Is Djokovic the most complete player of the Open Era?

[Bud]

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.

Completeness of game from best to least

Murray - 2 majors
Djokovic - 6 majors

Followed by the incomplete games of

Nadal - 13 majors
Federer - 17 majors

So, the more complete one's game the fewer majors they win?

:lol:

 

[Steve0904]

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.

Not really. Federer had a great BH in his prime. Players didn't "exploit" it or break it down with the exception of Nadal's heavy lefty topspin, and that too only only really happened on clay to any extensive degree. The reason people said to hit to his BH was because if you hit to his FH the point was effectively over. The BH was the much less dangerous wing, but it was still extremely hard to break down and was a great shot in its own right.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Not really. Federer had a great BH in his prime. Players didn't "exploit" it or break it down with the exception of Nadal's heavy lefty topspin, and that too only only really happened on clay to any extensive degree. The reason people said to hit to his BH was because if you hit to his FH the point was effectively over. The BH was the much less dangerous wing, but it was still extremely hard to break down and was a great shot in its own right.

Plus if you hit to his BH at least Fed got some practice for his Nadal matches. Apparently he never got enough practice.

 

[abmk]

only those who are fixated on the modern baseline game would think so.

otherwise his touch at the net isn't that good, overheads suck , is prone to being troubled by changes of pace and serve can go astray at times .....

 

[abmk]

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.

yeah, I'm sure all ATG players would love to have murray's brilliant second serve and fh :roll:

 

[Morj]

Not really. Federer had a great BH in his prime. Players didn't "exploit" it or break it down with the exception of Nadal's heavy lefty topspin, and that too only only really happened on clay to any extensive degree. The reason people said to hit to his BH was because if you hit to his FH the point was effectively over. The BH was the much less dangerous wing, but it was still extremely hard to break down and was a great shot in its own right.

Come on, you know its true. I'll admit his BH was very good for taking it on the rise and flicking it for a winner.

However, in general it was a "passable" shot for Federer. He rarely ripped it for a winner on his own, and he had to resort to the slice very often on that wing. Just watch his prime matches, players and commentators both knew that it wasn't a "weapon".

You could take a player like Djokovic and say he has weapons off both wings. For Federer, even Prime Federer, you would never say he has weapons off both wings.

 

[objectivity]

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.

that wasn't meant as a slight against Federer. i was just pointing out that the obviously weaker part of Federer's game, is his backhand especially in addressing high balls. and that is exactly what Rafa has exploited all these years.

 

[objectivity]

Great post.

In Rafa-Nole match-up it's usually Nole who exploits Rafa's BH which isn't as good as Novak's.

In this matchup, my opinion is that Nole "exploits" Rafa's BH in the sense that he knows Rafa very rarely goes down the line for a couple of reasons. One, his DTL BH is simply not very good. And second, Rafa is risk-averse and usually prefers to strike his BH cross-court. Nole has exploited this fact over and over again since 2011, as he knows the backhand will always come back CC, giving himself a split second more in preparing for the next shot.

That's why Rafa spent much of the off-season working on his DTL BH, which he has used more now. NYTimes talked about his as well. I think this explains to a certain extent why Rafa has caught up with Nole this season.

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/the-secrets-of-nadals-success/

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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.

...but that does not make him the "most complete player of the Open Era." He's not the only player to be strong on both wings, so the OP question is easy to answer: no.

 

[Russeljones]

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.

He is a mediocre grass player who can't execute a simple overhead. His volleys are down there with his movement on grass.

This thread is complete.. something.

 

[NatF]

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.

Federer's backhand wasn't shakey in his best years. It was only ever an issue versus Nadal. I agree about Nadal, his backhand has always been a solid shot aside from when he becomes too defensive.

 

[Steve0904]

Come on, you know its true. I'll admit his BH was very good for taking it on the rise and flicking it for a winner.

However, in general it was a "passable" shot for Federer. He rarely ripped it for a winner on his own, and he had to resort to the slice very often on that wing. Just watch his prime matches, players and commentators both knew that it wasn't a "weapon".

You could take a player like Djokovic and say he has weapons off both wings. For Federer, even Prime Federer, you would never say he has weapons off both wings.

His BH was a good shot, but it wasn't a "weapon" that is true.It also wasn't a "weakness" in the complete sense of the word. It wasn't like you could just hit to it and expect constant errors out of it like current day.

