The Big 3s, shot by shot

skaj

Legend
Is that a Djoke? (pun intended). Obvious flaws?

He's pretty impeccable as a mover and literally redefined what was possible in court coverage on defense and in transition.
No it is not, if you don't know those facts, you could've at least read my entire post and find out about them.

How exactly did he "redefine what was possible in court coverage on defense and in transition"?
 

droliver

Professional
How exactly did he "redefine what was possible in court coverage on defense and in transition"?
He gets to balls people couldn't regularly get to before with his movement and flexibility, and while doing so he's often able to make offensive shots from them. That transition from offense to defense from unfavorable positions is one of the defining features of his game. No one has ever done this quite like or as successful as Djokovic has before. If you deny that, I don't think you've watched the way tennis has changed very closely the last 20 years. There's lots of ridiculously good movers in tennis since forever, and then there's Novak.
 

skaj

Legend
He gets to balls people couldn't regularly get to before with his movement and flexibility, and while doing so he's often able to make offensive shots from them. That transition from offense to defense from unfavorable positions is one of the defining features of his game. No one has ever done this quite like or as successful as Djokovic has before. If you deny that, I don't think you've watched the way tennis has changed very closely the last 20 years. There's lots of ridiculously good movers in tennis since forever, and then there's Novak.
No, there were great retrievers and flexible players before him, as well as people who were able to turn offense into defense.
If you are saying that there weren't, you just haven't seen those players(or you are pretending that you haven't).
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Is that a Djoke? (pun intended). Obvious flaws?

He's pretty impeccable as a mover and literally redefined what was possible in court coverage on defense and in transition.
I agree, which is why I wrote that while his footwork may not be Federesque, he still covers the court as well as anyone in the OE -- in some order with Rafa and Bjorn.
 

Blahovic

Semi-Pro
No, there were great retrievers and flexible players before him, as well as people who were able to turn offense into defense.
If you are saying that there weren't, you just haven't seen those players(or you are pretending that you haven't).
Sliding on hardcourt and doing the splits on recovery or passing shots are not things that were being done until very recently in tennis history.

Sliding is inherently superior for defensive shots because it allows you to have more lateral reach and faster deceleration, meaning you can recover to the centre of the baseline faster. This is why everyone slides on clay. Therefore, someone who can slide on any surface has a fundamental advantage on recovery shots vs someone who doesn't.

Tennis is on a completely different level physically from what it used to be.
 

skaj

Legend
I agree, which is why I wrote that while his footwork may not be Federesque, he still covers the court as well as anyone in the OE -- in some order with Rafa and Bjorn.
Which is why I replied to you that the court coverage is just one aspect of tennis movement.
 

skaj

Legend
Sliding on hardcourt and doing the splits on recovery or passing shots are not things that were being done until very recently in tennis history.

Sliding is inherently superior for defensive shots because it allows you to have more lateral reach and faster deceleration, meaning you can recover to the centre of the baseline faster. This is why everyone slides on clay. Therefore, someone who can slide on any surface has a fundamental advantage on recovery shots vs someone who doesn't.

Tennis is on a completely different level physically from what it used to be.
Those well-known fact are all irrelevant for what's been discussed, which is that he has not introduced sliding on hard court and splits to tennis.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Borg top 3 in movement?

did anyone ever even watch him?

the videos are available in YouTube. go watch it again.

by today’s standards he barely moved. Not totally his fault, it was just how tennis was played back then.

compare any of the highlight reel points from today’s tennis with Borg in, say, the FO final with Lendl or at Wimbledon against Mac. It’s a different sport.

EDIT: below is a highlight reel of the 1980 Wimbledon final. Whatever else you may think of this can anyone see any movement anywhere? Looks like something from my weekend play at the local park. Both players let balls go by next to them that today‘s players would reach and return

 
Last edited:

skaj

Legend
Borg top 3 in movement?

did anyone ever even watch him?

the videos are available in YouTube. go watch it again.

by today’s standards he barely moved. Not totally his fault, it was just how tennis was played back then.

compare any of the highlight reel points from today’s tennis with Borg in, say, the FO final with Lendl or at Wimbledon against Mac. It’s a different sport.

EDIT: below is a highlight reel of the 1980 Wimbledon final. Whatever else you may think of this can anyone see any movement anywhere? Looks like something from my weekend play at the local park. Both players let balls go by next to them that today‘s players would reach and return

Yeah, barely moved, but when he did...

