NatF
Bionic Poster
You are a pathetic toxic troll. The trumptard of the fed fans. LMAO. quit making **** up inciter. Go get a room and wait for fed to show up.
Pot calling the kettle black on cue.
You are a pathetic toxic troll. The trumptard of the fed fans. LMAO. quit making **** up inciter. Go get a room and wait for fed to show up.
Oh that's the reason the serve stats have never been so high?I think the heavy balls and slow to medium courts neutralised these players So that baseline grinders would dominate the tour.
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.
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.And that's an all time/open era list? You should make it a thread, definitely worthy. Should put an end to the myths.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not the one who posted a compilation of mistakes first.did anyone try to argue that there is a player that doesn't make mistakes?
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.
I'm not the one who posted a compilation of mistakes first.
This video is not representative of reality. Djokovic wins the vast majority of points he plays at the netyou probably wanted to watch this video
It calculates to one extra point added from Tsonga's overhead per 600 points played. The gap is extremely small actually.
This video is not representative of reality. Djokovic wins the vast majority of points he plays at the net
Djokovic weakness is on low bouncing faster courts. See his results vs Federer who outclasses him on all court play and tennis skill.
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.
This is untrue -- he goes there more often than the average playerbecause he only goes there very very rarely, mostly when the point is won either way.
Different erawhile 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?
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
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?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.
This is untrue -- he goes there more often than the average player
Different era
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.
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
That should be the end of all myths....
I guess Nadal gets nervous playing Youzhny..... He even protest against Hawk eye
So... You're basically accusing Novak for not playing in other eras? Oh boy...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.
which myth?
If you think that I am one of the Rafa fanboiz, than you are mistaken.
You should have dedicated those compilations to: @clayqueen @octobrina10 @weakera @Nadal_Django and some other well known members of the *************.
So... You're basically accusing Novak for not playing in other eras? Oh boy...
Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
I love it at 3:04
The truth is baseline play always had a higher skill ceiling than net play.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.
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
He's statistically above average at the net compared to his peers. You can't compare current players with Edberg and McEnroe. See: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...
How do you think Edberg and McEnroe would look if they had to volley against present day passing shots?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.
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?
Do you think Edberg and McEnroe could play their game in modern conditions?it must feel great to quote yourself as in referring to an established truth![]()
![]()
![]()
Do you think Edberg and McEnroe could play their game in modern conditions?
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 nowthat'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
Different era
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.........and many early rounds losses in all majors in his peak years....no WTF with many RR....
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.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
Miami has a bigger field than 20. And you claim im clueless lol.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.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.
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 .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.
And you talked to all of them and confirmed that.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.