Federer's BH today is terrible obviously. Today I'm constantly expecting errors out of it on every single shot, dread/cringe every time he has to hit one, and am relatively surprised it makes it over the net most of the time, but in his prime his BH was not a weakness, that is all I'm saying.

Most people like to think Federer's BH has always been a weakness because it's a weakness now, mostly because he's slower and the surfaces are slower and higher bouncing, but that is not the case IMO. Djokovic for example picked on it in AO 2011, partly because you have to hit 10 winners to win one point against Djokovic on that surface, and it has a pretty high bounce. In fact, if you've ever noticed (and I'm sure you have), Fed's BH holds up very well on lower bouncing surfaces in general.

Essentially, he's a product of the surfaces that were more common when he was growing up (i.e lower bouncing surfaces).

About Djokovic, strangely it seems like he is the most solid off the ground stroke for stroke, both sides are a weapon, but his FH can still break down under pressure, and in general.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

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.

i think djokovic's overhead is a less reliable shot than Nad's or Fed's backhands. actually, his net game as a whole leaves a lot to be desired when compared to the net game of the other two. there is more to the game than groundies and movement, even in this era.

however, djokovic does posses the most optimal game for this era, as someone has pointed out. is it the most optimal game relative to any era? unless he wins more slams, or shows he can be more dominant than Federer, Sampras, Nadal and Borg in their respective primes, no. not yet at least.

 

[Steve0904]

Federer's backhand wasn't shakey in his best years. It was only ever an issue versus Nadal. I agree about Nadal, his backhand has always been a solid shot aside from when he becomes too defensive.

Nadal's BH is about as shaky now as Federer's was in his prime. i.e not that shaky at all. His BH is not a weapon that he rips winners with very often, but it is not a weakness that can be exploited just by hitting to it and getting errors. You either need a lot of pace, or you need to get him running pretty fast to his BH. To do that, you usually need to get him running to his FH first and hit the BH DTL well like Djokovic can consistently. The problem is you have to go to his FH first.

These instances that you have to get Fed and Nadal into to make their BH's look like "weaknesses" require something really special just to make it look that way. To me, that is not a weakness.

 

[racertempo]

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.

Of course they went to his backhand, his forehand is one of the best of all time, so pick your poison.....still, how can someone NOT be the most complete player of the open era when he has 17 major wins? I get the argument people have, but it still comes down to wins, plain and simple.

Djok may not be as weak on one side and may have a strong first and second serve, but one one major win last year....so clearly something is missing.

 

[kiki]

Sorry for you but open era didn´t start with federer

 

[Morj]

Of course they went to his backhand, his forehand is one of the best of all time, so pick your poison.....still, how can someone NOT be the most complete player of the open era when he has 17 major wins? I get the argument people have, but it still comes down to wins, plain and simple.

Djok may not be as weak on one side and may have a strong first and second serve, but one one major win last year....so clearly something is missing.

What kind of a ridiculous argument is that? "He's got 17 majors so hes the most complete". By that logic you can just say "Of course Fed's got the best Serve ever, he's got 17 majors!" or "Fed's got the best Backhand ever, 17 majors proves it!"

Fed got to 17 majors because he's the best shotmaker and improviser the game has ever seen, not because every aspect of his game is a weapon. Also, simple fact, the game is evolving so the top players in the modern game are generally more complete than top players of the past. Look at Borg, just because he got to 11 majors doesnt make him more complete than Djokovic.

I've already listed reasons why Djokovic is more complete in his fundamentals than Fed or Nadal, but why Fed and Nadal are still better players so I wont repeat myself.

 

[Steve0904]

What kind of a ridiculous argument is that? "He's got 17 majors so hes the most complete". By that logic you can just say "Of course Fed's got the best Serve ever, he's got 17 majors!" or "Fed's got the best Backhand ever, 17 majors proves it!"

Fed got to 17 majors because he's the best shotmaker and improviser the game has ever seen, not because every aspect of his game is a weapon. Also, simple fact, the game is evolving so the top players in the modern game are generally more complete than top players of the past. Look at Borg, just because he got to 11 majors doesnt make him more complete than Djokovic.

I've already listed reasons why Djokovic is more complete in his fundamentals than Fed or Nadal, but why Fed and Nadal are still better players so I wont repeat myself.

