D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
And poor Nick got destroyed every time he played him anyway, LOL.He probably hasn't played against the best of Murray either.
Kyrgios : Djokovic most complete player I have ever played
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
nochweiterroger
Rookie
Who on earth cares what Kyrgios thinks? How is he suddenly the all time expert?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes he has. Murray manhandled him at Wimb last year.He probably hasn't played against the best of Murray either.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
I'm sure I'll scroll down and see a bunch of nonsense from lessor fans but @KINGROGER already pretty much 1-shot the thread with this fair analysis
I know fans of the 2 guys were always going to be a bit biased against the other player's game but peak Djoker, especially when he's forced to play aggressively against a guy like Nadal is the closest thing to a peak fed impression that tennis fans are gonna get in the 2010s. Yeah there's differences - D's BH better, FH not as otherworldly, Feds serves and net/overhead game are noticeably better. But overall they're both on a different level from everyone else.
I think Fed fans would actually like Djoker if (1) he played aggressively all the time and (2) he and Fed played at different times.
Last edited by a moderator:
Z
Zara
Guest
I do think that's how Kyrgios meant that Djokovic has no apparent weakness and the overhead isn't as big a weakness because it's not quite often that he'd have to hit an overhead.
Z
Zara
Guest
It's my personal take on things as I can't say for sure but the fact that Murray likes Kyrgios a great deal and has always stood by him, might have made left Kyrgios a bit vulnerable against Murray. Therefore, he's unable to bring his best against Murray. Kyrgios, it seems, loves a target where he is not emotionally involved. I find him quite emotional and I think that might be his weakest trait that he needs to overcome and as soon as possible, if he wants to go down the big road. ATP is brutal though - takes time for these players to finally mature. Sampras, for example, didn't waste any time apart from 1991 to 1992, when he was having a lot of hard time dealing with the spotlight after his 1990 win, but he sorted out after 1992 (especially after that loss to Edberg at the USO) and that's when I strongly feel he set goals and decided to break records. Raonic most certainly have the mindset or at least he knows what he wants but he's just not as talented as Sampras was. Sampras had the ideal game with the perfect height that matched perfectly. I don't feel Kyrgios' is well balanced physically nor is Raonic's of course. Dimitrov has everything going for him however he hasn't shown much in the mental department and took too much time to deal with the hype. I wish he had never gotten involved with Sharapova. I like all these players of course along with Zverev and Theim. Would be nice to see them come forward in a strong way in the near future.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
How exactly does a guy with "no overhead and poor net skills" beat the #1 ranked dubs team?
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic has the most underrated net game ever. The table below is based on stats from all Slam semifinalists in 2015 (from their R1-QF matches):
Considering how often Novak approaches the net and his success rate up there, I'd say he has at least a competent net game.
Mickael122
Rookie
Djokovic has the most underrated net game ever. The table below is based on stats from all Slam semifinalists in 2015 (from their R1-QF matches):
Considering how often Novak approaches the net and his success rate up there, I'd say he has at least a competent net game.
Good stats indeed but, he doesn't come to the net with the same state of mind. He's already made the difference most of the time when he comes to the net, and just has a very easy volley to drop. Much like Ferrer. But when it comes to an offensive tactic, it's another story. His overhead are really poor for such a player. Watching is double match, I thought his volleys were not as sharp as Troicki to be honest
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Completeness is such a difficult concept...
What does it mean? Are you complete if you have mastered every single stroke on a high level? Are you complete if your game is structured so that possible gaps are accounted for by strategical play? Are you complete if you're comfortable on all areas on the court? Are you complete if your game matches favourably against the vast majority of - if not all - players on tour?
There's many ways of being complete, and the way they cause success varies.
What does it mean? Are you complete if you have mastered every single stroke on a high level? Are you complete if your game is structured so that possible gaps are accounted for by strategical play? Are you complete if you're comfortable on all areas on the court? Are you complete if your game matches favourably against the vast majority of - if not all - players on tour?
