Is Djokovic the most complete player of all times?

Most complete


  • Total voters
    135

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
And that's an all time/open era list? You should make it a thread, definitely worthy. Should put an end to the myths.
It's not an all time ranking, but it shows it's a comfortable shot for him, while people here act like he misses it 9 times out of 10.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.

Djokovic wins 80% of points when he hits a smash.

The fact that such an efficient shot is mentioned as a weakness means that he does not really have a weakness.

Djokovic PPA (Point Probability Added) resulting from an overhead = -0.02
while Tsonga PPA = +0.17

as the gap is quite huge, it is fair to point it out as a weakness.

and I can't recall such pathetic BH shot for example in a crucial moment executed by Novak, but in case of overhead there is enough evidence how he failed to convert a winning situation into a point form overhead.
just compare that to Federer for example

@RF-18 specially for you. Let's put an end to this myth.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic PPA (Point Probability Added) resulting from an overhead = -0.02
while Tsonga PPA = +0.17

as the gap is quite huge, it is fair to point it out as a weakness.

and I can't recall such pathetic BH shot for example in a crucial moment executed by Novak, but in case of overhead there is enough evidence how he failed to convert a winning situation into a point form overhead.
just compare that to Federer for example

@RF-18 specially for you. Let's put an end to this myth.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
I am not defensive at all, I merely responded to things that were wrong in your very long and unnecessary(speaking of defensive) post.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say WTF, I have said that ATP finals have less participants than the Olympics, fact.

Best I've got? I responded to you with the first thing I thought of, in order to explain to you that the idea of Djokovic being upset about his loss only because he is representing his country is silly. Yes, exactly, his singles achievements are what he and most of the tennis world values the most, that's why he wants to add the Olympic gold in singles to his resume so badly. If the importance was an Olympic gold medal for his country, and not his singles achievement, he would cry after the doubles. The fact that you are calling me dishonest can only say something about yourself, especially considering the fact that you are claiming that Novak cried only(so I am not saying that I know better than him why he cried, nor that that was not an extra reason) because he was sad about not bringing the gold medal to Serbia, and not because he wants it badly as a personal achievement. He wants the gold medal badly, if you are following his interviews, you should know that by now.

You're dishonest.

1. You refuse to give Novak benefit of the doubt and baselessly accusing him of lying. He said the reason for crying was of patriotic nature, you're saying it's not. Like you know his feelings better than himself.

2. You're shamelessly acting like you don't know what is World Tour Finals (WTF).

3. You're knowingly misrepresenting my participation argument - You knew I talk about percentages, but you're acting like it's about number of participants.

4. You're deliberately misrepresenting my answer about the reason of Novak's crying - I never said "only", but you're insisting I did. Feel free to cite me. You can't. Because I didn't.

So yeah, you're just busted for being pretty dishonest.
If I would need to guess why, I would say you have an fanboy agenda to make Nadal's OG gold something more than it is. Shame.

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Djokovic PPA (Point Probability Added) resulting from an overhead = -0.02
while Tsonga PPA = +0.17

as the gap is quite huge, it is fair to point it out as a weakness.

and I can't recall such pathetic BH shot for example in a crucial moment executed by Novak, but in case of overhead there is enough evidence how he failed to convert a winning situation into a point form overhead.
just compare that to Federer for example

@RF-18 specially for you. Let's put an end to this myth.

It calculates to one extra point added from Tsonga's overhead per 600 points played. The gap is extremely small actually.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
It calculates to one extra point added from Tsonga's overhead per 600 points played. The gap is extremely small actually.

it doesn't matter.
question was whether Novak is "the most complete player of all times"?
answer is obviously not, cause there are players with much better net game and overhead.

is Novak having the most complete collection of trophies?
probably yes.
and probably he will get the missing bits like weeks at #1 and YE#1
but that is in spite of not being so good at net and overhead
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
This video is not representative of reality. Djokovic wins the vast majority of points he plays at the net

because he only goes there very very rarely, mostly when the point is won either way.

while as it was pointed out, some other player, for example Borg, used to win RG in a baseline competition to proceed then winning Wimbledon in a S&V contest.

