Is Djokovic the most complete player ever?

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is still behind by overall surface versatility. 0 titles on Miami, Shanghai or Paris HCs. 0 World tour finals. Completely owned in h2h in 2/3 surfaces.
Nope. Nadal has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic and so he is more complete than Novak in outdoor conditions.

Grand Slam achievements >> Masters 1000 achievements. Djokovic having his Masters 1000 titles better distributed does not compensate the fact that Nadal has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface.

Djokovic is only more complete than Nadal on indoor conditions, not outdoor conditions. To be more complete overall, he should be more complete than Nadal both on indoor and outdoor conditions (not only indoor conditions).
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
no it's not a solution and you know it;)coz that math problem only can be solved if conditions are equal, and if clay major is held twice per year, with that case djo could have won two clay majors with ease, hence he would be sitting with multiple slams on each surface as well, i.e. the point is they all three would be sitting with multiple slams on each surface under equal conditions, thus this argument doesn't work and can't be brought up as a valid argument
It is and you knowt it. Nadal is obviously greater than Djokovic on clay. 5 Slams on hard > 1 Slam on clay. 5 > 1 is a gigantic difference. It is very unobjective to deny that 5 > 1. Even if you consider that there are 2 Slams held on hard, if we divide 5 ÷ 2= 2.5. Nadal averages 2,5 titles per Slam held on hard, while Djokovic only averages 1 title per Slam held on clay. 2,5 > 1. Nadal wins even if you divide his Slam count on hard by 2.

Come on, do not be ridiculous. You are excluding 4 Slams from Nadal's count, that is completely unobjective. The USO denialism.

The part in bold is utnestable, hence unacceptable. Djokovic could very well not win another extra Major on clay even if 2 Majors were held on clay, considering Nadal's domination of him at RG.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
Djokovic is only more complete than Nadal on indoor conditions, not outdoor conditions. To be more complete overall, he should be more complete than Nadal both on indoor and outdoor conditions (not only indoor conditions).
so djo exactly is more complete both in outdoors and indoors...outdoors coz he has 6 plus finals (the higher number of finals the better indicator of a caliber of a player) at 3 out of 4 slams, while nadal has it only on clay, and indoors coz of 5 wtf titles to nadal' zero titles
 
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
It is and you knowt it. Nadal is obviously greater than Djokovic on clay. 5 Slams on hard > 1 Slam on clay. 5 > 1 is a gigantic difference. It is very unobjective to deny that 5 > 1. Even if you consider that there are 2 Slams held on hard, if we divide 5 ÷ 2= 2.5. Nadal averages 2,5 titles per Slam held on hard, while Djokovic only averages 1 title per Slam held on clay. 2,5 > 1. Nadal wins even if you divide his Slam count on hard by 2.

Come on, do not be ridiculous. You are excluding 4 Slams from Nadal's count, that is completely unobjective. The USO denialism.
:-Dokay i will try not to deny nadal uso titles next time
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Nope. Nadal has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic and so he is more complete than Novak in outdoor conditions.

Grand Slam achievements >> Masters 1000 achievements. Djokovic having his Masters 1000 titles better distributed does not compensate the fact that Nadal has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface.

Djokovic is only more complete than Nadal on indoor conditions, not outdoor conditions. To be more complete overall, he should be more complete than Nadal both on indoor and outdoor conditions (not only indoor conditions).
Djokovic vs Nadal in outdoor conditions:

Australian open 8 > 1
Indian Wells 5 > 3
Miami 6 > 0
Monte Carlo 2 < 12
Rome 5 < 9
Madrid 3 < 5
RG 1 < 13
Wimbledon 5 > 2
Canada 4 < 5
Cincinatti 2 > 1
Shanghai 4 > 1


6 events go to Djokovic, 5 to Nadal. Also Nadal has a 0 at Miami, so by definition he can't be more complete.

complete

  1. 1.
    having all the necessary or appropriate parts.

