I don't think Djokovic is boring at all to watch. He's quite unbelievable, actually, perhaps the best ever when he is on. But, I do think it's more enjoyable to watch any tennis match that has some back-and-forth/uncertainty about who's going to win. At slams, a 4 or 5 set match is more interesting (usually) than a straight set win, most of the time, which is not too say it can't be fun to watch anyway. But I think all of the "greatest matches of all time" tend to go down to the wire, with both players having a shot at the win, while also playing high quality tennis. It will be interesting to see how long the current run of form for him lasts, and who can actually challenge him. It's true that Fed/Nadal benefited from his drop in form in 2017, but he has also benefited from their drops in form before that. What I would like to see is a younger player actually step up and start competing with all of them. I don't see anyone in the field who's ready for that, but it's bound to happen sometime, right?
Novak: Amazing and.. not very exciting?
- Thread starter Federev
- Start date
ssdeluxe
Rookie
maupp
Semi-Pro
Also it's quite funny seeing people throwing their passive aggressive little comments under the guise of having an intelligent discussion.
This thread has nothing to do with any intelligent or constructive discussion but rather just another way to vent some frustrations. These topics would hardly pop up at any random time, they coincidentally always appear when you see a player targeted by an opening poster hate wins something.
OP preying on some posters credulity and trying to pass off this thread as a genuine attempt to have intelligent discussions when in truth it's another one of many predictable hate threads in disguise.
This thread has nothing to do with any intelligent or constructive discussion but rather just another way to vent some frustrations. These topics would hardly pop up at any random time, they coincidentally always appear when you see a player targeted by an opening poster hate wins something.
OP preying on some posters credulity and trying to pass off this thread as a genuine attempt to have intelligent discussions when in truth it's another one of many predictable hate threads in disguise.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
You were doing well until you got here. You don't win 14 Slams without a killing blow and sure as heck don't win 4 in a row. That is not Marcelo Rios, Michael Chang or Lleyton Hewitt out there. That's who you can compare to Floyd Mayweather. Did you even see him going forehand to forehand with Del Potro the other day and neutralizing Del Potro's heavy weapon? He even had 6 more overall winners from the ground and at the net. It's too many posts like this floating around that don't give full credit to what Djokovic can do on the court.
junior74
Bionic Poster
When Federer could win 3 slams at 35/36, why shouldn't Djok get 7-8? He is only 31.
Djok came back from nowhere and won two slams. Nicely done. And there's very little resistance on the tour.
As it looks now, he has a really great shot at all four in one year in '19. That would pretty much seal the deal.
Djok came back from nowhere and won two slams. Nicely done. And there's very little resistance on the tour.
As it looks now, he has a really great shot at all four in one year in '19. That would pretty much seal the deal.
ak24alive
Legend
Overall in life I don't see much difference between Novak and Roger. Both say intelligent things. Both are thoughtful and know what they are talking about. Honestly I don't see where one can differentiate between the two. Also there are others like them too.My impression is Novak is the most intelligent tennis player, at least of the top guys. I don't mean intelligent as a tennis player (Although he is that), but I'm talking overall in real life. His IQ. Perhaps, I am biased but I honestly think that
Fed doesn't read books but I don't think that's a sign of intelligent. Not to brag about myself, but I rarely read books and my teachers and friends consider me the most intelligent one in my class.
Anyways when we are talking modern tennis it's pretty clear that Novak has the game that comes closest to perfection. But having the best game doesn't necessarily make one tennis intelligent. Its just the way they play from the very beginning.
Mid match adjustments are the first and foremost sign of tennis intelligence. And who better than Nadal at those!
But Nadalovic are equally good at handling pressure which is a sign of emotional intelligence.
So I think overall I will give Nadal the edge as the most intelligent tennis player.
As for the most intelligent individual out of the top guys I think Fedovic take the cake equally.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
Awesome post!
Did you watch the recent men’s final at the USO? One thing that amazes me about Djokovic is his tactical positioning on the baseline.
When Delpo throws down those successive FH’s Djokovic is the sensible few feet behind it, when Delpo was slicing and hitting BH’s Djokovic was on or even inside the baseline.
With Federer he never moves back. It’s almost as if he sometimes gets stubborn about positioning and decides that is where he’s going to play from. It works because of his god given timing of course but when it isn’t working, I do think he needs to employ a measured approach to his positioning.