So, which one sounds to you a more complete player?
 

chokerer

New User

Djokovic wins 80% of points when he hits a smash.

The fact that such an efficient shot is mentioned as a weakness means that he does not really have a weakness.
Djokovic weakness is on low bouncing faster courts. See his results vs Federer who outclasses him on all court play and tennis skill.
Of course, nowadays there are very few even medium-fast courts, and no players good enough to even challenge him on them.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
because he only goes there very very rarely, mostly when the point is won either way.
This is untrue -- he goes there more often than the average player
while as it was pointed out, some other player, for example Borg, used to win RG in a baseline competition to proceed then winning Wimbledon in a S&V contest.

So, which one sounds to you a more complete player?
Different era
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
it doesn't matter.
question was whether Novak is "the most complete player of all times"?
answer is obviously not, cause there are players with much better net game and overhead.

is Novak having the most complete collection of trophies?
probably yes.
and probably he will get the missing bits like weeks at #1 and YE#1
but that is in spite of not being so good at net and overhead

It does matter when you say the gap is huge when it's very small. So there are players with a better overhead and net game. So what? His overhead is still better than at least 5 ATGs. Being the most complete doesn't mean you have to be better than everybody else on every shot. It means the collection of your shots is better than everyone else's.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Here is a list of all players with at least 90 smashes in the MCP dataset, with their winners (and induced forced errors) per smash (W/SM), errors per smash (E/SM), and points won per smash (PTS/SM):

PLAYER W/SM E/SM PTS/SM
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 78% 6% 90%
Tomas Berdych 76% 6% 88%
Pete Sampras 75% 7% 86%
Roger Federer 73% 7% 86%
Rafael Nadal 69% 7% 84%
Milos Raonic 73% 9% 82%
Andy Murray 67% 6% 82%
Kei Nishikori 68% 11% 81%
David Ferrer 71% 9% 81%
Andre Agassi 67% 8% 80%
Novak Djokovic 66% 9% 80%
Stefan Edberg 62% 12% 78%
Stan Wawrinka 65% 10% 77%
Ivan Lendl 57% 13% 71%
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
it doesn't matter.
question was whether Novak is "the most complete player of all times"?
answer is obviously not, cause there are players with much better net game and overhead.
But do these players with a better net game (also odd that overhead is not included in said net game) not have flaws or weakness in other areas of the game?

Specially in such a baseline oriented era, a deficiency in one's baseline game is much worse than one in the forecourt
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
This is untrue -- he goes there more often than the average player

Different era

average player in the homogeneous courts era?
with poly strings allowed even if they are known to generate undue spin which is forbidden by the rules of tennis?

sure, he might be.
but he goes to the net less often then players before the poly strings era.
and in the before poly era, there were as well baseliners.
 

myth

Professional
Djokovic PPA (Point Probability Added) resulting from an overhead = -0.02
while Tsonga PPA = +0.17

as the gap is quite huge, it is fair to point it out as a weakness.

and I can't recall such pathetic BH shot for example in a crucial moment executed by Novak, but in case of overhead there is enough evidence how he failed to convert a winning situation into a point form overhead.
just compare that to Federer for example

@RF-18 specially for you. Let's put an end to this myth.

That should be the end of all myths....


I guess Nadal gets nervous playing Youzhny..... He even protest against Hawk eye

 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
But do these players with a better net game (also odd that overhead is not included in said net game) not have flaws or weakness in other areas of the game?