Nadal doesn't have a Miami title, so by definition isn't complete on outdoor sufaces. Djokovic is ;)
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
so djo exactly is more complete both in outdoors and indoors...outdoors coz he has 6 plus finals (the higher number of finals the better indicator of a caliber of a player) at 3 out of 4 slams, while nadal has it only on clay, and indoors coz of 5 wtf titles to nadal' zero titles
Nope, Nadal is more complete than Djokovic in outdoor conditions because he has his Slams more evnely distributed by surface than Djokovic. Nadal has won at least 2 Slams on each surface, Djokovic hasn't.

And finals are not more relevant than titles. Nadal with 4 US Open titles is greater at the US Open than Djokovic with 3 US Open titles. Djokovic is not greater than Nadal in 3 out of 4 Slams, as you unobjectively asserted.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic vs Nadal in outdoor conditions:

Australian open 8 > 1
Indian Wells 5 > 3
Miami 6 > 0
Monte Carlo 2 < 12
Rome 5 < 9
Madrid 3 < 5
RG 1 < 13
Wimbledon 5 > 2
Canada 4 < 5
Cincinatti 2 > 1
Shanghai 4 > 1


6 events go to Djokovic, 5 to Nadal. Also Nadal has a 0 at Miami, so by definition he can't be more complete.

complete

  1. 1.
    having all the necessary or appropriate parts.

Nadal doesn't have a Miami title, so by definition isn't complete on outdoor sufaces. Djokovic is ;)
Grand Slam achievements > Masters 1000 achievements. Masters 1000 achievements are only tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slam achievements. So, Djokovic's achievements in Masters 1000 do not bring him the advantage here.

Still, Nadal has his Slams more evnely distributed by surface than Djokovic, which gives Nadal the advantage in outdoor conditions.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Gold medals are cool and all, but his lack of a Halle title is a more glaring hole to me.

He made finals at both Halle and Queen's and lost close matches at both (2009 Halle to Haas, 2008 & 2018 Queen's to Nadal and Cilic). He is thus the only current Wimbledon champion who has failed to complete the highly prestigious Queen's/Halle-Wimbledon double.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Grand Slam achievements > Masters 1000 achievements. Masters 1000 achievements are only tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slam achievements. So, Djokovic's achievements in Masters 1000 do not bring him the advantage here.

Still, Nadal has his Slams more evnely distributed by surface than Djokovic, which gives Nadal the advantage in outdoor conditions.
Tennis includes the whole tour, not just 8 weeks. Djokovic has mastered every aspect of the game, and won every big title. Nadal has 0 Miami titles so therefore is not complete in outdoor conditions.
 
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
And finals are not more relevant than titles. Nadal with 4 US Open titles is greater at the US Open than Djokovic with 3 US Open titles. Djokovic is not greater than Nadal in 3 out of 4 Slams, as you unobjectively asserted.
okay, even with titles as you wish..3 vs 4 is a slim gap, while 8 vs 1 is a huge, hence it's much much better ratio 8 vs 1 than 3 vs 4 = conclusion: overall djo better at uso+ao combo on aggregate, at wimby as well (5 vs 2), djo wins (2>1)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Neither Nole or Nadal are in contention for the most complete player of all time. Let's move on.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
Tennis includes the whole tour, not just 8 weeks. Djokovic has mastered every aspect of the game, and won every big title. Nadal has 0 Miami titles so therefore is not complete in outdoor conditions.
I have to agree with this part. If we're talking about true completeness, we can't look at just 4 tournaments a year.
 

JackGates

Legend
Nope. Nadal has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic and so he is more complete than Novak in outdoor conditions.

Grand Slam achievements >> Masters 1000 achievements. Djokovic having his Masters 1000 titles better distributed does not compensate the fact that Nadal has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface.

Djokovic is only more complete than Nadal on indoor conditions, not outdoor conditions. To be more complete overall, he should be more complete than Nadal both on indoor and outdoor conditions (not only indoor conditions).
Doesn't complete mean more in the lines of not having a weakness in your game? What you are talking about is versatility.
Yes, Djokovic probably is the most complete.
 

