doesn't have the power at full stretch like Nadal either. More talented at tennis, yes, but i don't think he is a better athlete.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Two absolutely fascinating posts.

One states that Djokovic is the better athlete than Nadal.

The other states that Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

I struggle to believe it's both, so something has to give - but it was very interesting to hear those two views come out one after the other.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Maybe I conflate "agility" with athleticism. I think I place a higher value on the effortless movement, sliding, flexibility, endurance aspect etc.

To me Novak is a bit skinny but probably the best specimen on tour.

Nadal is just a warrior. Tougher than Novak for sure.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Maybe I conflate "agility" with athleticism. I think I place a higher value on the effortless movement, sliding, flexibility, endurance aspect etc.

To me Novak is a bit skinny but probably the best specimen on tour.

Nadal is just a warrior. Tougher than Novak for sure.

You might not be wrong, and only time will tell. If those attributes lead Novak to incredible longevity at a stage where Nadal is battered and broken, then you'll be vindicated. Djokovic's model is more sustainable than Nadal's.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
You might not be wrong, and only time will tell. If those attributes lead Novak to incredible longevity at a stage where Nadal is battered and broken, then you'll be vindicated.

Can you see Novak maintaining a high level into his early 30's?

I suspect, even if he does, many will just say that the field is weak.

The real test will be the eye test of how well he is moving athletically, and also how he continues to perform on slower surfaces.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Two absolutely fascinating posts.

One states that Djokovic is the better athlete than Nadal.

The other states that Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

I struggle to believe it's both, so something has to give - but it was very interesting to hear those two views come out one after the other.

Maybe I conflate "agility" with athleticism. I think I place a higher value on the effortless movement, sliding, flexibility, endurance aspect etc.

To me Novak is a bit skinny but probably the best specimen on tour.

Nadal is just a warrior. Tougher than Novak for sure.

When i think of 'athlete' i try and think who would be the best at a combine, and who would be the best if you got them to play 10 different sports. Nadal is a specimen, he could easily bulk up and play rugby, or boxing, wrestling, and has shown endurance akin to soccer players and AFL players. His power is evident, I think he has the hardest and best overhead in the game. On the contrary Novak can barely put one away. I've never seen a good athlete not be able to hit the backhand overhead.

If you want to be specific to tennis, then I agree that Novak is the better athlete, he is more suited to the game with his slighter build, but for a general athlete - i pick nadal 10 times out of 10 in high school P.E.

As for talent, I do think Novak edges him here. It's close, but his ROI is incredible as is his change of direction/timing.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
To repeat from last night...

We've reached the point of diminishing returns regarding improvement in the game, especially regarding technology. Djokovic has actually evolved at a time where it might be realistic for him to hold ground at the top of the game into his 30s, with a delayed "rubber band" effect of the tour catching up, which will only probably properly start with the generations that come after Nishikori/Dimitrov/Raonic. You could call that lucky for Djokovic or just call it impressive that Fedalovic collectively hit a pseudo-ceiling for tennis performance, where progressing further or even just matching their level depends on being the total tennis player, rather than exploiting niches in the tactical and strategic framework of tennis.

Sometimes, quantum leaps can be observed regarding the quality of tennis, which is what Federer did starting from 2003/2004. Sampras rested on his laurels and the quality of the game at the top level stagnated for nigh on one decade. Due to this ebbing and flowing — with not one, not two, but three players having an obsessive perfectionist attitude this era — we've reached a point where there's no obvious space or tactic to dethrone the level that's been reached. One simply must now be good enough to climb Everest, which Federer, Nadal and Djokovic managed. Will the following generation ever be good enough to get there and do they have the talent? Djokovic has room to spare due to the heights he has reached, so who is going to seriously dethrone this master of all surfaces, unless he suffers not just a slight decline, but a significant one?

As such, I expect that should Djokovic remain motivated, he'll be on top for a long time yet. I think only Nadal is capable of putting a run together that could take the top rank away now. Nishikori and others? They can sneak Slams, but to dethrone Djokovic they'll need to be consistent all year round and on all surfaces.

It's up to a guy like Kyrgios IMO to readdress the balance of tennis. He provides a prototype which could unlock the defence of Djokovic — he could provide a very new angle of attack for Djokovic to deal with. Nishikori? He's too similar to Djokovic to be consistently beating him at his own game.




Originally Posted by Tutsi Frutsi View Post
Kyrgios? The guy has no reasonable talent except servebotting, just look at his inside in forehand - one of the most comical shots on the entire tour He reached QF's of AO due to the easiest draw ever and QF's of Wimbledon due to Gasquet's clowning. I'm way more impressed with Coric, he possess the mentality and athletic ability of future №1. Actually the most talented player in younger generations is Tomic, but his workethic and poor footwork don't help him to maky any breakthrough.

