Nick Bollettieri: "Djokovic is the most complete player of all time"

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.

And you know this how? Are you psychic?

It has been explained to you that even past 2007 when Federer was past his prime Djokovic and Murray the hard court wonders were not able to defeat Fed in slam HC finals so your strong competition past 2007 for Fed makes no sense.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
How is Nadal's competition on clay affecting Fed's competition on hard in the slightest? It's not. This is a thread about Fed, not Nadal. Fed is the one who is called best tennis player ever by the media, not Nadal. Fed is the one the hype was all about.
Nadal has both Fed and Djoko to contend with on clay, more than Fed had to contend with on other surfaces between 2004 and 2007.
 
Last edited:

DragonBlaze

Hall of Fame
Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.

No but Sid_Vicious has done as good of a job as you explaining Nadal's clay achievements. They are clearly extremely inflated since he didnt have a challenger till Djokovic and look what happened then :lol:. So basically Rafa is nowhere near the clay GOAT title and is a very overrated player on clay. Thank you for showing that to us, since it was your logic that allowed us to reach this conclusion.

Nadal has Federer and Djokovic to contend with? Pleaseeee. Firstly accroding to you Federer is already overrated on HC as it is which had weak competition, and yet it has clearly had relatively the greater amount of competition over the last decade or so due to the tour structure. So since Federer is only good on HC but not great, we can leave him out of clay as "competition" since he is much worse on the surface.

And Nadal hasn't been contending with Djokovic at all this year (when he finally matured according to you). He just been showing up to get pummeled :lol:

This is ofcourse all in accordance with your own logic.
 
Last edited:

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.

You can make these kinds of arguments for any player. You just picked Federer because you hate him.

If Borg had gotten a rival like Mcenroe earlier on in his career, he might not have won 5 straight wimbledon.

Sampras won 7 slams on grass, but who were his major rivals? Sampras beat 6 different players in the 7 finals he played. If he had a steady rival on grass he would have won something like (~8 grand slams). Note: I am making this number up like you did for Federer with 10.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
How is Nadal's competition on clay affecting Fed's competition on hard in the slightest? It's not. This is a thread about Fed, not Nadal. Fed is the one who is called best tennis player by the media, not Nadal. Fed is the one the hype was all about.
Nadal has both Fed and Djoko to contend with on clay, more than Fed had to contend with on other surfaces between 2004 and 2007.

NOW Nadal has Djokovic to contend with on clay. Before this year Djokovic was no competition for Nadal on clay. What does Fed being called the best player in the media have to do with what we are talking about? My point is Nadal's competition on clay has never been strong. Federer was his strongest competition. Also Nadal has been called the greatest on clay by the media for years so same difference. I think he is the greatest on clay but to say he had strong competition at any time on clay is not true.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
This is a strong era? Aside from the top 4 whom I have already talked about above, this is the biggest clown era ever. Look at the rest of the top 10. Soderling, Monfils, Fish, Berdych, Almagro. Have any of them won any slams? I must have missed that. In 2004 you had Roddick, Hewitt, Moya, Agassi. Did they not win slams? I am pretty sure they did.

Hewitt and Roddick were #2 and #3 so it is silly to compare them to the current guys ranked #5 and lower like Soderling. The field then was basically the same as now, a strong top 4 (though not as strong as now since Nadal, Djokovic, and even old Federer >> Hewitt and Roddick) and a weak top 10 after that. 35 year old Agassi with a major back injury being one of the top players is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the field back then btw. Keep in mind we are all talking how much weaker Federer was at only 28, if not sooner.

PS- if you consider Federer weak competition on clay even for an 18 and 19 year old Nadal who was already dominating Federer and in general on the surface, then I gues you are conceding Federer is not even a top 10 player all time on the surface.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
And you know this how? Are you psychic?

It has been explained to you that even past 2007 when Federer was past his prime Djokovic and Murray the hard court wonders were not able to defeat Fed in slam HC finals so your strong competition past 2007 for Fed makes no sense.