SeeItHitIt

Professional
It is often mentioned that Federer is the most complete player, but he lacks the 2 oldest most prestigious clay masters Monte Carlo and Rome. Meanwhile Djokovic has won them both multiple times, defeating Nadal 6 times there along with a win at RG.

- NCYSG defeating Federer and Murray both ATGs
- Double golden masters
- Tied most YE #1
- Weeks at number 1 record guaranteed
- Most prize money of all time
- Completely owned both main rivals h2h since peak in 2011
- Dominated Federer on both hc & grass, dominated Nadal on clay in 2011 and 2015.

Is there any holes in his career? He has dominated every surface on the tour and mastered the game.

nyet. Of guys our eyes have had a chance to see, Fed is it (most complete). Nole is a place and time kind of player. Great? Yes, don’t get me wrong, but with the net game and overhead ‘challenges’ he suffers from, calling him best ‘all around’ is a ShakespearIan farce.
 

JackGates

Legend
Djokovic is the most complete baseliner ever, but he is not the most complete player ever. I'd say as a player, Federer is more complete than him.
That was the past, but since 2017, Fed is equally tough even from the baseline. He beat Nole at WTF and almost beat him at Wimbledon.
 

skaj

Legend
It is often mentioned that Federer is the most complete player, but he lacks the 2 oldest most prestigious clay masters Monte Carlo and Rome. Meanwhile Djokovic has won them both multiple times, defeating Nadal 6 times there along with a win at RG.

- NCYSG defeating Federer and Murray both ATGs
- Double golden masters
- Tied most YE #1
- Weeks at number 1 record guaranteed
- Most prize money of all time
- Completely owned both main rivals h2h since peak in 2011
- Dominated Federer on both hc & grass, dominated Nadal on clay in 2011 and 2015.

Is there any holes in his career? He has dominated every surface on the tour and mastered the game.

I honestly can't think of any...
pnqU20qHg
 

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
You're looking at it purely from a results stand point. I'm talking about the repertoire of on-court skills. Novak has arguably the most rock solid baseline game the sport has ever seen. But he also plays in an era where he can play the same way on every single court and have the same success. It's hard for me to call him a more complete player compared to say a Borg who played like that on clay but then would win Wimbledon as a serve & volley player.

I'd put Laver & Federer above him in this regard as well.
Yes.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
The definition of ‘Most Complete Player Ever’ is going to be completely subjective and contentious and so, it will just depend on the ‘eye test’ of a fan just like the BOAT definition. One fan might want mastery on all surfaces whereas another might want mastery of multiple styles like baseline and net play.

At least with the mythical ’GOAT’ title, there is some expectation that it should be tied to specific career achievements and we can argue about whether Slam counts, Big titles won, Weeks at #1, YE#1, head-to-head record, career match winning %, tournaments won etc. matter more or less.

For me, the Best of All Time (BOAT) title is the one where you just ask for the answer to the question ‘Who would you want playing a match to save your life if you don’t know the surface or the opponent who could be any other ATG?’ The assumption has to be that they are in their prime level and the opponent will be also. For me, I would answer Novak Djokovic with a big reason being that he has impressed me the most when I have attended Indian Wells every year for almost 25 years and his game seems to translate well over fast/slow, low/high bounce surfaces. I have been watching him and other pros on TV when they play tournaments on other surfaces for more than forty years also.

If the match were to be on clay, I think everyone would pick Nadal including me. If it were on grass, I would pick Sampras. If it were on slow/medium hard courts, I would pick Novak. If it were on fast hard courts, I would pick Federer. But, Novak would be in the top 3 discussion on grass and fast hard courts also while he would be in the top 5 discussion on clay (having beaten Nadal 7 times).
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Both Nadal and Federer are more complete. They master all strokes. Novak has poor volleys, awkward slice and the worst overhead ever for a world #1. He doesn't even attempt to hit the backhand smash, which is a tragedy for the gif makers of the tennis world.

Well, no one is perfect. Not even The Chosen One. But the precision at the US Open 20 stands alone.

If H2H means you're complete, then Karlovic is more complete than Djokovic. Kyrgios, too. Oh, and Roddick!