MatsPhilander
Legend
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Me at parties
ak24alive
Legend
I watched the first set. I slept with the headphones plugged in.. so maybe my subconscious mind heard the whole commentary lol. It was a big big day.. played hours of table tennis and went to the dam.. stupid decisions
they cost me the USO final experience.I have always thought that Novak's baseline positioning and his ability to defend the baseline and throw the ball really deep at the same time is near perfect. Federer can beat Novak in slams only if he can let go of his illusion of the right game. Fed can play his right game from the baseline or inside it only when the opponent hits a short ball. To beat Novak he will have to stand behind the baseline and then try to wrestle with him and wait for the rare short ball.
Against the rest of the field Roger can win using his shortening the points approach but not against Novak. I think his early 2017 game could have matched Novak's game only because of the sick timing and power Fed had on his shots but to consistently win against Nole he needs to consider changing his court position.
Fed needs to consider grinding if he wants a shot at slams. Its very clear to me that the Fedovic matchup ever since Fed turned old and adopted the Edberg way(his style of play after 2013) of doing it, has been about Novak hitting it to Feds toes and Fed hitting a short ball or an error in reply to it.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
It's just an impression I have but I could be wrong. I think there are plenty of people who dont read who are very smart and vice versa. But is it a sign of something to me ? Maybe. Not talking anything about Federer but I mean perhaps a sign in Novak's favor about his intellectual curiosity. I'm sure those that dont like him would say he's just fake or ostentatious about his knowledge or whatever. I think both Novak and Federer are great with English but Novak is clearly better imo. Speaks it better and with more nuance than most natives. Again, are there people who are smart and bad with languages? Yes, I'm one of them. But it's a whole picture for me that indicates Novak is particularly smart.
I think most of the top guys in all sports are quite smart as it takes a considerable amount of intelligence to master a mental and emotional game and stay at the pinnacle.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
I actually understood your point the first time.
But I think you really are just amplifying my point that you’ve confused subjective opinions for objective absolutes by your reassertions.
No need for us to keep going in circles.
We simply disagree.
Peace to you.
Rafa's OCD
Semi-Pro
I feel exactly the same way about Djokovic, except that Djokovic is capable of playing lengthy points and Federer's entire strategy is to not do so. The servebot thing just doesn't do it for me and never has. If you want to talk about Roger Federer 13 years ago, that's a different animal entirely, but he's not been anywhere close to that player for a very long time.
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
I watched the first set. I slept with the headphones plugged in.. so maybe my subconscious mind heard the whole commentary lol. It was a big big day.. played hours of table tennis and went to the dam.. stupid decisions
I have always thought that Novak's baseline positioning and his ability to defend the baseline and throw the ball really deep at the same time is near perfect. Federer can beat Novak in slams only if he can let go of his illusion of the right game. Fed can play his right game from the baseline or inside it only when the opponent hits a short ball. To beat Novak he will have to stand behind the baseline and then try to wrestle with him and wait for the rare short ball.
Against the rest of the field Roger can win using his shortening the points approach but not against Novak. I think his early 2017 game could have matched Novak's game only because of the sick timing and power Fed had on his shots but to consistently win against Nole he needs to consider changing his court position.
Fed needs to consider grinding if he wants a shot at slams. Its very clear to me that the Fedovic matchup ever since Fed turned old and adopted the Edberg way(his style of play after 2013) of doing it, has been about Novak hitting it to Feds toes and Fed hitting a short ball or an error in reply to it.
I couldn’t agree more with this assessment.
Novak has that exceptional ability to consistently put balls deep, however he does it. On full stretch you’re expecting a short/weak response and he still finds a way of getting it back deep.
If Delpo can’t successively hit those FH’s past Djokovic I don’t see Federer being able to. The offence of Fed is more disguised and patterns more complex, and of course he’s very intelligent.
But patience is critical.
You stated that you did not enjoy Djokovic's game. There were 2 possibilities 1) you either do not understand tennis or 2) you were frustrated by Djokovic winning something. I gave you a benefit of the doubt that you are not a man that would open this thread out of frustration and concluded that you just do not understand tennis, which is not a big deal as tennis is not particularly important human activity.
vex
Legend
Nailed it with Mayweather. The only thing I’d note is that His style def isn’t flashy and sexy like FEDAL but his accuracy with gstrokes provides a ton of offense that most of TTW commonly ignores. He looks to dictate not defend is what I’m saying
HailDjokovic
Semi-Pro
Djokovic has hit a lot of tweeners.....
