Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
He has no obvious weaknesses in his game for anyone to exploit like Federer's BH or Murray's second serve, has better serve (# of aces don't lie), RoS and BH than Nadal.
Is Djokovic the most complete player of the Open Era?
- Thread starter Backspin1183
- Start date
racertempo
Semi-Pro
Seriously? No way, not even close to Nadal and Fed. Do you really think people "exploited" Feds backhand when he was at his best? I think 17 majors would answer that question.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Certainly more complete than Federer..........:twisted:
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
It has been noted that his backhand is not good against the rising ball that goes above his shoulder. A topspin or moonball as Monfed, a Federer fan would say is all it takes to break it.
More complete than Nadal too. Nadal is too forehand dominant like Federer and doesn't have a great serve or strong BH.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
This is so true. Added to that Djokovic's mental strength trumps not only Nadal's bh and Federer's bh, but also Feds mental fragility , among other things......:twisted:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
One needs to be a caveman if they think mentally fragile player can win 17 majors.
You constantly remind me of the GEICO ad.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
True to a large extent. But his strengths are outweighed by Nadal's and Federer's strengths.
That is actually a compliment. If a mentally weak player wins 17 majors, that means, his tennis must be out of this world
.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Djoko is complete, but Murray is even more complete, Djokovic is average at the net (including overheads of course), Murray has no weakness at all in his game, Murray is a bit more complete IMO.
objectivity
Banned
i think you are right. i have always opined that Nadal's matchup problem with Djokovic is that Novak has no obvious area for Rafa to attack. Rafa thrives on exploiting chinks in his opponent's armor. He is a very disciplined player who will keep picking at the weakness till the opponent crumbles. its usually the poor (relatively) movement of his opponent. In fed's case, obviously its the backhand.
but in novak's case, there really isn't any obvious area for rafa to pick at. and that's why he has struggled relatively against novak in my opinion.
objectivity
Banned
disagree. Murray has a weak second serve for one. and his forehand. technically it is actually a weapon. but in a real match, its usually a liability because for some reason, he will stop going for his shots and it becomes weak and exploitable.
Omega_7000
Legend
You're trying really hard to be funny but it's not working.
Omega_7000
Legend
Murray is not mentally strong and doesn't have any big weapons.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Great post.
In Rafa-Nole match-up it's usually Nole who exploits Rafa's BH which isn't as good as Novak's.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
I think it's clear Nole is more complete a player than other big four members. Question is, is Novak more complete than Laver? McEnroe? Borg? Is Djokovic the most complete player of the Open Era?
racertempo
Semi-Pro
Clear? Clear maybe to the two of you guys with Nole avatars, but to the rest of the world....the guy with 17 majors would be considered far far more complete, and Nadal has 13.
When Nole gets near double digits then your conversation might carry more weight....otherwise this is just a fan-boy self-stroking thread to beg for compliments on your boy. Seriously. And I could care less about any of the guys...but it just wreaks of your love for one guy with one 7 majors.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually he's not if we're being serious.
In terms of complete players in today's era (which includes net play) it's Federer, Nadal, and then it's arguable that Murray is more complete than Djokovic is depending on what your definition of complete is. Credit Djokovic though for trying to improve his net play.
Djokovic has the most successful game for this era, i.e incredible baseline strokes and defence that's hard to break down, but in terms of open era there are other more complete players besides the "big 4."
Borg comes to mind for being able to win RG from the baseline, and Wimbledon by S&V. Sampras was pretty complete IMO as well. "Complete" to me means being able to play relatively well in all areas of the court not just from the baseline. It means being able to execute all the shots well.
Djokovic has a good FH, a great BH, a great ROS, and I'd say above average drop shots, but his volleys and overheads leave a lot to be desired. As does his slice BH. So no he is not the most complete player of the open era to me.
Last edited:
racertempo
Semi-Pro
IN his mind he is being serious.....but to the rest of us this is a thread that is laughable. Laughable to the logical world who are not card-carrying members of the Nole club.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal has 13 slams, Laver has 11. Is Nadal's game more complete than Laver's? Is Federer complete than Borg?
It's not about who's more dominant or who's won more slams. It's about Djokovic's game in comparison with other all time greats.
As many have pointed out unlike Federer and Nadal who are both not too strong on the BH side, Djokovic is solid off both wings.
racertempo
Semi-Pro
This makes me laugh out loud......"it is so obvious that it is Fed's backhand".....so obvious that he has won more majors then anyone in the history of the sport.....yet no one could beat him in those 17 majors.
racertempo
Semi-Pro
But it is about who is more dominant. Fed's backhand may be the 'weaker' part of his game, but he still has won more majors then anyone in history. Djok only won 1 major last year, yet you are saying he is "the most dominant player of the open era" Ok, thanks fan-boy :???:
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Steve0904, can you prove that Federer is more complete a player than Djokovic?
Last edited:
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
I like Nadal and Federer more than Djokovic, but it's so obvious even to me that Djokovic's game is more complete than the FeDal's.
I never said he's the most dominant player in the Open Era. You can have a great serve like Karlovic's and a great forehand like Nadal's or Federer's and be very dominant. But it doesn't mean you have a complete game.
Djokovic has a very good forehand, great backhand, very good serve, great movement, great return of serve, he's also good at the net. This makes him more complete as a player than Nadal or Federer.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Murray might be better at net than Djokovic but when they play each other Djokovic ventures to the net more frequently.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I'm asking you politely, please don't do this...