:whistle:
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
Both Nadal and Federer are more complete. They master all strokes. Novak has poor volleys, awkward slice and the worst overhead ever for a world #1. He doesn't even attempt to hit the backhand smash, which is a tragedy for the gif makers of the tennis world.

Well, no one is perfect. Not even The Chosen One. But the precision at the US Open 20 stands alone.

If H2H means you're complete, then Karlovic is more complete than Djokovic. Kyrgios, too. Oh, and Roddick!

:whistle:
What kind of Jedi mind trick does he play then to have a winning head-to-head against more complete players like Federer/Nadal if his game is so full of flaws? Or do Federer and Nadal have more basic flaws that Novak exploits on bread-and-butter baseline shots like FHs and BHs? Can’t they just bring him to the net often, engage in slice battles or lob him to beat him if he can’t volley, slice or hit a smash? How did this incomplete player manage to get on the threshold of breaking the Weeks at #1 record of the ATP tour which is the highest level of the sport in an era where he co-existed with two other GOAT contenders? It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Just curious if you have ever watched any of the Big 3 play live or practice live?
 
Last edited:

ADuck

Legend
no it's not a solution and you know it;)coz that math problem only can be solved if conditions are equal, and if clay major is held twice per year, with that case djo could have won two clay majors with ease, hence he would be sitting with multiple slams on each surface as well, i.e. the point is they all three would be sitting with multiple slams on each surface under equal conditions, thus this argument doesn't work and can't be brought up as a valid argument
If there were 2 clay slams per year, do you really think Djokovic would be averaging 2.5 slams at each clay slam?
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
What kind of Jedi mind trick does he play then to have a winning head-to-head against more complete players like Federer/Nadal if his game is so full of flaws? Or do Federer and Nadal have more basic flaws that Novak exploits on bread-and-butter baseline shots like FHs and BHs? Can’t they just bring him to the net often, engage in slice battles or lob him to beat him if he can’t volley, slice or hit a smash? How did this incomplete player manage to get on the threshold of breaking the Weeks at #1 record of the ATP tour which is the highest level of the sport in an era where he co-existed with two other GOAT contenders? It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Just curious if you have ever watched any of the Big 3 play live or practice live?

I have never, not once, said Djokovic is incomplete. Sorry if you got offended :)
 

JackGates

Legend
What kind of Jedi mind trick does he play then to have a winning head-to-head against more complete players like Federer/Nadal if his game is so full of flaws? Or do Federer and Nadal have more basic flaws that Novak exploits on bread-and-butter baseline shots like FHs and BHs? Can’t they just bring him to the net often, engage in slice battles or lob him to beat him if he can’t volley, slice or hit a smash? How did this incomplete player manage to get on the threshold of breaking the Weeks at #1 record of the ATP tour which is the highest level of the sport in an era where he co-existed with two other GOAT contenders? It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Just curious if you have ever watched any of the Big 3 play live or practice live?
Because you can still be better with less weapons, it has nothing to do with being well rounded lol. Karlovic, Roddick and Kyrgios all lead the h2h vs Djokovic.

Also, Djokovic is playing in an era where nobody is well rounded, so it's easy to be king in the land of the blind. No was his game would be good in the 90s or 2000s, there is a reason Pete and Fed dominated those years, they are all courters.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
I have never, not once, said Djokovic is incomplete. Sorry if you got offended :)
I’m not offended. You made it sound like he had a lot of flaws in his game which should make it easy to exploit for ATGs like Nadal and Federer. But, I’ve never seen anyone beat Novak by bringing him to net often, engaging in slice battles or lobbing him often. If Federer and Nadal are more complete, I’m genuinely curious on how you think Novak beats them often on all surfaces.
 

JackGates

Legend
I have never, not once, said Djokovic is incomplete. Sorry if you got offended :)
Maybe in the context of this slow era, but relative to history, he is not that complete. Borg and Pete are way more complete.
If Borg won USO a few times, he would probably be the most complete. He freaking won RG plus he had to win Wimbledon serve and volley.