Er Djoko has already defeated Fed in 2 AO and 1 USO. You want more? You're gonna get more, don't worry. (they're also 6 years younger, something Fed benefited from immensely).
I didn't say Fed would have won 0 slam with more competition. I said he would not have won AO AND USO year after year like he did if there had been better players around then. Maybe you haven't noticed but since 2007, Fed has never won AO and USO in the same season again. Why? Nadal and Djoko mostly.
 
Last edited:

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
The moment is saw Đoković with his poodle, I knew he was the most complete player of all time. That's whats missin in Fred and Ralph and all the others.

p.s. Murray's terrier (or spaniel, i forget) doesn't count.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
funny how federer's RoS is getting under-rated. At his prime, it was nearly as good as any , especially vs the big servers
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Er Djoko has already defeated Fed in 2 AO and 1 USO. You want more? You're gonna get more, don't worry. (they're also 6 years younger, something Fed benefited from immensely).
I didn't say Fed would have won 0 slam with more competition. I said he would not have won AO AND USO year after year like he did if there had been better players around then. Maybe you haven't noticed but since 2007, Fed has never won AO and USO in the same season again. Why? Nadal and Djoko mostly.

The fact that he was past his prime has nothing to do with it I guess. :rolleyes:

Let's see how many slams Rafa wins past his prime, ok?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No but Sid_Vicious has done as good of a job as you explaining Nadal's clay achievements. They are clearly extremely inflated since he didnt have a challenger till Djokovic and look what happened then :lol:. So basically Rafa is nowhere near the clay GOAT title and is a very overrated player on clay. Thank you for showing that to us, since it was your logic that allowed us to reach this conclusion.

Nadal has Federer and Djokovic to contend with? Pleaseeee. Firstly accroding to you Federer is already overrated on HC as it is which had weak competition, and yet it has clearly had relatively the greater amount of competition over the last decade or so due to the tour structure. So since Federer is only good on HC but not great, we can leave him out of clay as "competition" since he is much worse on the surface.

And Nadal hasn't been contending with Djokovic at all this year (when he finally matured according to you). He just been showing up to get pummeled :lol:

This is ofcourse all in accordance with your own logic.

LOL, that is some pwnage :)
 

Tony48

Legend
Yeah, you've got it. And I think the point is that he has the most complete game to exploit the era he's playing in. In a grass-court era his game would be seriously lacking in some crucial areas - his volleys are OK, but not nearly good enough, and his overhead would be a serious liability. But on the tour now, with slow or medium slow courts at nearly every event, his game has almost no weakness.

On clay his movement isn't quite as good as it is on hardcourts, which is one of the reasons Fed was able to beat him at the French. And his head can still go off, especially if his daddy is being hard on him.

Ranking the critical skills to today's game, I would say:

Forehand:
Nadal 10
Federer 10
Djokovic 9
Murray 8

Backhand:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 8
Murray 9.5

Serve:
Federer 9.5
Djokovic 9
Nadal 8
Murray 9

Return:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 9
Murray 9.5

Movement:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9.5
Federer 9
Murray 9

Defense:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 10
Federer 8.5
Murray 9.5

Net play (tactics, volleys & overheads):
Federer 9
Nadal 8
Djokovic 7.5
Murray 8

Mental:
Nadal 10
Federer 9
Djokovic 8
Murray 7.5

Confidence at present:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 8
Federer 7.5
Murray 7.5

Totals (just for kicks):

Djokovic 83.5
Nadal 81.5
Federer 79.5
Murray 77.5

I pretty much agree with all of that. Although I'd give Federer a 7.5 or an 8 the mentality department (see 2009 U.S. Open final). Federer rarely faces pressure from most opponents (because he's so good), but when it's unexpected, he tends to crumble, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Fuji

Legend
Well to scratch the surface on the subject since it is so frequent on message boards (nuthuggers, bandwagon, fanboys , haters, etc), here goes:

1. In a child's early development there are essential needs such as food, nurture, feeling of safety, comfort which are primarily provided by the mother for the most part until puberty (differs slightly for males and females but I'm going to elaborate using the general male model only).