But I do think Borg is more complete than Djokovic. Just because it's the present doesn't mean it's the best. Djokovic is "complete" for this era, but overall, he has virtually no slice BH, his volleys are below average, and his overheads just plain suck by top player standards.

 

[Kenshin]

Djokovic looks like he is a complete player but is he really so? He looks complete from the back of the court on hard courts because he is solid from both wings. Yet his vollies and approach to the net is mediocre at best for a great player like him. His forehand looks good when he is playing well but is attackable when he is not playing well and makes a lot of unforced errors. Same goes with his serve. So he is one of the complete player of the open era but he is not the only one. By thinking like that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras have flaws but they are all complete player to a certain extent.

 

[Morj]

But I do think Borg is more complete than Djokovic. Just because it's the present doesn't mean it's the best. Djokovic is "complete" for this era, but overall, he has virtually no slice BH, his volleys are below average, and his overheads just plain suck by top player standards.

Thats true, the definition of complete does change. In Borg's time other skills were emphasized.

Federer is better because he has more miscellaneous skills: passing shots, volleys, slice, half-volleys, half-volleys from baseline, overheads, lobs, etc. He is better at shotmaking/improvisation in general. So Federer is more complete in that he can hit a greater variety of shots.

However, Djokovic is more complete in that he excels in all the main aspects that modern players require. He can hurt you with his serve, he can hurt you on the return, he can hurt you off both wings, and he can track down any ball. No other player can claim this. So different definitions of "complete"

 

[Kenshin]

Thats true, the definition of complete does change. In Borg's time other skills were emphasized.

Federer is better because he has more miscellaneous skills: passing shots, volleys, slice, half-volleys, half-volleys from baseline, overheads, lobs, etc. He is better at shotmaking/improvisation in general. So Federer is more complete in that he can hit a greater variety of shots.

However, Djokovic is more complete in that he excels in all the main aspects that modern players require. He can hurt you with his serve, he can hurt you on the return, he can hurt you off both wings, and he can track down any ball. No other player can claim this. So different definitions of "complete"

Like I posted before Djokovic is not the only one with the ablity like you mentioned in your post. Federer, Nadal and Sampras all of them can do same things as Djokovic. They all have flaws in their game but are very complete players to a certain degree.

 

[objectivity]

Like I posted before Djokovic is not the only one with the ablity like you mentioned in your post. Federer, Nadal and Sampras all of them can do same things as Djokovic. They all have flaws in their game but are very complete players to a certain degree.

i think his point is that Djokovic the most solid off both wings, that both wings are offensive weapons. i think its really hard to argue against that.

 

[Kenshin]

i think his point is that Djokovic the most solid off both wings, that both wings are offensive weapons. i think its really hard to argue against that.

I think it depends on the surface. For example on clay like the match this year's semi-final at French open, Nadal hit many winners from both wings in the last set to win. Like I said before Just because Novak is solid from the back of the court doen't make him a complete player. Federer in his prime on hard court was just as solid as Djokovic and hit more winners.

 

[Morj]

Like I posted before Djokovic is not the only one with the ablity like you mentioned in your post. Federer, Nadal and Sampras all of them can do same things as Djokovic. They all have flaws in their game but are very complete players to a certain degree.

Now we're just arguing in circles. Fed, Nadal, Sampras are all very complete players. But if we're looking purely at modern tennis, the primary skills emphasized are: Serve, Return, Movement, Forehand, Backhand. Djokovic is the only player who is strong in each category. Federer/Nadal/Sampras you wouldn't call their Returns or their Backhands "weapons", whereas Djokovic is dangerous in each one of these categories.

Djokovic hurts you with his serve, hurts you with his return, hurts you off both wings, and can track down any ball. None of the players you mentioned can do that.

 

[Kenshin]

Now we're just arguing in circles. Fed, Nadal, Sampras are all very complete players. But if we're looking purely at modern tennis, the primary skills emphasized are: Serve, Return, Movement, Forehand, Backhand. Djokovic is the only player who is strong in each category. Federer/Nadal/Sampras you wouldn't call their Returns or their Backhands "weapons", whereas Djokovic is dangerous in each one of these categories.

Djokovic hurts you with his serve, hurts you with his return, hurts you off both wings, and can track down any ball. None of the players you mentioned can do that.