I mean in 2006-2008 Nadal didn't yet have diversity in his game and he cruised to W finals playing the same as at RG. No way that can happen in Pete's or Borg's era.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
I’m not offended. You made it sound like he had a lot of flaws in his game which should make it easy to exploit for ATGs like Nadal and Federer. But, I’ve never seen anyone beat Novak by bringing him to net often, engaging in slice battles or lobbing him often. If Federer and Nadal are more complete, I’m genuinely curious on how you think Novak beats them often on all surfaces.

You have a point. The players I mentioned that he struggles with, do not play the same brand of tennis as the other 99.9% of the tennis world. Novak has perfected the "zero errors" brand of tennis, which is now taught throughout the world, unfortunately (some would say). Kids are now trained to make no errors. When I grew up, my coach taught me to hit approach shots, go to the net and have fun :)

Federer in particular, but also Nadal, when they play their absolute best, are unplayable for Djokovic. But his style also allows him to win without playing his best, because he doesn't need to play with risk to win matches (which Fedal do).

In the long run, on all levels; make fewer mistakes and you win more often.

Court homogenisation and racquet technology favours safety tennis.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
For me, the Best of All Time (BOAT) title is the one where you just ask for the answer to the question ‘Who would you want playing a match to save your life if you don’t know the surface or the opponent who could be any other ATG?’ The assumption has to be that they are in their prime level and the opponent will be also. For me, I would answer Novak Djokovic with a big reason being that he has impressed me the most when I have attended Indian Wells every year for almost 25 years and his game seems to translate well over fast/slow, low/high bounce surfaces. I have been watching him and other pros on TV when they play tournaments on other surfaces for more than forty years also.
He's a good choice, but I would rate Borg very high because of his ability to switch from slow clay to fast grass each year for 5 years with almost no time. Remember that he didn't have 5 in a row at RG because he was not allowed to play one year because of WTT. Connors in 74 was scary, and although he did not win RG, he did win the USO on all surfaces. I never got to see Pancho play during his peak. It's hard not to rate Laver high when he won two GSs. I would put Nadal up there too except for one fatal flaw in his game, the return. That return is part of what earns him as many as 50% of all return games on clay, but on fast surfaces it means he starts every point at a disadvantage, and that's why he's done so poorly at the WTFs.
If the match were to be on clay, I think everyone would pick Nadal including me.
I'd split between Nadal and Borg. Obviously the differences in eras makes them look totally different.
If it were on grass, I would pick Sampras.
Good pick, but you might want to consider the guys who played three majors each year on grass. For fairly modern players I'd also pick Sampras, but I'd want to think about Becker because I believe he had a shorter and very early prime, so by the time he played Sampras he was the older player, and Sampras also peaked quite young.
If it were on slow/medium hard courts, I would pick Novak. If it were on fast hard courts, I would pick Federer. But, Novak would be in the top 3 discussion on grass and fast hard courts also while he would be in the top 5 discussion on clay (having beaten Nadal 7 times).
For slower HC, the modern game, I'd pick Novak. I'll just add that I absolutely detest the GOAT or BOAT concept. I believe in assessing the best of eras and not comparing too much between eras. It's not fair to anyone.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
You have a point. The players I mentioned that he struggles with, do not play the same brand of tennis as the other 99.9% of the tennis world. Novak has perfected the "zero errors" brand of tennis, which is now taught throughout the world, unfortunately (some would say). Kids are now trained to make no errors. When I grew up, my coach taught me to hit approach shots, go to the net and have fun :)

Federer in particular, but also Nadal, when they play their absolute best, are unplayable for Djokovic. But his style also allows him to win without playing his best, because he doesn't need to play with risk to win matches (which Fedal do).

In the long run, on all levels; make fewer mistakes and you win more often.

Court homogenisation and racquet technology favours safety tennis.
Unfortunately at the pro level, it is not much fun anymore to go to the net in the poly age because you’ll be watching passing shots whizz past you left and right.