2. When this child approaches puberty and starts attempting to identify himself as a man and no longer a boy, this causes him to reject the mother for a period of time in order to establish himself as an individual or as an adult. He needs a male role model or father figure

3. A present and accepting father or father figure is critical in this child's transition/development into manhood. It is in this period in the child's life that he is seeking to identify with his same sex role model to model him self after and seek the necessary approval and guidance. This approval of the same sex role model builds confidence, security and sets the framework for proper development into manhood. The lack of this acceptance and approval leaves a void which the child will be looking to fill for the rest of his life without even knowing why.

4. What you see on these boards when someone fiercely defends their "favorite" athlete (that they have never had any contact with) is the exposing of the absent male role model in a critical period of their development. They "hate" and reject any threat(other players, fans, family) as they have finally identified with someone. In their mind their favorite player would embrace them and accept them. This is how the fill the void of their childhood in their world.

What I see whenever I observe someone who "hates" or "over embraces" a professional athlete, politician, actor etc is that their childhood had an unfortunate void in it that is trying to be filled.

Any questions?

I don't really over identify with any male player, I enjoy all of them to some extent. Same with male movie stars / anyone famous. Does this mean I was perfectly raised? :?

-Fuji
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Nadal has Federer and Djokovic to contend with? Pleaseeee. Firstly accroding to you Federer is already overrated on HC as it is which had weak competition, and yet it has clearly had relatively the greater amount of competition over the last decade or so due to the tour structure. So since Federer is only good on HC but not great, we can leave him out of clay as "competition" since he is much worse on the surface.



The 1st master Fed won was on clay and he also won RG. There is a big difference between saying Fed is ridiculously hyped and Fed sucks. (Clearly Fed and Djoko are better slam players than Davy or Nalby on ANY surface) I am not arguing that Fed is a mediocre player. I am only arguing that he is not the James Bond the media are portraying, lol and that his total # of slams is vastly inflated by the lack of competition on hard during his prime, especially since 2 of the slams and 6 of the masters are on hard. If they were clay instead, Nadal would currently be hailed as Superman with 20 slams in tow.
 
Last edited:

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
PS- if you consider Federer weak competition on clay even for an 18 and 19 year old Nadal who was already dominating Federer and in general on the surface, then I gues you are conceding Federer is not even a top 10 player all time on the surface.



I am not saying Federer was weak competition for Nadal. I am saying who besides Federer was strong competition for Nadal on clay? Nobody. Federer was the only one getting to the FO finals against Nadal mostly year after year and even Federer was not such big competition for Nadal on clay. Nadal is better on clay than Federer.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I am not saying Federer was weak competition for Nadal. I am saying who besides Federer was strong competition for Nadal on clay? Nobody. Federer was the only one getting to the FO finals against Nadal mostly year after year and even Federer was not such big competition for Nadal on clay. Nadal is better on clay than Federer.



Yep but Fed didn't have the equivalent of a Nadal, meaning a rival worthy of that name on hard between 2004 and 2007. What he had in finals was clowns like Baghs or novices like just 20 Djoko in 2007.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I am not saying Federer was weak competition for Nadal. I am saying who besides Federer was strong competition for Nadal on clay? Nobody. Federer was the only one getting to the FO finals against Nadal mostly year after year and even Federer was not such big competition for Nadal on clay. Nadal is better on clay than Federer.

What we are saying though it is the same thing with Federer on hard courts. Between 2004-2007 who was Federer's competition on hard courts. 0 hard court slam semis yet Nadal. Djokovic who only made the top 10 for the first time in 2007. Murray was a total nobody until summer 2008. So I guess his two pigeons Roddick and Hewitt, that is it. Saying Roger would be as dominant with prime Nadal and Djokovic as his main hard court competition (add Murray if you are talking about the whole tour and the Masters, even though we know he is a total mug in slam finals to date) is just as much a personal opinion and speculation as those like veroniquem who are saying he would win no more than 10 slams overall in that case.