I disagree. When Federer, Nadal and Sampras are playing really well they can do about the same things you discribed.

 

[Kenshin]

Morj-Ask yourself does Djokovic looks complete when he is playing on clay or grass? Does he look complete than Nadal and Federer?. He looks complete on hard courts from the back of the court but how is he when he is at the net?

 

[objectivity]

I think it depends on the surface. For example on clay like the match this year's semi-final at French open, Nadal hit many winners from both wings in the last set to win. Like I said before Just because Novak is solid from the back of the court doen't make him a complete player. Federer in his prime on hard court was just as solid as Djokovic and hit more winners.

nadal firing winners off his backhand, had much to do with an obvious adjustment he made to cope with novak. he started to do more down the line, and while it still isn't as good as djokovic or murray's, this really start to complicate the matchup against djokovic.

but i think anyone claiming that nadal is as balanced off both wings as djokovic, simply is wrong.

 

[Kenshin]

nadal firing winners off his backhand, had much to do with an obvious adjustment he made to cope with novak. he started to do more down the line, and while it still isn't as good as djokovic or murray's, this really start to complicate the matchup against djokovic.

but i think anyone claiming that nadal is as balanced off both wings as djokovic, simply is wrong.

I am not saying Nadal is as balanced off both wings as Djokovic. Probobarly Novak is the most balanced player off both wings as a player on tour right now. However that doesn't make him the most complete player of the open era.

 

[racertempo]

What kind of a ridiculous argument is that? "He's got 17 majors so hes the most complete". By that logic you can just say "Of course Fed's got the best Serve ever, he's got 17 majors!" or "Fed's got the best Backhand ever, 17 majors proves it!"

Fed got to 17 majors because he's the best shotmaker and improviser the game has ever seen, not because every aspect of his game is a weapon. Also, simple fact, the game is evolving so the top players in the modern game are generally more complete than top players of the past. Look at Borg, just because he got to 11 majors doesnt make him more complete than Djokovic.

I've already listed reasons why Djokovic is more complete in his fundamentals than Fed or Nadal, but why Fed and Nadal are still better players so I wont repeat myself.

Um, it is THE ONLY ARGUMENT when the topic is "most complete". The most complete player wins most of the time, otherwise then he CLEARLY has a weakness that is being exploited in some way...hence Djok only winning 1 major last year. No one asked if Fed had the best serve of all time and my argument does not lean that way at all....the topic is most complete, so most majors is clear the best indicator. How can the "most complete" player of the open era as you all are trying to argue only have 1 major win in the last 5 attempts?

Like I posted before Djokovic is not the only one with the ablity like you mentioned in your post. Federer, Nadal and Sampras all of them can do same things as Djokovic. They all have flaws in their game but are very complete players to a certain degree.

That is exactly my point....people are saying "he is is equally good from both wings" is just a stupid argument. First, I want to punch the person who first starting calling it "wings", second, he clearly has something missing or else he would win lots and lots more then he does, and has never won the French. You cannot even be in the argument when you have one won 1 of the majors more then 1 time......seriously, think about that.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal's BH is about as shaky now as Federer's was in his prime. i.e not that shaky at all. His BH is not a weapon that he rips winners with very often, but it is not a weakness that can be exploited just by hitting to it and getting errors. You either need a lot of pace, or you need to get him running pretty fast to his BH. To do that, you usually need to get him running to his FH first and hit the BH DTL well like Djokovic can consistently. The problem is you have to go to his FH first.

These instances that you have to get Fed and Nadal into to make their BH's look like "weaknesses" require something really special just to make it look that way. To me, that is not a weakness.

I'm glad you notice this. Nadal's backhand really isn't much of a weakness. His FH is just a ridiculous shot. I haven't seen Nadal losing a match because of his backhand breaking down since 2011. He rarely ever misses the thing, and it doesn't land anywhere near as short as it used to.

 

[mental midget]

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.

maybe what you could say is murray has the potential to reach that state. he has excellent feel for the ball, and better hands, hands down, than novak (although novak has clearly put in a lot of work to improve his game around the net, and it shows.)

the second serve could be improved for sure, and maybe it will. so far, though, while murray might be slightly more "well rounded" than novak, the things novak does, he does very, very well. and to this point it's translated into a significant career advantage.