Nolefans shouldn't be obsessed with weak era accusations/excuses because Nole has valid rivals of his own age:Nadal and Murray. It's not his business how much they declined.


Coric is very limited technically. He's a very good athlete though, maybe even a great one. He's also very resourceful. You know no better than me who will rise from those who are currently teenagers. I chose Kyrgios and not Coric because Kyrgios provides a unique puzzle for Djokovic should he put his game together. Coric is based on the Djokovic archetype, though with snappier and more abbreviated stroke mechanics and a more fluid core rotation (and much less flexibility). So if Coric can do what Djokovic more or less does but better, then he might dethrone Djokovic, but for that to happen he'd need to surpass Djokovic at his own game. Djokovic is the master of that game. Kyrgios plays differently. He could prove to be a worthy foil to Djokovic's paradigm. Focusing too much on the specific player suggestion misses the point somewhat, which is more to do with play style than necessarily a specific player.

The overriding point is that if Djokovic is to be dethroned from his top position by someone other than members of the Trifecta, then I imagine that they'd need to give Djokovic a totally new look, a new configuration. The road Coric is heading down, he'll always be slightly behind Djokovic unless he's genuinely as or more talented. Don't get me wrong, I think both Coric and Kyrgios could find great success on the tour. We just don't know, but the archetype Coric is basing his game on is the safer bet for top level success on the tour given recent evidence, but doesn't inspire me with confidence that he'd ever end up being better than Djokovic unless the great Serbian gets old.



When i think of 'athlete' i try and think who would be the best at a combine, and who would be the best if you got them to play 10 different sports. Nadal is a specimen, he could easily bulk up and play rugby, or boxing, wrestling, and has shown endurance akin to soccer players and AFL players. His power is evident, I think he has the hardest and best overhead in the game. On the contrary Novak can barely put one away. I've never seen a good athlete not be able to hit the backhand overhead.

If you want to be specific to tennis, then I agree that Novak is the better athlete, he is more suited to the game with his slighter build, but for a general athlete - i pick nadal 10 times out of 10 in high school P.E.

As for talent, I do think Novak edges him here. It's close, but his ROI is incredible as is his change of direction/timing.

I think many do view it this way when trying to decide who the best athlete in tennis is.

I view it with regards to how suited the athlete is specifically for the rigours of tennis.

The best tennis athlete might not be the best overall athlete.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Great points as usual NN. I think Kei is like Murray in that regard ..too similar to Djoko but an inferior version so it's a poor outlook (despite his USO win last year)

Zoid, I would agree from an explosive North American based sports angle that Nadal is better than Novak. From that angle, Murray be too.

I guess I'm saying Novak has better "tennis athleticism" He is more of a marathon man for sure than Nadal or Murray though in prototype (despite Nadal's excellent endurance).

What impressed me is Novak having all of these athletic qualities of a 5'9 long legged Moroccan long distance runner, yet being close to 6 feet 2 inches tall. (He looked about 6'1 and a half when I've seen him up close)
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
To repeat from last night...

We've reached the point of diminishing returns regarding improvement in the game, especially regarding technology. Djokovic has actually evolved at a time where it might be realistic for him to hold ground at the top of the game into his 30s, with a delayed "rubber band" effect of the tour catching up, which will only probably properly start with the generations that come after Nishikori/Dimitrov/Raonic. You could call that lucky for Djokovic or just call it impressive that Fedalovic collectively hit a pseudo-ceiling for tennis performance, where progressing further or even just matching their level depends on being the total tennis player, rather than exploiting niches in the tactical and strategic framework of tennis.

Sometimes, quantum leaps can be observed regarding the quality of tennis, which is what Federer did starting from 2003/2004. Sampras rested on his laurels and the quality of the game at the top level stagnated for nigh on one decade. Due to this ebbing and flowing — with not one, not two, but three players having an obsessive perfectionist attitude this era — we've reached a point where there's no obvious space or tactic to dethrone the level that's been reached. One simply must now be good enough to climb Everest, which Federer, Nadal and Djokovic managed. Will the following generation ever be good enough to get there and do they have the talent? Djokovic has room to spare due to the heights he has reached, so who is going to seriously dethrone this master of all surfaces, unless he suffers not just a slight decline, but a significant one?

As such, I expect that should Djokovic remain motivated, he'll be on top for a long time yet. I think only Nadal is capable of putting a run together that could take the top rank away now. Nishikori and others? They can sneak Slams, but to dethrone Djokovic they'll need to be consistent all year round and on all surfaces.