 

droliver

Professional
No, there were great retrievers and flexible players before him, as well as people who were able to turn offense into defense.
If you are saying that there weren't, you just haven't seen those players(or you are pretending that you haven't).
There was no one quite like him (and Nadal to lesser degree) before in putting it all together. He's the prototype of what movement and court coverage can be in the modern game.

And routinely flipping to offense from traditional defensive position really didn't exist the way we know it now before polyester strings emerged 25 yrs ago, because you couldn't predictably keep the ball in the court stretched deep and wide.
 

skaj

Legend
There was no one quite like him (and Nadal to lesser degree) before in putting it all together. He's the prototype of what movement and court coverage can be in the modern game.

And routinely flipping to offense from traditional defensive position really didn't exist the way we know it now before polyester strings emerged 25 yrs ago, because you couldn't predictably keep the ball in the court stretched deep and wide.
Putting what together? And not quite like him in what way? What makes him the prototype of what movement and court coverage can be in the modern game, lack of other good movers in the today's field?

Djoko's career is younger than 2 and a half decades.
 

droliver

Professional
Putting what together? And not quite like him in what way? What makes him the prototype of what movement and court coverage can be in the modern game, lack of other good movers in the today's field?
Putting together defense and transitions through his movement. No one did that quite like Novak did/does and it revolutionized the top of the game as much as power baseliners emergence did in the 1980's. It's why he's the prototype. You now have to be not just a good, but an elite mover to break through.
 

skaj

Legend
Putting together defense and transitions through his movement. No one did that quite like Novak did/does and it revolutionized the top of the game as much as power baseliners emergence did in the 1980's. It's why he's the prototype. You now have to be not just a good, but an elite mover to break through.
No, he's not the first to do that, put together defense and transition "through his movement".

Again "quite like him", in what way? And how did that "revolutionize" the top of the game?

I don't know what "break through" means to you, but it's well known for a while now that you have to be an elite mover to be the dominant player. It did not happen with Djokovic. Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal... all elite movers.
 

Rosstour

Legend
He's smart for the today's mindless ball-bashers, but this is the whole Open Era. He's not in the same league as tennis professors like Rios, Rosewall, Nalbandian, McEnroe, Santoro etc.
You just mentioned multiple players who don't even have one Slam.
 

droliver

Professional
No, he's not the first to do that, put together defense and transition "through his movement". Again "quite like him", in what way? And how did that "revolutionize" the top of the game?
I don't know what "break through" means to you, but it's well known for a while now that you have to be an elite mover to be the dominant player. It did not happen with Djokovic. Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal... all elite movers.
Respectfully, I don't think you have the right context here (as I see it).

The way that players transition between attack and defense is a modern phenomena enabled by polyester string/stroke technique and footwork/movement that's enabled shots from traditional defensive court position. There have always been elite movers, but they weren't routinely flipping points as much as treading water and they certainly weren't sliding on hard courts like contemporary players have adopted. Sampras could hit a highlight reel on the run forehand on occasion, but the main goal pressed into the backcourt was to get position back neutral in a point rather then go on offense off well struck shots deep in the court as it was a low percentage play. The generation led by Novak, Nadal, Federer, Murray, and Ferrer marked a distinct change in all this, with Djokovic being the apex predator of movement/court coverage, with the court positioning you now need to reliably be in control of the point moved to a much more high quality width/depth because these players will routinely get previously unreturnable balls back with difficult angles and spin on the ball. It's why we don't have serve and volley as a viable strategy.
 

skaj

Legend
Respectfully, I don't think you have the right context here (as I see it).

The way that players transition between attack and defense is a modern phenomena enabled by polyester string/stroke technique and footwork/movement that's enabled shots from traditional defensive court position. There have always been elite movers, but they weren't routinely flipping points as much as treading water and they certainly weren't sliding on hard courts like contemporary players have adopted. Sampras could hit a highlight reel on the run forehand on occasion, but the main goal pressed into the backcourt was to get position back neutral in a point rather then go on offense off well struck shots deep in the court as it was a low percentage play. The generation led by Novak, Nadal, Federer, Murray, and Ferrer marked a distinct change in all this, with Djokovic being the apex predator of movement/court coverage, with the court positioning you now need to reliably be in control of the point moved to a much more high quality width/depth because these players will routinely get previously unreturnable balls back with difficult angles and spin on the ball. It's why we don't have serve and volley as a viable strategy.
It seems that you are the one who isn't able to apply his own context. If the strings are the reason why players are able to go from offense to defense on a regular bases, than the strings/strokes are behind the phenomenon, not the movement. And polyester strings existed before Djokovic.
What you also don't seem to know, is that, as I said, there were other people before him who did that regularly. Therefore he did not introduce anything new, certainly not "revolutionary". Sampras, who did not hit a forehand on a run only on occasion but regularly(he was also hitting plenty of effective backhands on the run, and his backhand was his weakest shot), was an all-court player who was at the net half of the time.
Djokovic was not "the apex predator" in the baseline exchanges because his movement/court coverage was better than all the players you have mentioned, but because his forehand+backhand combo was the best among them.
And serve and volley we don't have mainly because of the pace of the ball.
 