The most famous one at shanghai against Murray, when he was extremely close to losing the final.
As for touch, I would actually argue that Novak is actually above average when it comes to volleys and drop shots.
He utilizes the drop shot very well when hes confident and his drop volleys are pretty insane sometimes.
He's in the same category as Kyrgios when it comes to volleying. They aren't completely solid hitters at the net or adept at getting good passing shots, but they have really good touch and change of direction.
In his match against Del Potro, Novak was 28/37 points at the net or 76% success rate. So its hardly a weakness .
I would however, agree that Novak is very similar to Floyd Mayweather.
Ridiculous stats and good head to head against other all time greats.
Both of them don't play to look pretty, they play the most efficient shots.
davced1
Hall of Fame
Sry something wrong with the quotations but you can see what was my message.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I thought the Mayweather analogy was apt and flattering, a few others thought the same.
Fed's stubbornness has prevented him from winning even more Slams IMO.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
No Mayweather is a master at what he does and I didn't think it was a diss at all. It is definitely a compliment to anyone to be compared to Mayweather but I see him as a defensive counterpuncher. I just don't see Djokovic as that type of style. To me he is an aggressive baseliner who happens to have a wall of defense if that clears it up some. I think Hewitt at his peak from 2000-2002 when he was taking down Sampras and Agassi is a perfect example of Mayweather. Both lack a clear knockout blow but can use their opponents offense against them and just wear them down.
Last edited:
It is not about being attractive but being effective. And Djokovics game is one of the most effective games in the history of tennis. He doesnt have any weakness. Has a very good serve, great ROS, rock solid backhand, strong forehand, extreme defense and his ability to consistently keep the balls deep, ability to go toe to toe with anyone's best shot.. you get the point.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Djokovic is a defensive player for the most part . On given day , I can name below players whose game can be more interesting (with obviously more errors)
Federer
Nadal
Wawrinka
Delpo
Tsonga
Berdych
Fognini
Kyrgios
Nishikori
Federer
Nadal
Wawrinka
Delpo
Tsonga
Berdych
Fognini
Kyrgios
Nishikori
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Thread title: pretty much the thrust of this article:
“...He [Djoker] put eighty per cent of del Potro’s serves in play and won points on half of del Potro’s second serves. That is what established his margin of victory...Neutralizing a serve is canny. But it is not terribly exciting. It’s methodical and can lead to the sort of tennis that causes your less enthusiastic friend to say, “How can you watch tennis?” The men’s final, for considerable stretches, was somewhat dreary, like the weather that the retractable roof over Arthur Ashe Stadium was keeping out....
At more than three hours, the match was long for a three-setter, and it felt even longer. But there was no drama, really, just a creeping sense of inevitability. That’s how Djokovic accomplishes what he does.“
https://www.newyorker.com/news/spor...nt-the-most-beloved-player-but-he-is-the-best
“...He [Djoker] put eighty per cent of del Potro’s serves in play and won points on half of del Potro’s second serves. That is what established his margin of victory...Neutralizing a serve is canny. But it is not terribly exciting. It’s methodical and can lead to the sort of tennis that causes your less enthusiastic friend to say, “How can you watch tennis?” The men’s final, for considerable stretches, was somewhat dreary, like the weather that the retractable roof over Arthur Ashe Stadium was keeping out....
At more than three hours, the match was long for a three-setter, and it felt even longer. But there was no drama, really, just a creeping sense of inevitability. That’s how Djokovic accomplishes what he does.“
https://www.newyorker.com/news/spor...nt-the-most-beloved-player-but-he-is-the-best
Last edited:
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
RaulRamirez
Legend
I'm a big fan of Nole, so it's hard for me to assess the question with complete objectivity. I'll try.
Per playing style:
Federer is a "quick worker", generates a lot of power with seeming ease (and freakish timing) and never appears to be grinding. He's exceedingly graceful, and plays with a lot of versatility. Although he's my least favorite of The Big 3 (personal preference), I certainly understand his popularity and I enjoy watching him. And, I also find the one-handed backhand to be better to watch - a more graceful shot - especially in the hands of a Federer, Wawrinka. Gasquet, etc.