It's up to a guy like Kyrgios IMO to readdress the balance of tennis. He provides a prototype which could unlock the defence of Djokovic — he could provide a very new angle of attack for Djokovic to deal with. Nishikori? He's too similar to Djokovic to be consistently beating him at his own game.

Great post and point. I think it's not a 'ceiling' as much as it has been a drought in technology breakthrough. 10 years ago everyone was still using poly strings and the same frames. Frames haven't progressed at all really in the last 10 years. through 70/80/90 you had strings and rackets constantly getting better as well as training methods and technique.

Now, the knowledge and how to train and play is the same. The game has not been revolutionised by technology or science advancements in fitness or biomechanics. For the first time in history, we may very well be able to compare unfolding eras with the one we have just had the pleasure of witnessing.

Kyrgios is the best hope, but ffs it's a fragile one. Guy likes basketball more than tennis and has an attitude that Nadal would laugh at as an 18 yr old.

He reminds me of a more talented Roddick.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Nadal is especially unusual for me because he has it all. Usually there's a trade off but he has the endurance, the power, the explosiveness and the quickness.

Djokovic is designed to last, and as long as his mind doesn't get tired he'll last a very long time.

Great post and point. I think it's not a 'ceiling' as much as it has been a drought in technology breakthrough. 10 years ago everyone was still using poly strings and the same frames. Frames haven't progressed at all really in the last 10 years. through 70/80/90 you had strings and rackets constantly getting better as well as training methods and technique.

Now, the knowledge and how to train and play is the same. The game has not been revolutionised by technology or science advancements in fitness or biomechanics. For the first time in history, we may very well be able to compare unfolding eras with the one we have just had the pleasure of witnessing.

Kyrgios is the best hope, but ffs it's a fragile one. Guy likes basketball more than tennis and has an attitude that Nadal would laugh at as an 18 yr old.

He reminds me of a more talented Roddick.

Interesting comparison between Nick and Andy.

Good point on the lack of a technological breakthrough. It causes a more stagnant scene where the kings can remain kings for longer. There's no state of flux right now in that regard, like there has been at many points in the Open Era. That certainly contributes to the possibility of sustained dominance even into the 30s for Djokovic. We'll see on Nadal. I still think he can put together bursts of extremely potent form while Djokovic just stays on some typically constant plateau. Even if there was a big change up, Djokovic has simply hit a standard that is deeply impressive, as did Federer and Nadal. One must be talented and hard working in the first place to even begin to approach Djokovic. To take #1 away from him if he keeps the level which he has done since 2012? One must be the total package.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Great points as usual NN. I think Kei is like Murray in that regard ..too similar to Djoko but an inferior version so it's a poor outlook (despite his USO win last year)

Zoid, I would agree from an explosive North American based sports angle that Nadal is better than Novak. From that angle, Murray be too.

I guess I'm saying Novak has better "tennis athleticism" He is more of a marathon man for sure than Nadal or Murray though in prototype (despite Nadal's excellent endurance).

What impressed me is Novak having all of these athletic qualities of a 5'9 long legged Moroccan long distance runner, yet being close to 6 feet 2 inches tall. (He looked about 6'1 and a half when I've seen him up close)

Yea sure, for tennis I would take Novak as well, Nadal is too heavy for tennis. But when I think of athlete i immediately think just generally.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Nadal is especially unusual for me because he has it all. Usually there's a trade off but he has the endurance, the power, the explosiveness and the quickness.

Djokovic is designed to last, and as long as his mind doesn't get tired he'll last a very long time.

Stefanki calls Nadal a "big bodied borg"

Insists Borg is still faster than Nadal but Nadal is still very fast and "built like a horse" in contrast to the "small bodied guys" (I guess Novak could be in that group although he is taller) with great "foot speed for his size"

Ignore the hysterically laughable "he's like Andy" plugs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQ92DTWEbc
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Stefanki calls Nadal a "big bodied borg"

Insists Borg is still faster than Nadal but Nadal is still very fast and "built like a horse" in contrast to the "small bodied guys" (I guess Novak could be in that group although he is taller) with great "foot speed for his size"

Ignore the hysterically laughable "he's like Andy" plugs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQ92DTWEbc

It's exactly what I had in mind when making the post (Stefanki's comments).
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Stefanki calls Nadal a "big bodied borg"

Insists Borg is still faster than Nadal but Nadal is still very fast and "built like a horse" in contrast to the "small bodied guys" (I guess Novak could be in that group although he is taller) with great "foot speed for his size"

Ignore the hysterically laughable "he's like Andy" plugs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQ92DTWEbc
Andy was a great worker though, but Nadal works even harder.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I think comparing Ferrer and Roddick is fair, at least in terms of how much they've worked to stay at the top for an extended period of time.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Fair point, Roddick was a hard worker.