droliver

Professional
It seems that you are the one who isn't able to apply his own context. If the strings are the reason why players are able to go from offense to defense on a regular bases, than the strings/strokes are behind the phenomenon, not the movement. And polyester strings existed before Djokovic.
It’s the movement to get to the balls in the first place plus what you can do with it is the stylistic change here. Novak can get to balls point after point and strike them with high percentage offensive intent like no one before. It’s all from his movement allowing court coverage to do it.

Sampras, who did not hit a forehand on a run only on occasion but regularly(he was also hitting plenty of effective backhands on the run
Highlight shots stretched wide weren’t the norm for Sampras though, they were desperate low % plays in his hands. It was a cool shot that worked within the type of lower percentage game Sampras could play because his serve, but Novak (and Nadal, Fed, Murray, etc..) are getting to those types of balls, hitting high quality shots, and getting back into the court regularly.

Djokovic was not "the apex predator" in the baseline exchanges because his movement/court coverage was better than all the players you have mentioned, but because his forehand+backhand combo was the best
His backhand is best in class to be sure, but his movement is what really differentiates him to me.
 

skaj

Legend
It’s the movement to get to the balls in the first place plus what you can do with it is the stylistic change here. Novak can get to balls point after point and strike them with high percentage offensive intent like no one before. It’s all from his movement allowing court coverage to do it.


Highlight shots stretched wide weren’t the norm for Sampras though, they were desperate low % plays in his hands. It was a cool shot that worked within the type of lower percentage game Sampras could play because his serve, but Novak (and Nadal, Fed, Murray, etc..) are getting to those types of balls, hitting high quality shots, and getting back into the court regularly.


His backhand is best in class to be sure, but his movement is what really differentiates him to me.
I feel like you haven't read my post carefully.

Yes, and that movement is something that existed before Novak Djokovic. And, of course, it's not all from his movement, you yourself mentioned the strings, but more than that ball-striking, focus, stamina.

I have explained Sampras, which is just your example. I will quote myself from the post you commented on here: "He was an all-court player who was at the net half of the time. ". He wasn't a baseliner like Djokovic, Nadal, so of course he did it less then they did. The point is that his movement allowed him to do it, and he did it regularly.

It's not Djoko's backhand that I have mentioned alone, it's his forehand+backhand combo that gives him the edge over the rest of the big 3/4 in baseline rallies. He has the edge there, he has the best forehand+backhand combo, you do the math.
 

skaj

Legend
The match between Borg and McEnroe... Both players..
The video has many players in it...

The topic was movement of certain players, not differences between eras overall. Of course the players today would beat the players from 40 years ago, the game evolves. What makes an era weak or strong is how many great players you have to face among your contemporaries.
 

droliver

Professional
Absolutely not in the same universe as today's tennis. Both would be obliterated by today's top players
For sure. The median level movement and court coverage on the ATP is just light years beyond what those guys (Borg, Laver, McEnroe) were doing. Djokovic is probably getting to balls 4-5 feet wider and recovering easily then what they were giving up on.

Hell, even a good mover on the WTA (someone like Simona Halep) is approaching what you see from Borg there.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
For sure. The median level movement and court coverage on the ATP is just light years beyond what those guys (Borg, Laver, McEnroe) were doing. Djokovic is probably getting to balls 4-5 feet wider and recovering easily then what they were giving up on.

Hell, even a good mover on the WTA (someone like Simona Halep) is approaching what you see from Borg there.
Borg was one of the fastest and fittest human being on earth in the 70s. Humans have not evolved in the last 50 years. Yes with technology, modern training, more population, more people dedicated to sports, etc. the athletes are better than they've ever been but no one in human history is light years beyond Borg.