I guess we all look at tennis with different eyes because I think Novak plays very offensive baseline tennis similar to Federer while Nadal is the defensive player amongst the Big 3. Novak and Federer hit the ball on the rise from very close to the baseline and Novak is more aggressive than anyone on tour about changing the angle of shots during long rallies from CC to DTL and vice versa. If you know Wardlaw directionals, you know that the player hitting DTL has to recover 3-4 steps more than the player hitting crosscourt and will be doing a lot more running - but, Novak has no fear of hitting DTL and forces a lot of errors as a result. Part of why Nadal is not successful outside of clay against Novak is because he has to play very far back behind the baseline compared to Novak - to me, this is a much more basic flaw that only Novak and Federer (with the new backhand) are good enough to exploit. Federer has a much weaker BH and worser movement than Novak and again these are more basic flaws for a power baseliner - that’s why he struggles against Novak so much since 2011 while continuing to win at a high % against everyone else.

Today‘s game in the poly era is about power baseline tennis which is what all of the Big 3 play - so, the flaws that Novak exploits against Federer and Nadal in my mind are bigger than the fact that he misses two more smashes in a match or 3-5 more volleys. Or that his volleys and slices don’t look aesthetically as pleasing while they are fairly efficient and not easily exploitable.
 

JackGates

Legend
Unfortunately at the pro level, it is not much fun anymore to go to the net in the poly age because you’ll be watching passing shots whizz past you left and right.

I guess we all look at tennis with different eyes because I think Novak plays very offensive baseline tennis similar to Federer while Nadal is the defensive player amongst the Big 3. Novak and Federer hit the ball on the rise from very close to the baseline and Novak is more aggressive than anyone on tour about changing the angle of shots during long rallies from CC to DTL and vice versa. If you know Wardlaw directionals, you know that the player hitting DTL has to recover 3-4 steps more than the player hitting crosscourt and will be doing a lot more running - but, Novak has no fear of doping this and forces a lot of errors as a result. Part of why Nadal is not successful outside of clay against Novak is because he has to play very far back behind the baseline compared to Novak - to me, this is a much more basic flaw that only Novak and Federer (with the new backhand) are good enough to exploit. Federer has a much weaker BH and worser movement than Novak and again these are more basic flaws for a power baseliner - that’s why he struggles against Novak so much since 2011.

Today‘s game in the poly era is about power baseline tennis which is what all of the Big 3 play - so, the flaws that Novak exploits against Federer and Nadal in my mind are bigger than the fact that he misses two more smashes in a match or 3-5 more volleys. Or that volleys and slices don’t look aesthetically as pleasing while they are fairly efficient also and not easily exploitable.
Good take, Fed would agree, he said he consideres himself and Novak both aggressive baseliners.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Unfortunately at the pro level, it is not much fun anymore to go to the net in the poly age because you’ll be watching passing shots whizz past you left and right.

I guess we all look at tennis with different eyes because I think Novak plays very offensive baseline tennis similar to Federer while Nadal is the defensive player amongst the Big 3. Novak and Federer hit the ball on the rise from very close to the baseline and Novak is more aggressive than anyone on tour about changing the angle of shots during long rallies from CC to DTL and vice versa. If you know Wardlaw directionals, you know that the player hitting DTL has to recover 3-4 steps more than the player hitting crosscourt and will be doing a lot more running - but, Novak has no fear of hitting DTL and forces a lot of errors as a result. Part of why Nadal is not successful outside of clay against Novak is because he has to play very far back behind the baseline compared to Novak - to me, this is a much more basic flaw that only Novak and Federer (with the new backhand) are good enough to exploit. Federer has a much weaker BH and worser movement than Novak and again these are more basic flaws for a power baseliner - that’s why he struggles against Novak so much since 2011.

Today‘s game in the poly era is about power baseline tennis which is what all of the Big 3 play - so, the flaws that Novak exploits against Federer and Nadal in my mind are bigger than the fact that he misses two more smashes in a match or 3-5 more volleys. Or that volleys and slices don’t look aesthetically as pleasing while they are fairly efficient also and not easily exploitable.

Federer struggles against Novak since 2011, because Novak improved while Federer declined. Federer had great movement in younger years. Match-ups in tennis are about a lot more than completeness.