When I first saw Rafa, his athleticism and enthusiasm practically leaped off the screen. I think - while he's almost the opposite stylistically to Fed - that he almost always brings an air of excitement. And it's not only his speed, strength and grit, but his complete game. He has a beautiful, deadly overhead, hits quality drop shots, has amazing hands at the net, and his high, "hook shot" volley is incredible.
Djokovic's game is more subtle, and relies (perhaps, even more than Rafa's) on intelligent point construction. Though a stunningly fluid athlete, he may not be quite as transcendently graceful as Fed. His game is more for a tennis connoisseur, as he does so many subtle things so well. While he has won a lot of matches in the past by out-dueling Rafa and others and matching power with power, he doesn't seem to have the same sheer power as his two greatest rivals. I agree that he doesn't appear to have the flick-of-the-wrist power of Fed or the fire-breathing speed and power of Rafa. But he wins with intelligence, court-positioning and the unique ability to direct and redirect shots almost anywhere on the court at any time. That said, his speed and flexibility is very unique and great to watch.
Honestly, all three are fun for me to watch...and Murray not as much. Part of Novak's appeal is also how his personality plays out on the court...you really see all the emotions during a day's work. (And off of the court, he may be the most genuine, most intelligent (no doubt), most thoughtful and certainly, the most naturally witty and funny.)
Per playing style:
Federer is a "quick worker", generates a lot of power with seeming ease (and freakish timing) and never appears to be grinding. He's exceedingly graceful, and plays with a lot of versatility. Although he's my least favorite of The Big 3 (personal preference), I certainly understand his popularity and I enjoy watching him. And, I also find the one-handed backhand to be better to watch - a more graceful shot - especially in the hands of a Federer, Wawrinka. Gasquet, etc.
When I first saw Rafa, his athleticism and enthusiasm practically leaped off the screen. I think - while he's almost the opposite stylistically to Fed - that he almost always brings an air of excitement. And it's not only his speed, strength and grit, but his complete game. He has a beautiful, deadly overhead, hits quality drop shots, has amazing hands at the net, and his high, "hook shot" volley is incredible.
Djokovic's game is more subtle, and relies (perhaps, even more than Rafa's) on intelligent point construction. Though a stunningly fluid athlete, he may not be quite as transcendently graceful as Fed. His game is more for a tennis connoisseur, as he does so many subtle things so well. While he has won a lot of matches in the past by out-dueling Rafa and others and matching power with power, he doesn't seem to have the same sheer power as his two greatest rivals. I agree that he doesn't appear to have the flick-of-the-wrist power of Fed or the fire-breathing speed and power of Rafa. But he wins with intelligence, court-positioning and the unique ability to direct and redirect shots almost anywhere on the court at any time. That said, his speed and flexibility is very unique and great to watch.
Honestly, all three are fun for me to watch...and Murray not as much. Part of Novak's appeal is also how his personality plays out on the court...you really see all the emotions during a day's work. (And off of the court, he may be the most genuine, most intelligent (no doubt), most thoughtful and certainly, the most naturally witty and funny.)
ak24alive
Legend
We are absolutely in agreement here. Rogers game in the first half of last year was so pleasing to the eye that it didn't need any opponent to make it interesting for me.
It was self sufficient.
It was God like tennis and it was the most beautiful I have ever seen.
But if you would consider my post again(which surprisingly was deleted
) I talked about shots which were super efficient but not so good looking-- Federer's serve(it looks good but not if he keeps hitting aces one after the other), Novak hitting to the toes and Rafa's looping FHs. So I guess these kind of shots tend to get boring for me.Ruthless efficiency can be a treat to the eye only if it's in the form of the outright winners like Roger's spell in early 17 or Rafa's FHs winners from weird positions.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
He doesn't move back because he's not quick enough to cover the additional ground and grind. Sometimes it's the wrong decision, but he doesn't have much choice.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I agree for the most part but to me, what separates the Djok of 2007-11 with the Djok of 2011-present? It's the defense. He's always had nice strokes off both wings and a good serve, but what catapulted him into being the game's dominant player was shoring up his fitness and being able to out-grind Nadal. So to me that is his calling card.
Yep, exactly. I was streaming the match at work (not just for fun, I work for one of ESPN's digital-media partners) and I told my co-workers that Djok just slowly sucks the air out of the match. It's impressive but not exciting, the polar opposite of the many Fedal Finals we've seen.