 

[mental midget]

Federer's backhand wasn't shakey in his best years. It was only ever an issue versus Nadal. I agree about Nadal, his backhand has always been a solid shot aside from when he becomes too defensive.

the one gap in nadal's game, and i'm talking slight margins here, is a killer dtl backhand. whether it's mental or technical, that's one shot he does not use with any regularity. if he had that shot on a level that even approached novak's level of expertise, it would be a major addition to his arsenal.

 

[objectivity]

the one gap in nadal's game, and i'm talking slight margins here, is a killer dtl backhand. whether it's mental or technical, that's one shot he does not use with any regularity. if he had that shot on a level that even approached novak's level of expertise, it would be a major addition to his arsenal.

agreed. i think its because of 2 reasons. 1) he is risk averse by nature, so he does not like to use the riskier DTL backhand as it goes over the high part of the net and 2) his backhand is relatively flat, so the safety margin is not quite there.

 

[Morj]

I disagree. When Federer, Nadal and Sampras are playing really well they can do about the same things you discribed.

Ok...so what? When any player is "doing really well" they can play better than normal. But you know for a fact that you would not normally call Sampras' backhand a weapon.

 

[Morj]

Um, it is THE ONLY ARGUMENT when the topic is "most complete". The most complete player wins most of the time, otherwise then he CLEARLY has a weakness that is being exploited in some way...hence Djok only winning 1 major last year. No one asked if Fed had the best serve of all time and my argument does not lean that way at all....the topic is most complete, so most majors is clear the best indicator. How can the "most complete" player of the open era as you all are trying to argue only have 1 major win in the last 5 attempts?

That is exactly my point....people are saying "he is is equally good from both wings" is just a stupid argument. First, I want to punch the person who first starting calling it "wings", second, he clearly has something missing or else he would win lots and lots more then he does, and has never won the French. You cannot even be in the argument when you have one won 1 of the majors more then 1 time......seriously, think about that.

Don't really know what to say to you... you're getting defensive and avoiding my points. I have explained that out of the skills a modern tennis player needs, Djokovic is the most complete because he excels in all categories.

Your problem is you're assuming that "more complete" means "better". Being a "better" player and being "more complete" are different. Federer is a better player than Djokovic for sure. So is Nadal I believe. Thats why they both have more slams.

For example, you could have a tennis player who is terrible in all categories but has a perfect forehand thats so good that literally any time he touches the ball its a winner with perfect accuracy. That guys not "complete" but he'd be nearly unbeatable.

 

[racertempo]

For example, you could have a tennis player who is terrible in all categories but has a perfect forehand thats so good that literally any time he touches the ball its a winner with perfect accuracy. That guys not "complete" but he'd be nearly unbeatable.

I could care less about this argument and we clearly have different views on the topic. To me, in my opinion....looking at the example you gave above, the guy who wins the match 7-9 out of 10 times IS the more complete player, as shown by the scoreboard. Sure, his backhand may be horrible and his second serve may be crap, but if he wins, lets say 8 out of 10 times, then clearly he is covering for his weakness well enough to win.......AND couple that with the fact that the other guy (the more complete player in your mind), is not able to exploit those weaknesses enough to win, so he is the more complete player. If you wan to say that the guy who loses 8 out of 10 matches is more complete then we have opposing views and definitions.......which would make us the first people in the history of the internet to have differing views

The guy who wins 8 out of 10 is exploiting something about the other guy's game on the other side of the net to win that much. This is how I view Fed, 17 majors don't lie.

But let's say the guy winning 8 out of 10 is doing it with monster first serves and a great percentage and a huge forehand. His volleys stink and his backhand is atrocious, so a 4.0 match where one guy has a few massive weapons and the other guy is balanced and does everything ok. The more complete player is the one who is able to win more often, no matter how/why he wins so much. He is clearly able to exploit something about his opponent and gets the job done. So while his backhand may be miserable he is able to compensate for it in other areas to prevent it from costing him matches.

 

[Kenshin]

Ok...so what? When any player is "doing really well" they can play better than normal. But you know for a fact that you would not normally call Sampras' backhand a weapon.

I would normally not call Djokovic's serve and his forehand a weapon. His bread and butter is always gonna be his backhand like Murray. When he is playing really well his serve and his forehand becomes deadly just like when Federer, Nadal and Sampras is playing really well. So no, I stand my ground that Djokovic is ONE of the most complete player of the open era.