I want his habits to be purged from this forum, not satirised or celebrated.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
IN his mind he is being serious.....but to the rest of us this is a thread that is laughable. Laughable to the logical world who are not card-carrying members of the Nole club.
Beast of mallorca is like that. He's actually joking, but when he decides to be serious, he can be a good poster. And he's actually a Nadal fan even though the avatar might have you thinking otherwise. As is Backspin 1183. Although Backspin almost strikes me as more a Fed hater than a Nadal fan.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Which is why I won't respond to that post.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
in which case you are excused, and won't have to prove something that isn't there.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
rockandroll
Banned
In terms of the modern baseline oriented game he might be. He is almost equally strong off both forehand and backhand. Both are a big weapon and dont break down often. His return of serve, movement, and overall defense are excellent, but his overall court positioning and ability to transfer from offense to defense is too. He is patient and able to rally and constructs his points very well. His serve when on is very good , although it can go astray quite badly at times too.
In the classical game he would be far from the most complete. He doesnt volley well, his transition game from forecourt to backcourt and back isnt that strong, he doesnt even have a proper slice that he can hit decently, he has little variety beyond ability to use angles and change the direction of the ball quite well, and he has very little feel, finesse, and guile, but none of that even matters much in the modern game.
In the classical game he would be far from the most complete. He doesnt volley well, his transition game from forecourt to backcourt and back isnt that strong, he doesnt even have a proper slice that he can hit decently, he has little variety beyond ability to use angles and change the direction of the ball quite well, and he has very little feel, finesse, and guile, but none of that even matters much in the modern game.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Good post, I mostly agree. Although I would say his net game and volleys have improved quite a bit this year (with some notable exceptions, FO netrun) and that his variation of variety is also variety - he just likes a certain rhythm, but as his best, there's probably no one, who changes the direction of the ball with such ease as Novak does.
Here's Peter Bodo in an article on ESPN:
That part is food for thought, for exactly what part of Djokovic’s game is lacking? He is undoubtedly the most well-balanced pro on the tour, with rock-solid groundstrokes, remarkable defensive skills and enough power (and gumption) to take the game to his opponent. To say that Novak’s game needs work is like saying that the smile on the Mona Lisa’s face isn’t quite right, and some artist ought to fix it.
http://espn.go.com/blog/peter-bodo/post/_/id/555/is-becker-the-answer-for-djokovic
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Well....While we're talking about complete. Can anyone put together a more complete line up than this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuXkXJ1fPuk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuXkXJ1fPuk
NEW_BORN
Hall of Fame
Where's Van Damme
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Do you remember what happened to him at the end of the last one?
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
NEW_BORN
Hall of Fame
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
They missed out on Van Dam and Jackie Chan.
Jackie...yes. Van Dam? As much as I love the guy, you do know what was in that bag that Stallone was carrying over his shoulder at the end of the last movie, right?
Still untouchable line up, no one anywhere comes close to this.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
NEW_BORN and Hitman,
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
I agree. Is the showing this 2014 ?
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Yes, it is coming out June. Testosterone overload my friend.
I think we all need to put together our own talk tennis expendables team.
Forehand Of Doom
Banned
Besides his volleys and overheads there are no glaring weaknesses in his game. I think a better term than "complete" would be "balanced", since a shot not being a glaring weakness doesn't imply it is an excellent shot. Not sure about being the most balanced players in the Open Era, but one of the most balanced active players.
Forehand Of Doom
Banned
Yes, it is coming out June. Testosterone overload my friend.
I think we all need to put together our own talk tennis expendables team.
Funny I haven't seen any of the Expendables movies. I'll have to now.
BTW, I still watch Cobra from time to time. The only thing more badass than Stallone and the bad guys in that movie is Brigitte Nielsen's swimsuit. My Nielsen ratings usually go through the roof in that scene. If you know what I mean. :lol:
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
The 80s. The real testosterone filled era. Regarding Cobra, my sig is a play on that opening sequence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xaVjUN4EgQ
Yes they did, watch matches back when Fed was even at his absolute most dominant and commentators will still note that his backhand wing is weaker and that he needs the ball to be on his FH wing for him to be deadly. Opponents would always hit to his backhand. The difference was Fed could get around the BH better through superior footwork.
Djokovic has the best tennis "foundations" in that he has no exploitable weaknesses. His serve is solid, returns are great, movement is great, both groundstrokes are weapons. There's nothing take advantage of.
The difference is that although Fed and Nadal have some shaky parts in their game (Fed Backhand, Nadal Serve/Backhand) they also have a lot more special elements in their game that Djokovic does not, such as strategy, shotmaking, passing shots, improvisational ability, superior slices, better volleys, half-volleys, etc. That's what makes them better, there's more to it than just fundamentals.
The difference is that although Fed and Nadal have some shaky parts in their game (Fed Backhand, Nadal Serve/Backhand) they also have a lot more special elements in their game that Djokovic does not, such as strategy, shotmaking, passing shots, improvisational ability, superior slices, better volleys, half-volleys, etc. That's what makes them better, there's more to it than just fundamentals.
Bud
Bionic Poster
If he's so complete, why does he have only 6 majors on two surfaces (barely). He's won 5 HC majors and Wimbledon.
Nadal has 13 majors and Federer 17 majors. Surely, you must be joking.
rockandroll
Banned
Nadals backhand is not a shaky shot when he is playing well. Federers maybe, to some degree even in his prime. Nadals serve isnt a big weapon but I am not sure it is shaky. He is excellent getting a very high percentage, and with the wicked lefty spin he has it is very hard to attack his serve effectively.
Overall I see what you are saying though.
Similar threads
- Poll