There's many ways of being complete, and the way they cause success varies.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Stats can be misleading in this context to be fair, different net points cannot be equated. For instance, the average point Llodra would play up at net quite likely is more complex/difficult than the average net point Novak plays. I'm not sure if there's an objective metric to make up for the weakness of this statistical representation (or rather, there certainly are metrics that could be used, but they aren't recorded for various reasons).Djokovic has the most underrated net game ever. The table below is based on stats from all Slam semifinalists in 2015 (from their R1-QF matches):
Considering how often Novak approaches the net and his success rate up there, I'd say he has at least a competent net game.
Now, Novak certainly is competent at net. He has a great drop volley and his punch volley is pretty good too (albeit not as good as his dropper in my estimation). His achilles heel up at net is higher balls though, which is why his net play overall isn't complete/excellent.
I find it interesting that Novak approaches the net at the French Open more than anywhere else (relatively speaking). Perhaps this is a suggestion of the manner with which he usually attacks the net.
Also LOL at Berdych with the highest percentage of net points won
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Good points. Stats obviously don't tell the whole story, but they give you an idea of how the story looks like
I'm not saying Novak has a great net game; just that it's not as bad as people suggest. He's also more willing to come forward than guys like Murray and Nadal
But look at how often Berdych approaches the netAlso LOL at Berdych with the highest percentage of net points won
Djokovic has the most underrated net game ever. The table below is based on stats from all Slam semifinalists in 2015 (from their R1-QF matches):
Considering how often Novak approaches the net and his success rate up there, I'd say he has at least a competent net game.
I think his good stats at the net are thanks to his superb rock solid baseline game. It allows him to dominate his opponent then come forward for easy putaways.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
So... Same thing Murray and Nadal do?
My eyes tell me that Murray and Nadal have better net game and volleys than Djokovic. That's just from watching them. The number say differently perhaps yes.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Some would say their eyes tell them Murray has better groundstrokes than Djokovic as well
I say Novak has mastered the art of hitting ugly looking shots and still winning
Tennis wizard
Legend
I think people callings Novak's overhead and net skills ''poor'' are far too overdramatic ... i have seen Novak knock down 10 overheads in a single match .. and miss one and it's that one miss that people go crazy about and claim ''Novak can't overhead for **** ''
while it's not the best part of his game .. it's still pretty good
PrinceMoron
Legend
Djokovic: Kyrgios most complete idiot I have ever played.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wangs78
Legend
It's easy for an opponent to come away from a match against Djokovic thinking the guy is the most complete because he plays impenetrable defense with a solid offense (all from the baseline). This is the modern game, with the purpose of net play and touch shots being mainly to keep your opponent honest. So, by that standard, yeah, Kyrgios and Bolletieri are not wrong in their assessment. The problem with this type of "complete" player is he is fully dependent on his movement. You can't dominate the baseline game without fast wheels. That's when a player who has other weapons, like a stronger serve, better touch shots and volleying skills can still be successful, even though he's less "complete". Haha.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
I totally agree with you
I know, but just imagine what people would make out of those stats if Berdych was a popular player with fanbois
Nadal dominated for another three years after djokovic peaked!! Djokovic in his peak years trails nadal 2-4 if u say he peaked 2011 but id say he peaked 2008 onwards as he was top 3 since then
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
OK, I'll give you that. Novak's volleys are far below average and his overhead is lousy. He makes up for it (in his prime) by defending so damn well and getting to every ball. Djoker's strengths are superlative, but he still has holes in his game-- like the volley. But it hasn't hurt him much since nobody ventures into the net anymore.
You are proving my point. If federer was past his peak when nadal and djokovic peaked then we have never seen them face off peak v peak. So we dont know in reality who was better just like we dont know if any of those three were better than sampras or borg.
I actually like federer. I hate the childish goat debate but if people want it ill counter the claim federer is goat.
U can only be goat of your era and federer was clearly goat of his. Nadal is just about goat of his ahead of djokovic, sampras was goat of his and borg of his.
The hardest era to define was lendl edberg and becker. Lendls failure to win wimbledon makes that thr hardest era to define.
As for most pleasing player to watch its federer sampras and mcenroe and many others ahead of the baseline sluggers.
markwillplay
Hall of Fame
It's relative. Kyrgios is young and associates tennis with baseline play (aggressive or not). He has probably faced few opponents who were willing or even if they were, could move forward with great skill. If he gets Fed when Federer is on, he will have a different opinion.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
2007 actually. Djokovic was top 3 for the first time in 2007.