Agreed. He is a very cerebral guy and clearly would be fun to talk to off-court. And I agree with all your assessments even though Fed is my absolute favorite player ever.
davced1
Hall of Fame
I think Djokovic has become a more defensive player over time. I don't recall myself thinking he was boring when he first emerged on the scene or his Fed matches in the early 2010's. As someone stated he maybe adopted a more defensive style to beat Nadal and just never switched back?
mightyrick
Legend
We honestly need to leave 2011 Djokovic out of the discussion. Because that year, Djokovic was absolutely peak and the greatest he has ever been -- BY FAR. Djokovic has never seen anything close to that level and never will see it again. In 2011, Djokovic was every bit as aggressive as Federer ever was... and even as aggressive as someone like Agassi. If Djokovic was able to maintain his 2011 level, he would destroy every version of himself before and since. He also would have won probably 3 out of 4 slams per year with that level. He would have been the GOAT.
And it has nothing to do with defense. It has everything to do with aggression.
After 2011, I think the biggest factor for him was not defense. Rather, it was consistency. He "out-Murrayed" everyone on tour. He still continues to do that. Djokovic's defense was always excellent. He was always known for it. What he lacked pre-2011 was consistency and mental fortitude.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I think that was me, and yeah I do think the defense took over as his calling card. He punished his FH a lot more in the old days than he does now.
His defense improved as we started to get glimpses of his fitness regimen, with all the yoga etc.
RaulRamirez
Legend
I guess I'd have to reflect on this more, but I think that 2015 thru first half of 2016 was Novak's highest level, with 2011 also right there. Of course, he didn't drop too far off in 2012 thru 2014. We'll have to see what he does the rest of this year and beyond, but right now, I don't think he's back to either 2011 or 2015 levels; maybe, he's around 2013 or so. (Sounds like I'm comparing wine vintages, of which I have no knowledge).
In terms of excitement, while he usually played with controlled aggression, I don't see as many down-the-line shots as at his "peaks", and he seems to be playing greater percentages. He was never great at the net, but during this comeback, he seems to still be retreating to the baseline after semi-attacking the short ball, although he did come in more v. Delpo. I also wonder if he's physically hitting his groundstrokes as hard as during 2015/16. On the other hand, if Novak is only at about 80% or so of the level he can still attain, watch out!
mightyrick
Legend
I think a lot of people say 2015 and 2016 -- but primarily because of the results -- NCYGS. I would definitely agree that 2015-2016 is his peak results. That can't be argued.
But I don't agree that it was his peak playing form. All of his competition (especially the Big 3-4) was in better physical and playing form in 2011. The field was also in much better playing form than 2015-16. I'm not going to scream "weak era" or anything like that with regards to 2015-2016. But I just feel that 2011 was much more competitive and a huge accomplishment for him -- in terms of both playing form and results.
I definitely agree that Djokovic at 80% will crush everybody -- except a potentially healthy Nadal on clay.
RaulRamirez
Legend
I understand your point, and am still weighing it. Compared to 2011, Nadal took a dip during 2015-16, but I think Roger was still playing at a similar high level (except on clay)?, Murray was significantly improved and Stan had emerged as a force.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Novak isn't boring to watch - he is a master at the mental game (particularly against big hitters). There are stretches where it kind of feels like he resembles the computer player in an old tennis video game, but all that represents is an ability to maximize playing style according to the rules, conditions, and tech of his time. I have little doubt that he (and lots of other tennis greats) would have learned, mastered, and found great success with a more "exciting" style in days of yore.
This is a guy who'd be great in any era, and the fact that he's identified a style of play that is repeatably great across the tennis calendar is a credit to him, even if it involves less recklessly fun play. JMDP and his cannon forehand is extremely fun to watch but easy to expose if, like Novak, you know how.
This is a guy who'd be great in any era, and the fact that he's identified a style of play that is repeatably great across the tennis calendar is a credit to him, even if it involves less recklessly fun play. JMDP and his cannon forehand is extremely fun to watch but easy to expose if, like Novak, you know how.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
If you have some understanding of the game esp if you have had some experience with the pro level then i think one can appreciate djokovic much more. When he pins his opponent in the corner and just punishes the ball consistently deep in that corner ball after ball pinpoint sharpshooting it is crazy exciting. Relentless and suffocates the opponent.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic is a world class defender and he can use that to his advantage, but trust me, he never enters a match with the mindset to defend. He is an aggressive player.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Laughable
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I remember Andrew Golota for two things:
1. Golota having an obsession with hitting Riddick Bowe in the testicles multiple times, across two fights, getting himself disqualified both times.