I mean, I actually think he maximized his talent and was just unlucky to be playing Federer so much.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Yea sure, for tennis I would take Novak as well, Nadal is too heavy for tennis. But when I think of athlete i immediately think just generally.

Thing is, yes we would take Novak from base camp, but what was hard to envisage and could only be understood in hindsight is just how long Nadal was able to maintain himself for in spite of using a style that requires much greater durability and whatnot.

Almost anybody else would have flamed out. Djokovic presents the more ideal archetype for tennis but in actuality, his athletic combination hasn't been superior to Nadal's.. but I'm speaking for right now. People talk about age and decline, but I expect Djokovic to be great for a very long time.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Thing is, yes we would take Novak from base camp, but what was hard to envisage and could only be understood in hindsight is just how long Nadal was able to maintain himself for in spite of using a style that requires much greater durability and whatnot.

Almost anybody else would have flamed out. Djokovic presents the more ideal archetype for tennis but in actuality, his athletic combination hasn't been superior to Nadal's.. but I'm speaking for right now. People talk about age and decline, but I expect Djokovic to be great for a very long time.

Quite right in fact even in the MC semi this year as the points got longer, Nadal won more of them...he won in absolute terms significantly more in the very long rallies (if someone could pull up the advanced match stats that would be great)...of course part of that is the more consistent spinnier ball Nadal hits...but his ability to stay in and win long, grinding rallies is second to none. Hard to pinpoint exactly what it is that allows him to do that, when to my eye, Novak seems smoother, more agile, and in better shape.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Djokovic does often rival Nadal in the longer rallies though in their matches. It didn't happen at MC, but that's what I expected given Djokovic's attitude in the match. He really wasn't interested in grinding and set out to do as little work as possible to win the match, which he did. He avoided the war by moving Nadal around everywhere with his amazing talent for redirection. So, in their next meetings, can Nadal drag Djokovic into a war? If Djokovic really needs to, I think these days he can hang even on clay in extended rallies. Djokovic was a bit mentally tired in MC IMO.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Nadal is especially unusual for me because he has it all. Usually there's a trade off but he has the endurance, the power, the explosiveness and the quickness.

Djokovic is designed to last, and as long as his mind doesn't get tired he'll last a very long time.



Interesting comparison between Nick and Andy.

Good point on the lack of a technological breakthrough. It causes a more stagnant scene where the kings can remain kings for longer. There's no state of flux right now in that regard, like there has been at many points in the Open Era. That certainly contributes to the possibility of sustained dominance even into the 30s for Djokovic. We'll see on Nadal. I still think he can put together bursts of extremely potent form while Djokovic just stays on some typically constant plateau. Even if there was a big change up, Djokovic has simply hit a standard that is deeply impressive, as did Federer and Nadal. One must be talented and hard working in the first place to even begin to approach Djokovic. To take #1 away from him if he keeps the level which he has done since 2012? One must be the total package.

Yea, I mean you had Pete, where he was complete but he had a weak backhand and wasn't amazing from the back. And then you got Federer who's only real weakness is Nadal's fh to it, and now. Now you have Novak, who's only real weakness is at the net, which doesn't count for anything because he only goes there to shake hands after he's smoked you.

I think Nadal will retire around the same time as Fed, he has so much more mileage on him than Nole given his style.

For Nole, well you could say he deserves this nice little 'weak' time in tennis if people want to call it that. He's had to play in their shadow for 5 years and now he has done the work, turned himself into an incredible player, he deserves to cash in if he has put himself in this position.

History says 28/29 is the last good years for tennis players, but with Nole's fitness, flexibility and modern medicine, that trend may change if he racks up slams in his early 30's
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Quite right in fact even in the MC semi this year as the points got longer, Nadal won more of them...he won in absolute terms significantly more in the very long rallies (if someone could pull up the advanced match stats that would be great)...of course part of that is the more consistent spinnier ball Nadal hits...but his ability to stay in and win long, grinding rallies is second to none. Hard to pinpoint exactly what it is that allows him to do that, when to my eye, Novak seems smoother, more agile, and in better shape.

That's all it is. Novak has the "look" that everyone thinks is perfect for tennis. If Nadal was 15lbs slimmer, no one would think it was a stretch for him to do what he does.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I think it's a strategy that he needs to employ at the FO, and that it's intentional precisely because Nadal has the edge there. I;m pretty sure if you looked at stats broken down by rally length that Nadal would tend to do better as the rallies lengthen, even against Novak, and especially on clay.