Please tell me this is a joke
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Offensive and defensive lobs ain't the same, and the correct answers from the last 30-40 yrs are Chang for O and Wilander for D. Muzz and even Rusty were never as tested as these two to begin with.



You're trying to talk sense into a certified buffoon who's literally wrong about everything. Of course no woman is "approaching" prime Borg in any athletic contest, LOL.
I mean we're talking about a guy who once appeared in a program called Superstars and beat an olympic 110m hurdler over 100m on a running track from a standing start with trainers not running spikes, the hurdler used spikes and a proper sprint start but still lost. It's fair to say Borg was extremely fast in the sprint and with a resting heart-rate stated to be 30 bpm in his prime I'd say he was capable of running way above average times in longer distance races aswell, he had the aerobic capacity to do so. He once ran a 9.8 100 yard (not meter) dash which converts to about a 10.9 100 meter which would have been good enough to make him an olympic sprinter without even training as a sprinter. Not to mention he was easily the best conditioned tennis player in the world. To say he's not one of the best movers ever is the height of buffoonery.
 
Last edited:

NonP

Hall of Fame
I mean we're talking about a guy who once appeared in a program called Superstars and beat an olympic 110m hurdler over 100m on a running track from a standing start with trainers not running spikes, the hurdler used spikes and a proper sprint start but still lost It's fair to say Borg was extremely fast in the sprint and with a resting heart-rate stated to be 30 bpm in his prime I'd say he was capable of running way above average times in longer distance races aswell, he had the aerobic capacity to do so. He once ran a 9.8 100 yard (not meter) dash which converts to about a 10.9 100 yard which would have been good enough to make him an olympic sprinter without even training as a sprinter. Not to mention he was easily the best conditioned tennis player in the world. To say he's not one of the best movers ever is the height of buffoonery.
Seconded 100% except on the resting heart rate which is something of a myth:


I can confirm cuz I happen to be the one who made that edit to the Wiki article. The Ice Android was and would be a world-class athlete regardless, indeed the only tennis player in history who might be said to be an even more dominant dirtballer than Nadal. To think Halep could somehow hang with him is, like you said, the height of buffoonery.
 

skaj

Legend
NO, no one moves like Djokovic ever.
You mean no one moves the same, everyone is different?

Otherwise you are repeating what you have said already, without any arguments. Going from defense to offence regularly, sliding on all surfaces, covering the amount of court he covers(and more, since tennis court is not just the back court) was present in tennis before Novak Djokovic.
 

skaj

Legend
For sure. The median level movement and court coverage on the ATP is just light years beyond what those guys (Borg, Laver, McEnroe) were doing. Djokovic is probably getting to balls 4-5 feet wider and recovering easily then what they were giving up on.

Hell, even a good mover on the WTA (someone like Simona Halep) is approaching what you see from Borg there.
Yes, Davenport also moves better than Borg. And Djokovic is faster than Bolt.
 

Drob

Professional
Court coverage is just one aspect of tennis movement.
Also there are a few candidates for the best court coverage(the 2000s Nadal, Monfils, Djokovic, Chang, Borg...)
Rosewall? Laver? Nastase?
 

MS_07

Semi-Pro
Off-season topic. The best shots(game elements). 3 players per category. Men, the Open Era. Your picks?

1st serve:
Karlovic
Ivanisevic
Sampras

2nd serve:
Sampras
Isner
Roddick

Return of serve:
Agassi
Djokovic
Nalbandian

Forehand:
Federer
Nadal
Del Potro

Backhand:
Nalbandian
Djokovic
Gasquet

Slice:
Rosewall
Laver
Federer

F.Volley:
Newcombe
Rafter
McEnroe

B.Volley:
Edberg
Roche
Laver

Half-volley:
Rios
Federer
Sampras

Overhead:
Sampras
Noah
Federer

Drop shot:
Rios
Coria
Santoro

Lob:
Nastase
Nalbandian
Murray

Passing shot:
Nadal
Borg
Lendl

Diving shots:
Monfils
Beker
Safin

Movement:
Borg
Mecir
Federer

Tennis IQ:
Rios
Nalbandian
McEnroe

Mental toughness:
Nadal
Borg
Laver

Elegance:
Mecir
Okker
Federer

just to illustrate my backhand pick :)


may be we can break this down height-wise also
for eg. sub 6', 6' to 6'2", 6'3" to 6'5", 6'6" and over . . .

so it will do justice to all ( i assume gasquet is sub 6'?)
 