Djokovic and federers consistency i think is unrivalled?
10 straigjt years top three for novak. Hats off thats amazing
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
That's the thing, his weaknesses aren't easily exploitable. For example, his overhead is still good enough that an opponent would lose very quickly if he just lobbed up shots every point. He wins about 95 percent of points with easy overheads when it should be like 98, but an opponent can't really do anything with that.
I think when people say "no weaknesses", what they often mean is "there is no strategy I can use" (for ex pick on Fed's backhand, hit flat and rob Nadal of time etc)
If there is 1 thing Djokovic struggles with it's probably a lack of rhythm and variety, also for a great returner of serve (best ever IMO), he isn't as superb as you'd expect with the huger servers, although again that's something you either have or don't, hard for a player to use that as part of his strategy.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic might be the most complete but the argument must be sound. It can't revolve around some assumption that being balanced from the baseline makes one the most complete.
We can look at complete as having the most bases covered; or hardest to exploit weaknesses; or highest aggregate of tennis skill regardless of distribution (according to conditions). There might be other outlooks.
We can look at complete as having the most bases covered; or hardest to exploit weaknesses; or highest aggregate of tennis skill regardless of distribution (according to conditions). There might be other outlooks.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
that's my opinion
Mainad
Bionic Poster
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I think, reading into those descriptions, that the first two feed into the third one, which is the fundamental basis of my outlook. As such, Sampras and Agassi are out of the running. Federer might have most bases covered, Djokovic might have the hardest to exploit weaknesses... think of anything for Nadal? And that leads to "highest aggregate of tennis skill (for the purposes of winning). So, is Nadal the most useful under that description - most useful winning configuration? I think we can make arguments for all three being the most complete as all of them have substantial success across all the main conditions, but Nadal has yet to win the YEC which is significant, I think.
We can't forget that currently Djokovic has won the least Slams out of these three players, though I expect him to add to his tally. I'd be very shocked if he didn't.
Problem is, if one looks at the bottom line result of winning too much, the discussion becomes more complicated because of things like sustained desire and longevity and maintenance of non-peak .. completeness.. coming into play.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
What a load of nonsense. Nadal beat Djokovic in 6 matches out of 7 from 2012 Monte Carlo to the 2013 US Open, beat Djokovic in 4 consecutive matches in majors from the 2012 French Open to the 2014 French Open, and Nadal became world number 1 again (year end number 1) in 2013. Nadal responded to what Djokovic did to him in 2011, and brilliantly so.
DolgoSantoro
Professional
If I had to guess, I'd say this was Kyrgios's meaning behind his statement. If you look hard enough, every player will have some shots that they struggle with. I remember hearing about Agassi saying the key to beating Courier was to make him hit running backhands, for example. This specific example seemed silly to me, because intuitively it'd seem that every player would be worse if you could make them hit a bunch of running backhands, or a bunch of some other difficult shot from a disadvantageous position. But if we try to take completeness so literally, wouldn't we have to take factors like this into account?
Maybe we can split it into offensive and defensive completeness. Offensive completeness would involve having many different weapons and being comfortable with many different styles of play, in order to have the tools to attack a variety of different weaknesses. Defensive completeness might not need to be so varied. Everyone will have some kind of weakness, so being a "complete" defensive player might entail having relatively few weaknesses, and having the speed and playstyle required to prevent most players from taking advantage of them.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Yeah, I don't think most complete means "most accomplished" or even "best". I agree that Nadal's impotence at the WTF shows a lack of completeness, which makes sense since he is also the most dominant on a single surface.
Federer does have the most bases covered, whereas Novak is the hardest to exploit. That is a meaningful distinction on your part.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Defensive completeness in combination with a good enough offence might look less impressive in terms of bases covered but more in terms of it looking more difficult to exploit.
Offensive completeness in combination with a good enough defence might look more impressive in terms of bases covered but less in terms of it looking more fallible and exploitable.
Overall, offensive and proactive traits (serve, creating offence with groundstrokes) are easier to maintain in an effective and winning condition than defensive and reactive traits (return and resisting in rallies).