Yes Nadal didnt have alot of competition on clay, so neither had much competition overall at all, but atleast he had Federer and Federer on clay >> Roddick and Hewitt on hard courts (particularly if you count Federer as a top 10 all time on clay, which Roddick and Hewitt clearly arent on hard courts despite hard courts being only a prominent surface for 30 years now).

Also if Roddick and Hewitt count as any kind of legitimate competition for Federer despite being his whooping boys, Djokovic would have to count as competition for Nadal on clay too. Djokovic-Nadal had more tough matches on clay even before this year than Federer has with Roddick on hard courts after all.

Lastly of course Nadal is better than Federer on clay. Most people including experts now consider Nadal the greatest clay court player in history. That doesnt mean someone is weak since they are clearly weaker than him. Just like I am sure you consider Federer the greatest hard court player in history, and would say that shouldnt automatically mean a rival is weak on hard courts since they are clearly weaker than him on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
This is a strong era? Aside from the top 4 whom I have already talked about above, this is the biggest clown era ever. Look at the rest of the top 10. Soderling, Monfils, Fish, Berdych, Almagro. Have any of them won any slams? I must have missed that. In 2004 you had Roddick, Hewitt, Moya, Agassi. Did they not win slams? I am pretty sure they did.




Right now is a very strong era with multiple slam winners at the top of the rankings. It's the equivalent of Sampras/Agassi with Becker/Edberg and even Lendl still in the mix in the 90s.
2005-2007 was a 2 player era but they happened to be strong on different surfaces. On hard it was a no man's land era for reasons I've already explained in my earlier posts.
2004 was just Fed and no one else, not even on clay.
 
Last edited:

Magnus

Legend
Novak is the complete basline player, but he lacks some shots, most notably the slice. He doesn't hit it well enough and often enough. Of course he doesn't need to right now, but he might will in the futre. His serve lacks some variety. He doesn't use a lot of different spins and his accuracy could be better.
I think its his amazing footwork and fitness that does the trick for him nowdays, its nearly flawless.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
How is Nadal's competition on clay affecting Fed's competition on hard in the slightest? It's not. This is a thread about Fed, not Nadal. Fed is the one who is called best tennis player ever by the media, not Nadal. Fed is the one the hype was all about.

Actually it isn't, this is a thread about Nick's statement about Novak. Furthemore most complete player does in no way translate to being the best ever.

Nadal has both Fed and Djoko to contend with on clay, more than Fed had to contend with on other surfaces between 2004 and 2007.

LOL no, aside from this year Novak has never been any competition to Nadal on clay whatsover, Nadal has lost zero sets in RG to Novak in their 3 meetings. Overall Novak has hardly been Nadal's rival at all until this year(one single year) when he finally beat him in a slam.

Heck say Safin has been a much bigger rival to Fed on HC than Novak is to Nadal on clay.

Furthemore Fed didn't avoid Novak on HC, he played him 6 times in HC slams which is the same number of times for example Sampras and Agassi played each other. Novak is one of Fed's biggest rivals on HC and vice versa, overall it's one of the biggest rivalries on HC in the open era.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Also if Roddick and Hewitt count as any kind of legitimate competition for Federer despite being his whooping boys, Djokovic would have to count as competition for Nadal on clay too. Djokovic-Nadal had more tough matches on clay even before this year than Federer has with Roddick on hard courts after all.

Disagree, Roddick and Hewitt atleast pushed Fed to some pretty tough/close 4 setters in HC slams and they themselves are HC slam winners and multiple HC slam finalists.

Novak on the other hand has to date failed to take a single set off Nadal at RG and still hasn't reached a RG final. Do I expect/hope that to change in the future? Yes but as of now that's the way things stand.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Djokovic and Nadal had some outstanding matches on clay in 2008 and 2009. Hamburg 2008, Monte Carlo 2009, Madrid 2009. Nadal was in real danger of losing all of those but pulled through. Yes they havent had a great match at Roland Garros yet but Djokovic has only met Nadal at Roland Garros once since 2008 and that was the 2008 French semis. That was possibly Nadal's best tournament ever on clay, Djokovic still managed 12 games which is much better than anyone else did vs Nadal at that years French (Federer managed 4). Djokovic has been a much tougher opponent for Nadal on clay than Federer has from 2008 onwards, that is for sure.