Even when Novak wins those long points, it's too grinding and he has to do to much work over 5 sets.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
That's all it is. Novak has the "look" that everyone thinks is perfect for tennis. If Nadal was 15lbs slimmer, no one would think it was a stretch for him to do what he does.

you might be right. :)
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I think it's a strategy that he needs to employ at the FO, and that it's intentional precisely because Nadal has the edge there. I;m pretty sure if you looked at stats broken down by rally length that Nadal would tend to do better as the rallies lengthen, even against Novak, and especially on clay.

Even when Novak wins those long points, it's too grinding and he has to do to much work over 5 sets.

That has to be part of it, I agree. Djokovic probably can more or less hang with Nadal in the longer rallies but is it the best winning strategy?


HELL no.

We've seen that Djokovic can last 5 gruelling sets against Nadal even on clay, but there's no point entering the lions den, strategically speaking.

However, if he can continue to force Nadal to do 60% of the work in the match, that could indeed end up being a winning strategy.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
you might be right. :)

I usually am, and just by keeping it simple :)

That has to be part of it, I agree. Djokovic probably can more or less hang with Nadal in the longer rallies but is it the best winning strategy?


HELL no.

We've seen that Djokovic can last 5 gruelling sets against Nadal even on clay, but there's no point entering the lions den, strategically speaking.

However, if he can continue to force Nadal to do 60% of the work in the match, that could indeed end up being a winning strategy.

Yeah I think he loses basically for the same reason everyone else does against Nadal at RG. Just too much work over 5 sets. Anyone's arm will get tired of that topspin. I'll never forget seeing Roger massage his shoulder after the Wimby 08 final, and that was grass.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I usually am, and just by keeping it simple :)



Yeah I think he loses basically for the same reason everyone else does against Nadal at RG. Just too much work over 5 sets. Anyone's arm will get tired of that topspin. I'll never forget seeing Roger massage his shoulder after the Wimby 08 final, and that was grass.

Nadal has back breaking topspin. Even with Novak's almost western grip and taking the ball early it has proven to be too much 6 times. Amazing to see him slowly break people down there, like a boa constrictor breaking their will with a vice grip.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
To repeat from last night...

We've reached the point of diminishing returns regarding improvement in the game, especially regarding technology. Djokovic has actually evolved at a time where it might be realistic for him to hold ground at the top of the game into his 30s, with a delayed "rubber band" effect of the tour catching up, which will only probably properly start with the generations that come after Nishikori/Dimitrov/Raonic. You could call that lucky for Djokovic or just call it impressive that Fedalovic collectively hit a pseudo-ceiling for tennis performance, where progressing further or even just matching their level depends on being the total tennis player, rather than exploiting niches in the tactical and strategic framework of tennis.

Sometimes, quantum leaps can be observed regarding the quality of tennis, which is what Federer did starting from 2003/2004. Sampras rested on his laurels and the quality of the game at the top level stagnated for nigh on one decade. Due to this ebbing and flowing — with not one, not two, but three players having an obsessive perfectionist attitude this era — we've reached a point where there's no obvious space or tactic to dethrone the level that's been reached. One simply must now be good enough to climb Everest, which Federer, Nadal and Djokovic managed. Will the following generation ever be good enough to get there and do they have the talent? Djokovic has room to spare due to the heights he has reached, so who is going to seriously dethrone this master of all surfaces, unless he suffers not just a slight decline, but a significant one?

As such, I expect that should Djokovic remain motivated, he'll be on top for a long time yet. I think only Nadal is capable of putting a run together that could take the top rank away now. Nishikori and others? They can sneak Slams, but to dethrone Djokovic they'll need to be consistent all year round and on all surfaces.

It's up to a guy like Kyrgios IMO to readdress the balance of tennis. He provides a prototype which could unlock the defence of Djokovic — he could provide a very new angle of attack for Djokovic to deal with. Nishikori? He's too similar to Djokovic to be consistently beating him at his own game.




Originally Posted by Tutsi Frutsi View Post
Kyrgios? The guy has no reasonable talent except servebotting, just look at his inside in forehand - one of the most comical shots on the entire tour He reached QF's of AO due to the easiest draw ever and QF's of Wimbledon due to Gasquet's clowning. I'm way more impressed with Coric, he possess the mentality and athletic ability of future №1. Actually the most talented player in younger generations is Tomic, but his workethic and poor footwork don't help him to maky any breakthrough.