skaj

Legend
may be we can break this down height-wise also
for eg. sub 6', 6' to 6'2", 6'3" to 6'5", 6'6" and over . . .

so it will do justice to all ( i assume gasquet is sub 6'?)
I think Gasquet is c.183, but he can pick up a low ball nicely as well as handle a high bounce very well. Same goes for the other two blokes I chose for the backhand category, and they are all different height. Non of them is extremely tall/short though.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I mean we're talking about a guy who once appeared in a program called Superstars and beat an olympic 110m hurdler over 100m on a running track from a standing start with trainers not running spikes, the hurdler used spikes and a proper sprint start but still lost. It's fair to say Borg was extremely fast in the sprint and with a resting heart-rate stated to be 30 bpm in his prime I'd say he was capable of running way above average times in longer distance races aswell, he had the aerobic capacity to do so. He once ran a 9.8 100 yard (not meter) dash which converts to about a 10.9 100 meter which would have been good enough to make him an olympic sprinter without even training as a sprinter. Not to mention he was easily the best conditioned tennis player in the world. To say he's not one of the best movers ever is the height of buffoonery.
Being able to move fast in a straight line is at best a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a great mover in tennis.

The issue with Borg or other players from that era is probably less differences in natural ability (if any) and more training for a specific way to play the sport.

Just watch videos form that era and you will find many points that Borg, or other players, let go by without any serious attempt at reaching that modern players would have reached and returned. It was simply a different type of tennis. Maybe the difference in equipment makes it easier now to get and return such balls?
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
Yes with....modern "substances" some certain athletes are better than tennis athletes have ever been as no one today is light years beyond Borg.
Fixed it for you. To emphasize, it isn't the getting to a few wide balls here and there with great defensive anticipation that is remarkable or "light years ahead", ala players like Hewitt, but rather being able to do so for entire matches thereby negating a tried and true strategy of wearing down an opponent.
 

droliver

Professional
Please tell me this is a joke. To say he's not one of the best movers ever is the height of buffoonery.
Watch the tape of his matches. He's (Borg) is pretty clearly NOT one of the best movers to play by contemporary standards. He's giving up on balls hit wide that are almost rally shots today for great movers like Novak, Nadal, Medvedev, etc.... He's an all time great, but insisting he's comparable to Novak is like comparing NBA legend of the 1950's Bob Cousy to Steph Curry. Novak is 3-4" taller, probably has 6-7"+ reach advantage, and is objectively faster/quicker across the court. As the song goes, "One of these things is not like the other"


He once ran a 9.8 100 yard (not meter) dash which converts to about a 10.9 100 meter which would have been good enough to make him an olympic sprinter without even training as a sprinter.
Borg actually ran a 12.3 100M dash (per The Superstars database). Only people whom don't know about track speed (even if you didn't know he ran a 12.3 100m) would suggest Borg was anywhere in the same galaxy as an Olympic Level sprinter. Outside of just a few skill players in the NFL with track backgrounds, there really aren't true world class sprinters (ie. athletes whom have run those times in competition) playing other sports professionally anywhere in the world.

You mean no one moves the same, everyone is different? Otherwise you are repeating what you have said already, without any arguments. Going from defense to offence regularly, sliding on all surfaces, covering the amount of court he covers(and more, since tennis court is not just the back court) was present in tennis before Novak Djokovic.
I don't know if your slow or stubborn here as this is not a difficult concept. Players have done all kinds of things in isolation as you note, but Novak moves and plays defense/transition in a way that was unlike anyone who came before. It just is.
 
Last edited:

droliver

Professional
Just watch videos form that era and you will find many points that Borg, or other players, let go by without any serious attempt at reaching that modern players would have reached and returned. It was simply a different type of tennis. Maybe the difference in equipment makes it easier now to get and return such balls?
Some of this is the athletes themselves and the level of fitness and footwork. Novak is a much taller and longer limbed guy then Borg. On full stretch he probably has at least almost a foot more reach and his footwork and sliding prowess are extending that several feet more in both directions on the baseline I'd guess . He moves much more dynamically and explosively from point to point on the court then you saw from players in the 1970's.