I always felt Djokovic beating Nadal on clay this year was long overdue given what a challenge he has been the last few years (minus 2010 when Djokovic was in crap form and they didnt play on clay).
 

Murrayfan31

Hall of Fame
Novak Djokovic will win the US Open. Name a particular shot that Djokovic struggles with? It used to be the forehand. It is no longer a weakness. In some cases, it is more lethal to his backhand. Though his backhand is incredibly consistent. The rest of the tour will have to play for second for awhile. Murray might be the only one that matches up well to Djokovic.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Djokovic and Nadal had some outstanding matches on clay in 2008 and 2009. Hamburg 2008, Monte Carlo 2009, Madrid 2009. Nadal was in real danger of losing all of those but pulled through. Yes they havent had a great match at Roland Garros yet but Djokovic has only met Nadal at Roland Garros once since 2008 and that was the 2008 French semis. That was possibly Nadal's best tournament ever on clay, Djokovic still managed 12 games which is much better than anyone else did vs Nadal at that years French (Federer managed 4). Djokovic has been a much tougher opponent for Nadal on clay than Federer has from 2008 onwards, that is for sure.

I always felt Djokovic beating Nadal on clay this year was long overdue given what a challenge he has been the last few years (minus 2010 when Djokovic was in crap form and they didnt play on clay).

We're talking about Fed and Nadal here, slams are what it's all about for these guys. Do you for a second believe that Nadal would trade his RG title this year for Madrid/Rome in which Novak beat him?

Sorry, I like Novak and all but I can't call him a big rival to Nadal on clay when he didn't even push him to 4 at RG so far, that's just the way I see it for now. Probably won't matter that much in the future anyway as if Novak continues to work this hard he should do great at FO for the next 1-2 years and in all likability we'll see a good battle between them there.
 

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
B's stunted understanding of tennis is well known: he's never grown a player well equipped in the S-V area.

Opaque thinking.
 
Novak Djokovic will win the US Open. Name a particular shot that Djokovic struggles with? It used to be the forehand. It is no longer a weakness. In some cases, it is more lethal to his backhand. Though his backhand is incredibly consistent. The rest of the tour will have to play for second for awhile. Murray might be the only one that matches up well to Djokovic.

Are you forgetting Federer then ? He's a 5x US Open champ, and this is his best chance to win his last GS before he declines any further. He'll just have to hope not to meet Tsonga/Berdych in the quarters, then he'll have his chance.
 

fps

Legend
+1

This is the most important post on this thread.

True, but think about what Bollettieri is part of the tennis industry and generating hype is good for the sport, so his words have to be considered from that angle too, building up the new number 1. It's important for the sport that no-one sees a new guy getting to the top as a sign of the decline of two greats, but as a young man stepping up and surpassing the previous levels of tennis.

Every sport needs to give the impression it's better now than it ever has been.
 
1

15_ounce

Guest
You all ,,experts,, do you honestly think anyone at home behind PC know more about tennis than Bollettieri? i don´t think so. It is questionable if Novak is the most complete player ever or not, but we can make some analysis and compare him - old players that used SV style are already out of this, because maybe they were complete in 80s-90s but today with modern baseline game those SV style guys like McEnroe looked not so complete after all. From 90s maybe Agassi is good for complete player and from now- Roger has versatility, but his game is not so ,,complete,, like you think, Nadal obviously out of question here, than we have Djokovic - great 2H BH, solid FH, now solid Serve, super deffense, super movement, best ROS, average volleys- for this decade - but volleys are not so important novadays- but still volleys he should improove and even his serve isn´t nothing special for No.1 guy, but overall he has 6,7 things great or very good from 8- only volleys are not great or very good. Show me another player who was 6,7 from 8- at very high level- maybe Agassi at his prime, but we can say that this Nole is even quicker, better and so on.. So i think Nole is really most complete guy ever.