Nolefans shouldn't be obsessed with weak era accusations/excuses because Nole has valid rivals of his own age:Nadal and Murray. It's not his business how much they declined.


Coric is very limited technically. He's a very good athlete though, maybe even a great one. He's also very resourceful. You know no better than me who will rise from those who are currently teenagers. I chose Kyrgios and not Coric because Kyrgios provides a unique puzzle for Djokovic should he put his game together. Coric is based on the Djokovic archetype, though with snappier and more abbreviated stroke mechanics and a more fluid core rotation (and much less flexibility). So if Coric can do what Djokovic more or less does but better, then he might dethrone Djokovic, but for that to happen he'd need to surpass Djokovic at his own game. Djokovic is the master of that game. Kyrgios plays differently. He could prove to be a worthy foil to Djokovic's paradigm. Focusing too much on the specific player suggestion misses the point somewhat, which is more to do with play style than necessarily a specific player.

The overriding point is that if Djokovic is to be dethroned from his top position by someone other than members of the Trifecta, then I imagine that they'd need to give Djokovic a totally new look, a new configuration. The road Coric is heading down, he'll always be slightly behind Djokovic unless he's genuinely as or more talented. Don't get me wrong, I think both Coric and Kyrgios could find great success on the tour. We just don't know, but the archetype Coric is basing his game on is the safer bet for top level success on the tour given recent evidence, but doesn't inspire me with confidence that he'd ever end up being better than Djokovic unless the great Serbian gets old.





I think many do view it this way when trying to decide who the best athlete in tennis is.

I view it with regards to how suited the athlete is specifically for the rigours of tennis.


The best tennis athlete might not be the best overall athlete.

If we just talk about tennis, I still put Federer above Djokovic as the best tennis athlete. I'm sorry but i can't put a guy who can't hit the hardest shot in the game (bh overhead), over a guy who makes every shot in the game look easy, especially the bh overhead. To be 33, nearing 34 and play s and v tennis in THIS era? Special, special body. Guy doesn't even sweat.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
If we just talk about tennis, I still put Federer above Djokovic as the best tennis athlete. I'm sorry but i can't put a guy who can't hit the hardest shot in the game (bh overhead), over a guy who makes every shot in the game look easy, especially the bh overhead. To be 33, nearing 34 and play s and v tennis in THIS era? Special, special body. Guy doesn't even sweat.

I think your definition of athleticism is limited in that case.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Fair point, Roddick was a hard worker.

I mean, I actually think he maximized his talent and was just unlucky to be playing Federer so much.
Agreed. He would do a little better today I think, at least at the US Open and Wimbledon.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
If we just talk about tennis, I still put Federer above Djokovic as the best tennis athlete. I'm sorry but i can't put a guy who can't hit the hardest shot in the game (bh overhead), over a guy who makes every shot in the game look easy, especially the bh overhead. To be 33, nearing 34 and play s and v tennis in THIS era? Special, special body. Guy doesn't even sweat.

Well, I too at the very least see Federer as an equally good tennis athlete as Djokovic and have argued the point at length with 125 in the past in spirited fashion. Federer has better explosiveness. Djokovic sometimes struggles with his first step and I'd suggest his core is weaker than Nadal's and Federer's, and he struggles with overheads, like you say.


Djokovic for me is a longer distance guy (going back to our earlier discussion on how tennis players would do at the sprint and middle distance events). He is a very special and unique athlete for the rigours of tennis but in his own way. Yes, overall he does lack some of the explosive qualities of Federer and Nadal, but he outdoes them in other ways.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=510126

Enjoy. :lol:

It seems Zoid was actually active in that old thread anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I'm open to this point but can someone define explosiveness in a "Tennis context" outside of hitting overheads or serving and volleying?
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
I think your definition of athleticism is limited in that case.

It's like this to me. I don't think Novak has more endurance than Federer, Federer has never retired or cramped and he has played plenty of long matches, backed up long matches for over a 1000 times.

I don't think Novak is faster than federer was at 28, if he is it's marginal.

I don't think Novak is stronger than Federer is, i'd say Federer is stronger.

Federer has more balance, his intangibles and improvisation are unmatched, and he can play any shot in the book, plus a few of his own.

To make the game look easy at the very top is something very few can do.

Novak has better defence, which a lot of people equate to athleticism because you get to showcase speed and power a lot of times in that scenario.

But for me the best athletes are ones that have to attack. Rafter was a phenomenal athlete, Sampras was amazing.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
I'm open to this point but can someone define explosiveness in a "Tennis context" outside of hitting overheads or serving and volleying?