Specially in such a baseline oriented era, a deficiency in one's baseline game is much worse than one in the forecourt

there was identified at least one player that had a more complete game.
so there is nothing to be discussed here, the answer to the thread is "NO"

if you want to glorify Novak, just ask a different question and go glorify him.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
average player in the homogeneous courts era?
with poly strings allowed even if they are known to generate undue spin which is forbidden by the rules of tennis?

sure, he might be.
but he goes to the net less often then players before the poly strings era.
and in the before poly era, there were as well baseliners.
So... You're basically accusing Novak for not playing in other eras? Oh boy... :)

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
 

chokerer

New User
Nole has 0 titles won on fast courts and has never serve & volleyed. So he’s automatically out of contention for most complete ever.
 

wangs78

Legend
Really depends on what the OP defines as a complete players. Djokovic’s two biggest assets are his movement and his mental strength. His movement is mindbogglingly effective and his ability to persevere in the biggest moments are the best I’ve ever seen. He obviously also has a great serve, great ground strokes, etc but his volleys and OH are average at best. With that said his repertoire allows him to handle any player (not named Wawrinka).

Contrast this with Roger who I think has a better serve, better volleys and OH, better touch, etc. He has the most balanced game and the most weapons but mentally he has lost some of his biggest contests
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
average player in the homogeneous courts era?
with poly strings allowed even if they are known to generate undue spin which is forbidden by the rules of tennis?

sure, he might be.
but he goes to the net less often then players before the poly strings era.
and in the before poly era, there were as well baseliners.
The truth is baseline play always had a higher skill ceiling than net play.

Now you have to be much more careful with your net approaches. Gone are days when you could toss in a hapzard slice and rush the net.
 

skaj

Legend
You're dishonest.

1. You refuse to give Novak benefit of the doubt and baselessly accusing him of lying. He said the reason for crying was of patriotic nature, you're saying it's not. Like you know his feelings better than himself.

2. You're shamelessly acting like you don't know what is World Tour Finals (WTF).

3. You're knowingly misrepresenting my participation argument - You knew I talk about percentages, but you're acting like it's about number of participants.

4. You're deliberately misrepresenting my answer about the reason of Novak's crying - I never said "only", but you're insisting I did. Feel free to cite me. You can't. Because I didn't.

So yeah, you're just busted for being pretty dishonest.
If I would need to guess why, I would say you have an fanboy agenda to make Nadal's OG gold something more than it is. Shame.

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk

I don't know why are you focusing on me and your ideas on my traits(which say more about you than they do about me), instead of on tennis.

1. I am not accusing anyone of lying, I wasn't getting into it deep enough to do so, let alone actually do that. All I have said is that he cried because the Olympic gold means so much to him and his career, as opposed to you claiming(maybe that is why you see dishonesty in others...) that he cried only because he was sad not to bring a gold medal home to his compatriots.

2. I am not pretending at all, I asked you to tell me what you mean by that. I said that ATP finals have even less participants than the Olympics, you continued mentioning that short "WTF". I don't pay attention to the name of the final ATP event, or events in general, have just googled it since you basically forced me to, and discovered it's the same thing. So, ATPF or WTF, it has less participants than the Olympics, let's go back to that fact and not find ways to get away from it.

3. No, I did not. You said participants. Percentages of what?

4. You did not use the word only, and I have never said that you have used the word only. Feel free to cite me. You can't. Because I didn't. I have said that you said that that is the reason for his crying(he was sad that he cannot bring the gold medal home). I have said that that is not the only reason, but that he cried also(and mostly) because he could not add the title he wants so badly to his collection. You did not accept that reason, and the only reason you mentioned and have stuck to was the one in the brackets in this paragraph. Only that one.

So, if anyone is "busted' it is you. And your guess is wrong, as are your other guesses(check out some other of my posts about "the bull" here if you don't believe it), and again tells more about you and your agenda here than it does about other and theirs.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Wow, he won a couple of points at the net in his 17 years long, 1000+ matches career! He's a better volleyer than Edberg and McEnroe put together...
He's statistically above average at the net compared to his peers. You can't compare current players with Edberg and McEnroe. See:
The truth is baseline play always had a higher skill ceiling than net play.