We didn't say we're experts. If you're an expert yourself, you don't sound so expert. You contradicted yourself there.

As for Bollettieri, I don't respect the way he turns kids into soulless, robotic animals and a tennis academy into a cash cow.
 

DM07

Rookie
I can kind of see what he means. This year he's basically shown himself to be a more balanced, more aggressive version of Nadal, with fewer weaknesses. He probably won't win as many slams as Nadal because he's peaked at such a later age, but I'd go as far as to say that peak-Djokovic is a better all round tennis player than peak-Nadal. All he needed was to sort out his fitness and mentality.

But most complete of all time? His volleys and approach play aren't the best, and there isn't always enough variety - he likes getting into a rhythm, so sometimes has problems against Fed and Murray. Surely you'd have to give that title to Bjorn Borg? Speed, fitness, forehand and backhand, good volley when needed ...
 

djokovic2008

Hall of Fame
Novak is the complete basline player, but he lacks some shots, most notably the slice. He doesn't hit it well enough and often enough. Of course he doesn't need to right now, but he might will in the futre. His serve lacks some variety. He doesn't use a lot of different spins and his accuracy could be better.
I think its his amazing footwork and fitness that does the trick for him nowdays, its nearly flawless.

When you have an offensive weapon as novak has on the backhand you do not need to slice so often. This is where murray goes wrong, he has a good slice but would rather use that than be agressive with his backhand then the opponent gets on top in the rally. Novak maintains pressure by driving his backhand and not letting his oppenent off the hook by needlessly going for slice. Slice is good for mixing up the pace but not too much of it.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
When Djoko has 17 slams, when can talk about him being the most complete player of all time. I think he will be somewhat dominant for the next 2-3 years and then his performance will fade. Currently, he has 3 slams. I believe he will end up with 8-10 slams which is great.

His serve is still not in the top 10-20 all time great serves and his volleying is only adequate.

Tactically, he is not the best either. He struggles when players don't get into a slam fest with him. He likes Nadal, Soderling, and Berdych type players who basically try to out bash and out run him and no one can out bash or out run him at the moment. He doesn't like Murry and Federer types as they mix speed, spins and depth which he has yet to figure out. Also, he doesn't adjust very quickly tactically either. Nadal backed up and started looping the ball more in Wimby 3rd and 4th sets and Djoko took about a set to figure out all he had to do was move forward as there is no way Nadal can pass him consistently from 8-10 feet behind the baseline. Djoko looked kind of lost in the 3rd and beginning of 4th sets until he figured it out.
 
1

15_ounce

Guest
When Djoko has 17 slams, when can talk about him being the most complete player of all time. I think he will be somewhat dominant for the next 2-3 years and then his performance will fade. Currently, he has 3 slams. I believe he will end up with 8-10 slams which is great.

His serve is still not in the top 10-20 all time great serves and his volleying is only adequate.

Tactically, he is not the best either. He struggles when players don't get into a slam fest with him. He likes Nadal, Soderling, and Berdych type players who basically try to out bash and out run him and no one can out bash or out run him at the moment. He doesn't like Murry and Federer types as they mix speed, spins and depth which he has yet to figure out. Also, he doesn't adjust very quickly tactically either. Nadal backed up and started looping the ball more in Wimby 3rd and 4th sets and Djoko took about a set to figure out all he had to do was move forward as there is no way Nadal can pass him consistently from 8-10 feet behind the baseline. Djoko looked kind of lost in the 3rd and beginning of 4th sets until he figured it out.