It's actually hard to define I guess but for me, I can just see it in a player. This obviously makes it a very subjective topic but i'll throw some clips together of what I think showcases this tennis explosiveness. It's racket head speed, and jumping on short balls and hitting flick passing shots off the back foot. It's bloody hard stuff really. Not saying Novak doesn't hit some crazy shots, but he doesn't hit nearly as many 'jaw-dropping' shots for me as a nadal or federer does.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
USO16-v2.gif
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
It's actually hard to define I guess but for me, I can just see it in a player. This obviously makes it a very subjective topic but i'll throw some clips together of what I think showcases this tennis explosiveness. It's racket head speed, and jumping on short balls and hitting flick passing shots off the back foot. It's bloody hard stuff really. Not saying Novak doesn't hit some crazy shots, but he doesn't hit nearly as many 'jaw-dropping' shots for me as a nadal or federer does.

I view many of these things as "tennis skill" rather than athleticism, not that it doesn't require athleticism. I think that was the root of my discussion with NN...the difference between the skills of the Federer and Sampras and what I saw as the more "athletic" component of a Novak/Nadal.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
No, it's always very interesting to discuss. It's clearly one of our favourite talking points.

Loosely put, the "Tennis context" of athleticism:

-speed and quickness - the quickness is more important. One might not look like sprint material but can be quick and agile.
-endurance
-strength - can you hook the ball back in difficult situations through pure force of strength?
-power/explosiveness - how fast is your arm? How effortlessly can you generate pace?
-hand eye coordination - how well can you see the ball. This is separate from actual stroke technique... it's a general athletic prerequisite for being a great in most sporting fields. A great athlete will have great vision.
-efficiency - suitability of the athletic body to repeat the necessary forces over the course of a career. If an athlete is prone to injury then they're not quite such a great athlete after all. LeBron is more athletically efficient than DWade in spite of having an arguably more brutal play style.

Djokovic

- excellent
- amazing
- good
- very good
- excellent
- amazing

Federer

- excellent
- very good
- good
- amazing
- amazing
- amazing

Nadal

- amazing
- amazing
- excellent
- amazing
- excellent
- excellent/very good?

There's a draft. Feel free to comment. Djokovic loses out overall in strength and power/explosiveness (still very good but not elite).

Nadal just has everything covered.

The stuff Zoid is on about is a lot to do with skills but there is an athletic threshold that needs to be passed just to have any chance of hitting the shot in the first place. Good examples of this are when Nadal hooks passing shot winners through brute force - most players just physically can't do it. There are times when one needs to generate immense racket head speed in a very short space of time and over a very short distance, which is something Federer has been superb at for his whole career. Most players just can't generate that sort of sudden force or have a fast enough arm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
No, it's always very interesting to discuss. It's clearly one of our favourite talking points.

Loosely put, the "Tennis context" of athleticism:

-speed and quickness
-endurance
-strength - can you hook the ball back in difficult situations through pure force of strength?
-power/explosiveness - how fast is your arm? How effortlessly can you generate pace?
-hand eye coordination - how well can you see the ball. This is separate from actual stroke technique... it's a general athletic prerequisite for being a great in most sporting fields. A great athlete will have great vision.

Djokovic

- very good
- amazing
- good
- very good
- excellent

Federer

- excellent
- very good
- good
- amazing
- amazing

Nadal

- amazing
- amazing
- excellent
- amazing
- excellent

There's a draft. Feel free to comment. Djokovic loses out overall in strength and power/explosiveness (still very good but not elite).

Nadal just has everything covered.

The stuff Zoid is on about is a lot to do with skills but there is an athletic threshold that needs to be passed just to have any chance of hitting the shot in the first place. Good examples of this are when Nadal hooks passing shot winners through brute force - most players just physically can't do it.

I like the methodology which provides some organization to the argument.

I agree with Nadal's and Federer's scores.

The 2 bones I'd pick re Novak are

1.speed and quickness--To me he is one of the fastest guys on tour and has been consistently called so...I remember more than once announcers have said he is faster than Nadal..Gilbert (okay I know haha) said he's the fastest guy on tour....I find his speed to be extremely underrated on online message boards in particularly. Must be something about him that doesn't look that fast on tv to most eyes. Quickness, yes perhaps he is not as explosive as a Nadal/Murray, but still certainly he's as quick as Fed even at his peak? I mean some of Novak's gets have been more consistently amazing to me than anyone sans Nadal.

3. Strength..only good here is not good enough to me. Novak is incredibly strong in the shoulder area which is why he can handle Nadal's spin better than anyone else. Also turns defense to offense better than anyone I've ever seen which takes a lot of strength. He's had some defensive slice lobs from way off court and angled winners which would seem to predicate a lot of effortless strength.