Tennis didn't become like you describe because of Novak. It happened gradually. Federer won his first Wimbledon with pure serve and volley tennis, remember. Now it's impossible, because the returner has more time to make a great shot. It's not just about poly, but obviously that, too. Poly also makes it tougher to volley than highly strung natty gut. Federer has played through huge changes in the game, while Novak has had basically the same conditions and same type of field his entire career.

So you say winning is completeness. Fair enough. But also debatable. Federer's "completeness" is definitely reduced by age, for instance.
 

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
You have a point. The players I mentioned that he struggles with, do not play the same brand of tennis as the other 99.9% of the tennis world. Novak has perfected the "zero errors" brand of tennis, which is now taught throughout the world, unfortunately (some would say). Kids are now trained to make no errors. When I grew up, my coach taught me to hit approach shots, go to the net and have fun :)

Federer in particular, but also Nadal, when they play their absolute best, are unplayable for Djokovic. But his style also allows him to win without playing his best, because he doesn't need to play with risk to win matches (which Fedal do).

In the long run, on all levels; make fewer mistakes and you win more often.

Court homogenisation and racquet technology favours safety tennis.
Djokovic - the final evolution of the pusher.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
Federer struggles against Novak since 2011, because Novak improved while Federer declined. Federer had great movement in younger years. Match-ups in tennis are about a lot more than completeness.

Tennis didn't become like you describe because of Novak. It happened gradually. Federer won his first Wimbledon with pure serve and volley tennis, remember. Now it's impossible, because the returner has more time to make a great shot. It's not just about poly, but obviously that, too. Poly also makes it tougher to volley than highly strung natty gut. Federer has played through huge changes in the game, while Novak has had basically the same conditions and same type of field his entire career.

So you say winning is completeness. Fair enough. But also debatable. Federer's "completeness" is definitely reduced by age, for instance.
Yes, it’s been an interesting 20 years in this century for pro tennis. I think the tennis authorities recognized the impact that poly was going to have well before fans and started slowing down surfaces to prevent service holds from being too routine. Poly not only increases spin and consequently speed of groundstrokes, but also on serves and if they hadn’t slowed down surfaces, we would be seeing tiebreakers and no service breaks for the majority of sets. I look at the slowing down of surfaces as a very good thing once poly took over as otherwise all tournaments would look like the Paris Masters indoor tournament with a plethora of 7-5 and 7-6 sets and hardly any chance for returners to break serve.

Most players from Federer’s generation grew up with gut and had to adapt to poly on the fly once they were already on the tour. Many of the players from the previous generation retired early as they couldn’t adapt to the change of style caused by poly and it led to a transitional era in the first 5-7 years of this century. I give Federer a lot of credit for figuring out how to dominate this era by switching to gut/poly hybrid strings with gut in the mains so that he didn’t have to change his style much while still taking advantage of the extra spin from poly crosses - he was one of the early pioneers of this. He also was able to transition from more of a S/V style to the power baseline style that was starting to predominate with poly.

Federer in spite of his age has dominated the rest of the tour (except Novak) in the last decade including Nadal and that’s why he is a top 5 player at the age of 39. In the Slams where he lost finals to Novak in 2014-2015, he was imperiously dominating other players before the final - but, he couldn’t get past Novak. I think saying that all Novak has against Federer is an age advantage is a weak excuse considering how well Federer has played against everyone else on tour and how easily he has been beating Nadal outside of clay in the last four years. I agree that Federer’s movement has been affected as he got older, but if you watch Nadal and Djokovic now compared to their early years, they don’t move as well either. But, Federer has a better BH now, Nadal plays more aggressive point patterns, Djokovic serves better and they all have found ways to improve aspects of their game to compensate for their slower speed on the court.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Djokovic - the final evolution of the pusher.

That's crazy, Finn :)

Djokovic is not a pusher at all. I guess you were joking.

But I have never seen a more interesting thing than when Djokovic faced a de facto pusher in US Open 16. Novak is actually a poor player when he must create his own power. One of the strangest matches I can recall. Right up there with Chang-Lendl and the moon balls.
 
Top