The elephant in the room is the general ineffectiveness of the net-game today.
***
^^
Because it's an offensive/aggressive trait and it's a) a skill which gives limited rewards and b) hard to maintain over a long period because of the type of athleticism it requires.
Last edited:
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Thought experiment:
Fed: Most bases covered but easier to exploit than Djokovic.
Djokovic: Hardest to exploit but less bases/facets covered.
Third Player: easier to exploit than both Djokovic and Federer but overcomes it with absurd not seen before serve and forehand combo and the net skills of John McEnroe... let's say he serves like Karlovic and hits a forehand which combines the best elements of Federer, Lendl, Nadal and Sampras ------ is just as dominant as Fed or Djokovic and those weapons also lead him to win in all conditions at the same clip. ( So basically, he has less bases covered than both Fed and Nole and has more exploitable elements than both, but has overwhelming strengths which leads to equal proficiency.)
Who is most complete?
Fed: Most bases covered but easier to exploit than Djokovic.
Djokovic: Hardest to exploit but less bases/facets covered.
Third Player: easier to exploit than both Djokovic and Federer but overcomes it with absurd not seen before serve and forehand combo and the net skills of John McEnroe... let's say he serves like Karlovic and hits a forehand which combines the best elements of Federer, Lendl, Nadal and Sampras ------ is just as dominant as Fed or Djokovic and those weapons also lead him to win in all conditions at the same clip. ( So basically, he has less bases covered than both Fed and Nole and has more exploitable elements than both, but has overwhelming strengths which leads to equal proficiency.)
Who is most complete?
Last edited:
chrisingrassia
Professional
96% of tennis is played from there.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Not the 3rd, because that isn't completeness, even though it is equally good. It is more dominant on individual strokes and less complete if that makes sense. Completeness isn't necessarily the be all, end all...for example you could argue Nadal's forehand/backhand combo is at least equal to Novak's more balanced/complete groundstrokes.
As far as Fed or Djokovic in that scenario, Fed's definition might be the closest to the straight forward definition of complete...i.e. most bases covered...but Djok's is effectively the most complete in this parlance, since when used about playing an opponent, it usually means he doesn't have a weakness I can attack...i.e. there's no chinks in the armor...nowhere to go..."complete"
Carsomyr
Legend
wow
Fair point but would say anyone thinking the top part needs their eyesight checking. Murray has never looked as solid, dominant or assured as Nole from the baseline.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Apparently, he needs your permission.
I am mesmerized by the mix of expertise, insight and mind-reading abilities.
That is what this sentence means.
Presumably.
I thought that you, being an old member of this forum, would know that this is a regular topic here and not only between Federer and Djokovic but also between Federer and other ATGs from previous generations.
If we go by this line of thinking, peak Nadal lost to Verdasco, Foghini, Kyrgios, Brown, Pouille at slams.
Druss
Hall of Fame
Nadal was a part of Fed's era more so than Edberg/Becker being a part of Lendl's era!
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
Extremely dense.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
robbing Djokovic of time and using variety is definitely a strategy against him on quicker courts. On slower ones you just have to hit him off the court which is extremely hard to replicate.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Novak's poor net game and volleys on display here:
And @tennis_pro , now you can say you've seen Djokovic slice approach 4 times in your life
And @tennis_pro , now you can say you've seen Djokovic slice approach 4 times in your life
Noelan
Legend
I find laughable when some posters praise Andy net game(on Djok expense) - slice and volleys,in almost every of their mathces Myrray is the one who is outsliced, outsmarted and out volleyed .Djokovic has the most underrated net game ever. The table below is based on stats from all Slam semifinalists in 2015 (from their R1-QF matches):
Considering how often Novak approaches the net and his success rate up there, I'd say he has at least a competent net game.
Novak is not the best at net in his era , but can be very decent one.
Some would say that has a better FH and second serve too.
Btw solid one to set up BP at 2 1 that third set
Sereger
Hall of Fame
Uhm, do you have Nadal's ?Djokovic has the most underrated net game ever. The table below is based on stats from all Slam semifinalists in 2015 (from their R1-QF matches):
Considering how often Novak approaches the net and his success rate up there, I'd say he has at least a competent net game.
Similar threads