2. Lennox Lewis brutally knocking Golota out in 1 round.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I agree that Mayweather is not a good comparison, Novak is more offensive than that, he just plays amazing defense. His athleticism and defense is rewarded on slower courts (And really on even some faster ones too, that's right guys ) so he tends to play that style but uncorks it quite a bit and moves guys around with angled shots and just generally dictates play. It's not as "offensively brilliant" as a great attacking player like Federer can be, but even Roger said that he and Novak had a more offensive style, while Murray and Nadal were defensive. Djokovic controls the baseline in his own way. Remember he often hugs it and robs time from opponents. Someone like Murray is even more of a counterpuncher like Hewitt but I agree Chang is the best example to compare to Mayweather. because Murray/Hewitt were better on faster courts/redirecting pace. There is an element of offense to a counterpuncher whereas Chang was mainly pure defense.
If I had to compare Novak to another "athlete" it would be Anatoly Karpov. If you're asking for an actual athlete and not an older Russian dude with high bodyfat percentage, then maybe Ali? Djoko is the king of rope a dope, let's these guys get in their shots, grinds them to dust, and then goes for his own killer blows.
) so he tends to play that style but uncorks it quite a bit and moves guys around with angled shots and just generally dictates play. It's not as "offensively brilliant" as a great attacking player like Federer can be, but even Roger said that he and Novak had a more offensive style, while Murray and Nadal were defensive. Djokovic controls the baseline in his own way. Remember he often hugs it and robs time from opponents. Someone like Murray is even more of a counterpuncher like Hewitt but I agree Chang is the best example to compare to Mayweather. because Murray/Hewitt were better on faster courts/redirecting pace. There is an element of offense to a counterpuncher whereas Chang was mainly pure defense.If I had to compare Novak to another "athlete" it would be Anatoly Karpov. If you're asking for an actual athlete and not an older Russian dude with high bodyfat percentage, then maybe Ali? Djoko is the king of rope a dope, let's these guys get in their shots, grinds them to dust, and then goes for his own killer blows.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Djokovic's physique is just like Muhammad Ali's!I agree that Mayweather is not a good comparison, Novak is more offensive who just plays amazing defense. His athleticism and defense is rewarded on slower courts (And really on even some faster ones too, that's right guys
If I had to compare Novak to another "athlete" it would be Anatoly Karpov. If you're asking for an actual athlete and not an older Russian dude with high bodyfat percentage, then maybe Ali? Djoko is the king of rope a dope, let's these guys get in their shots, grinds them to dust, and then goes for his own killer blows.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
In Nadal's earlier years, he had some different routines. He used to bend down and touch his sock before serving. He hasn't done that since 2006, or 2007 at the latest.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Sorry - not true. Don't hate Novak. Like him better than ever. Humbler, more mature, calmer. Amazing sportsman. Loves his kids. Seeker of truth bigger than sport. I like all of that.
He's also amazing in his impenetrable-ness. Never seen that as much as now.
Even though I Like Fed the best, in my fanboy bias, I want Novak to keep Rafa from Fed's records.
So i even root for him the last two GS after Gramperererer has gotten the boot.
But I'm not a hater.
Just feeling like - I am not a big fan of his game unless there's another compelling reason to watch for me personally.
Why is that "hate" and "preying"... that's taking it way up a notch and making it way personal.
Why do you feel like you have to do that?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea I agree and I mentioned Chang in my 1st post.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Ali had a higher bf% too though (for a boxer). For his era he was a beast though but by today's standards Ali wasn't exactly ripped. But the guy could punch through a wall so it worked for him.I agree that Mayweather is not a good comparison, Novak is more offensive than that, he just plays amazing defense. His athleticism and defense is rewarded on slower courts (And really on even some faster ones too, that's right guys
If I had to compare Novak to another "athlete" it would be Anatoly Karpov. If you're asking for an actual athlete and not an older Russian dude with high bodyfat percentage, then maybe Ali? Djoko is the king of rope a dope, let's these guys get in their shots, grinds them to dust, and then goes for his own killer blows.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Lennox goat.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Yeah I Didn't mean in terms of physique, just playing style. I just meant chess players are hardly athletes at all. But in terms of style.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Total aside: can someone tell me a reason these guys don't jack the shorts up to their armpits? To protect the nipples, I mean.