Murray might outlift Novak in the gym (in fact I'm sure he would) but in a tennis sense Novak uses his angular momentum strength better and hits a more powerful ball that is probably only 2nd to Nadal in force applied and right up there with Fed.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
BTW, I edited the post as I got one of Djokovic's attributes wrong.


I like the methodology which provides some organization to the argument.

I agree with Nadal's and Federer's scores.

The 2 bones I'd pick re Novak are

1.speed and quickness--To me he is one of the fastest guys on tour and has been consistently called so...I remember more than once announcers have said he is faster than Nadal..Gilbert (okay I know haha) said he's the fastest guy on tour....I find his speed to be extremely underrated on online message boards in particularly. Must be something about him that doesn't look that fast on tv to most eyes. Quickness, yes perhaps he is not as explosive as a Nadal/Murray, but still certainly he's as quick as Fed even at his peak? I mean some of Novak's gets have been more consistently amazing to me than anyone sans Nadal.

3. Strength..only good here is not good enough to me. Novak is incredibly strong in the shoulder area which is why he can handle Nadal's spin better than anyone else. Also turns defense to offense better than anyone I've ever seen which takes a lot of strength. He's had some defensive slice lobs from way off court and angled winners which would seem to predicate a lot of effortless strength.

Murray might outlift Novak in the gym (in fact I'm sure he would) but in a tennis sense Novak uses his angular momentum strength better and hits a more powerful ball that is probably only 2nd to Nadal in force applied and right up there with Fed.

1. I just typed the wrong thing because I was hooked on the speed component when quickness is by far more important. Djokovic isn't the sprinting type but he recovers exceptionally well, largely because of his ability to slide and his flexibility.

3. You might have a point on strength. I'd have to think about it. You present a very good argument.

On Djokovic vs Federer in terms of quickness of foot, peak for peak. They're a bit different, but I've pegged them both as being excellent in that category, and both behind Nadal. They have a different sort of quickness... Federer has surer footing and probably a slightly stronger core, regardless of his back issues, and his explosiveness can sometimes help him to be quick in a way that Djokovic isn't. Djokovic has his impressive and efficient recovery methods and these days does have a reliable first step. Perhaps I should've added a sixth category for efficiency. Is that a skill or an athletic trait, or both?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
BTW, I edited the post as I got one of Djokovic's attributes wrong.




1. I just typed the wrong thing because I was hooked on the speed component when quickness is by far more important. Djokovic isn't the sprinting type but he recovers exceptionally well, largely because of his ability to slide and his flexibility.

3. You might have a point on strength. I'd have to think about it. You present a very good argument.

On Djokovic vs Federer in terms of quickness of foot, peak for peak. They're a bit different, but I've pegged them both as being excellent in that category, and both behind Nadal. They have a different sort of quickness... Federer has surer footing and probably a slightly stronger core, regardless of his back issues, and his explosiveness can sometimes help him to be quick in a way that Djokovic isn't. Djokovic has his impressive and efficient recovery methods and these days does have a reliable first step. Perhaps I should've added a sixth category for efficiency. Is that a skill or an athletic trait, or both?

Yeah, I agree that they are about equal in this metric although I would point out that Federer has better footwork for sure (maybe the best) which helps his appearance of speed. (Again buttressing my point of Federer=better tennis skill, Novak = better athlete)

Efficiency is a great idea, I'd say it's both but relates strongly to athleticism as long as we are talking about athletic efficiency :)

For instance, Djokovic is more efficient athletically than Murray which was on display in the AO as Murray tired out after a couple sets (same thing happened in AO 13 final too) In fact you could argue the same thing happened at USO '12, before Murray's final push in the last set.
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Originally I said Nadal was the best athlete because I was thinking broadly, then 125 said for tennis who is the best athlete and I chose Federer over Djokovic because being able to pull off the tougher skills of the sport surely make you a better athlete in that sport?

Novak might be quicker, he might be more flexible, but if you wanted someones body to play tennis surely you would take Federer's, knowing he can hit any shot you want with ease?

Does it count for anything if you can do all this, play at break neck speed and look like you are gliding rather than hustling everywhere?

Federer has something that I see when I watch him play and it might be pure 'skill' - but ultimately a skill is learned from nothing and to be able to learn it requires special abilities of an athlete.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Quoted for posterity. This from a thread titled "Which tennis player is a better athlete? Nadal or Djokovic?"

Chico often liked to claim that Djokovic was more skilled in contrast for some trolling reason, so I don't think that was necessarily a genuine compliment/opinion.
 
Top