Now you have to be much more careful with your net approaches. Gone are days when you could toss in a hapzard slice and rush the net.
How do you think Edberg and McEnroe would look if they had to volley against present day passing shots?
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
He's statistically above average at the net compared to his peers. You can't compare current players with Edberg and McEnroe. See:

How do you think Edberg and McEnroe would look if they had to volley against present day passing shots?

it must feel great to quote yourself as in referring to an established truth :-D :-D :-D
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Do you think Edberg and McEnroe could play their game in modern conditions?

that's not the point.

could they play? yes they could, just like M. Zverev or D. Brown.
Would they be as successful are they were? probably not.

P.S.
that was just a bit of sarcasm as you quoted your own statement
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
that's not the point.

could they play? yes they could, just like M. Zverev or D. Brown.
Would they be as successful are they were? probably not.

P.S.
that was just a bit of sarcasm as you quoted your own statement
Well, exactly. You have to adapt your game to suit the conditions that you'll play in. If Djokovic had played in '70s or '80s, his game would not look like it does now
 

Beckerserve

Legend
........and many early rounds losses in all majors in his peak years....no WTF with many RR....
WTF is irrelevant. It is a format not played all year and solely designed to satisfy the sponsors. Nadal.skips it often. Also it never has the best 8 players at that time either. That is what makes other events harder. You have to beat players in form . The early losses argument at Wimbledon has some traction i would agree there.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
With this mindset, you're basically claiming Novak's 2011 is by far the best season in tennis history, without any doubt? ;)

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
Depends. I think Nadal 2010 as i place more weight on Majors and that Surface Slam was unique. But Djokovic 2011 overall and Mcenroe 1984 were unreal years overall. A lot of these debates is individual preference as to what we each value as important. I suspect the players have different yardsticks. I am sure Federer would love 110 overall titles even if the rest now were 250 events.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
I am starting to believe that you are clueless about tennis

2019 Miami 17 out of top 20 entered the draw
2018 Miami 17 out of top 20 entered the draw

2019 IW 18 of the top 20 entered
2018 IW 16 of the top 20 entered

so, how did you determine your previous statement that Miami is irrelevant and IW is the only true M1000???

sounds more like your bias toward Nadal is painting a very wrong picture at your playground
Miami has a bigger field than 20. And you claim im clueless lol.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
I am starting to believe that you are clueless about tennis

2019 Miami 17 out of top 20 entered the draw
2018 Miami 17 out of top 20 entered the draw

2019 IW 18 of the top 20 entered
2018 IW 16 of the top 20 entered

so, how did you determine your previous statement that Miami is irrelevant and IW is the only true M1000???

sounds more like your bias toward Nadal is painting a very wrong picture at your playground
Every player today, and i mean all players would say Indian wells is bigger than Miami. No doubt at all. Rome is bigger than Madrid and Monte Carlo. Just because events have the same points tally does not mean they are equal. In fact i bet most players would rather win Queens than Miami.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Every player today, and i mean all players would say Indian wells is bigger than Miami. No doubt at all. Rome is bigger than Madrid and Monte Carlo. Just because events have the same points tally does not mean they are equal. In fact i bet most players would rather win Queens than Miami.

Most of your posts consists of assumptions, "all players would say" "miami not a big title" etc etc. How do you know what the players would prefer?

Objectively you are wrong.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Most of your posts consists of assumptions, "all players would say" "miami not a big title" etc etc. How do you know what the players would prefer?

Objectively you are wrong.
Because they are on record as saying Indian wells is the 5th Major. Djokovic said it should have more points. Nadal.plays IW and skips miami every year pretty much .
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
Every player today, and i mean all players would say Indian wells is bigger than Miami. No doubt at all. Rome is bigger than Madrid and Monte Carlo. Just because events have the same points tally does not mean they are equal. In fact i bet most players would rather win Queens than Miami.
And you talked to all of them and confirmed that.
You are laughable man, give up with your nonsense...
 
Top