Yeah, even Tomic will cause some troubles for Nole.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
You all ,,experts,, do you honestly think anyone at home behind PC know more about tennis than Bollettieri? i don´t think so. It is questionable if Novak is the most complete player ever or not, but we can make some analysis and compare him - old players that used SV style are already out of this, because maybe they were complete in 80s-90s but today with modern baseline game those SV style guys like McEnroe looked not so complete after all. From 90s maybe Agassi is good for complete player and from now- Roger has versatility, but his game is not so ,,complete,, like you think, Nadal obviously out of question here, than we have Djokovic - great 2H BH, solid FH, now solid Serve, super deffense, super movement, best ROS, average volleys- for this decade - but volleys are not so important novadays- but still volleys he should improove and even his serve isn´t nothing special for No.1 guy, but overall he has 6,7 things great or very good from 8- only volleys are not great or very good. Show me another player who was 6,7 from 8- at very high level- maybe Agassi at his prime, but we can say that this Nole is even quicker, better and so on.. So i think Nole is really most complete guy ever.

Too many people with short term memories. These 8 things that you propose.. prime for prime (Fed kept his going for a number of years):

Backhand

Djokovic - great
Federer - good
Nadal - good

Forehand

Djokovic - very good
Federer - sheer brilliance
Nadal - great

Serve

Djokovic - good
Federer - very good
Nadal - good (just)

Defense

Djokovic - great
Federer - very good
Nadal - unbelievable

Movement

Djokovic - great
Federer - great
Nadal - great

Return of Serve
Djokovic - great
Federer - very good
Nadal - very good

Volleys
Djokovic - mediocre
Federer - good
Nadal - mediocre

Versatility - playing style and court adaptation

Djokovic - good
Federer - great
Nadal - very good

Bare in mind that good is a high mark, but the standards are high here.

Elements for Djokovic which are very good or higher - 5/8
Elements for Federer which *were for a long period of time* very good or higher - 6/8, including an otherworldly forehand. I also believe prime Fed had greater fitness, and mentality and was a superior shot-maker and probably still is.
Elements for Nadal which are very good or higher - 5/8


In short, Djokovic is not the most complete player even of his era. He certainly doesn't feel or look like one when I watch him play.

.. Super solid baseliner with a pressurizing game, great defense and ability to turn a rally around, and currently great, great confidence.

EDIT: Let's add Nadal to these 8 categories, though they don't include some which give Nadal more mad props.

You could perhaps argue that Fed should have 7/8 for a very good prime backhand and Djoker 6/8 for very good versatility, I think not though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Evan77

Banned
So, all of you tennis experts here, are smarter than Nick, lol.

Novak is too strong. It's very hard to hurt him. Deal with it. :)
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
He could be among the 2 or 3 most complete players of all time or ever the MOST complete, but completeness does not mean best. He doesn't have a weapon like Fed's FH in his prime or Fed's effortlessness. Of course, he does a few things better than Prime Fed, but that is not the point.
 
I think people are forgetting how fast, explosive, and flexible Federer was in 2006 and prior. I'd recommend watching some videos. He was running circles around his opponents. His defense was second-to-none until Nadal came around, and even then, it was pretty close between the two.

What's telling is that he used to be one of the best returners in tennis...and now his return game is mediocre at best. What that tells me is Federer never really had great "court sense" or "feel" at all. What he had was incredible athletic ability and shot making ability. When he lost those attributes, elements of his game plummeted completely.

With that said, I don't think Djokovic has a real weakness. Even his volleys aren't that bad. You don't accumulate a record like he has this season without being a spectacular player.
 
1

15_ounce

Guest
Andre Agassi said to his father:


Pops, I say, Nick’s ruining my game. It’s all about hitting from the baseline—we never
work on my net game. We never work on serve and volley.




I'd say Nick is epic fail.
 

Evan77

Banned
I was kinda joking. I don't know. The most complete player ever? I think it's Roger. However, Novak is very good.

Why is he #1 right now? He moves so well. His court coverage is fantastic. His BH is great. His FH is great.

I've been his fan since 2006 I think. So, please don't call me a bandwagoner. I've just joined this board. I do post on MTF (which I hate) since '06

I do love his personality tho.
 

iamke55

Professional
Djokovic does have the most complete game ever. Tell Nadal he's gonna play against Federer and he's thinking "oh this will be easy, just hit his backhand every time". Tell Nadal he's gonna play Djokovic and he's thinking "no idea what to do so I'll just hit to his backhand anyway and pray he plays like Federer"
 
Top