The point about equipment is important though, as even though most rackets aren't longer they do allow you to get more on a ball when stretched then an 80sq inch wood racquet would have. Maybe some of the points where they don't even appear to try to make a play reflected the relative futility of expending energy on a ball you had little chance of winning a point on.
 

skaj

Legend
Watch the tape of his matches. He's (Borg) is pretty clearly NOT one of the best movers to play by contemporary standards. He's giving up on balls hit wide that are almost rally shots today for great movers like Novak, Nadal, Medvedev, etc.... He's an all time great, but insisting he's comparable to Novak is like comparing NBA legend of the 1950's Bob Cousy to Steph Curry. Novak is 3-4" taller, probably has 6-7"+ reach advantage, and is objectively faster/quicker across the court. As the song goes, "One of these things is not like the other"



Borg actually ran a 12.3 100M dash (per The Superstars database). Only people whom don't know about track speed (even if you didn't know he ran a 12.3 100m) would suggest Borg was anywhere in the same galaxy as an Olympic Level sprinter. Outside of just a few skill players in the NFL with track backgrounds, there really aren't true world class sprinters (ie. athletes whom have run those times in competition) playing other sports professionally anywhere in the world.


I don't know if your slow or stubborn here as this is not a difficult concept. Players have done all kinds of things in isolation as you note, but Novak moves and plays defense/transition in a way that was unlike anyone who came before. It just is.
In a lack of arguments now you are going for ad hominem comments, nice... And the wrong ones. I am slow and stubborn? Who said that they didn't do all of those things combined(except you)? I did not note that players have done all kinds of things in isolation.

As for your other poor comments, I don't know how you measured, "objectively", Borg's quickness as lesser than Djokovic'. Borg was quicker(direction changes, reflexes, reaction etc.), at least as fast(neither were an Olympic level sprinter, of course), had stamina as great, had better footwork, better balance, anticipation, moved forward/backward better. The only things Djokovic was better at in the movement department are sliding and the size of his step, although the difference is not huge since Borg was very leggy for his height. Those alone certainly do not make him a better mover overall. Your NBA analogy is of course not applicable, Bjorn Borg was ahead of his time when it comes to his movement which combined great speed, amazing agility, perfect footwork, excellent balance, ability to move well on every court type and in every part of the court(not just around the baseline), very good anticipation and court sense, and astounding stamina - everything needed for efficient tennis movement. He was also graceful on a top of it all, so effortless when moving around the court, unlike most players of today.
 

skaj

Legend
Some of this is the athletes themselves and the level of fitness and footwork. Novak is a much taller and longer limbed guy then Borg. On full stretch he probably has at least almost a foot more reach and his footwork and sliding prowess are extending that several feet more in both directions on the baseline I'd guess . He moves much more dynamically and explosively from point to point on the court then you saw from players in the 1970's.

The point about equipment is important though, as even though most rackets aren't longer they do allow you to get more on a ball when stretched then an 80sq inch wood racquet would have. Maybe some of the points where they don't even appear to try to make a play reflected the relative futility of expending energy on a ball you had little chance of winning a point on.
Djokovic is only 7-8cm taller, which is not "much" taller, while Borgs legs are also very long for his height. And physical reach is not the only factor in court coverage, anticipation and court sense, at which Borg was better, also play a great part in it(Hingis for example had medium speed and legs certainly not long, but she covered the court amazingly well). Djokovic, like most players today, moves more dynamically(quicker) than most player in Borg's era, including Bjorn, consistently. That doesn't mean that most players of today are able to move quicker than Borg did. It means that they have to employ the maximum of their quickness more often, because the pace of the game overall is much greater now. That doesn't make their maximum quickness greater.
 

droliver

Professional
Borg was quicker(direction changes, reflexes, reaction etc.), at least as fast(neither were an Olympic level sprinter, of course), had stamina as great, had better footwork, better balance, anticipation, moved forward/backward better. The only things Djokovic was better at in the movement department are sliding and the size of his step, although the difference is not huge since Borg was very leggy for his height.
Disagree. Novak is the bigger, longer, and more dynamic athlete. He's also arguably fitter, having demonstrated incredible stamina in matches much longer and more physical then tennis in Borg's era. Also remember that Borg was well known to have partied and used recreational drugs during his prime (and later described by his ex wife as a "cocaine addict")

Djokovic is only 7-8cm taller, which is not "much" taller, while Borgs legs are also very long for his height.
Are you serious? Borg was the size of Gilles Simon or David Goffin, both of whom are towered over by Novak. Novak also has noticeable long arms for his height/frame. His reach advantage over someone like Borg is MASSIVE.



That doesn't mean that most players of today are able to move quicker than Borg did. It means that they have to employ the maximum of their quickness
???? I have no idea what that means, all I can tell you is that Borg's movement compared to today was somewhat pedestrian.
 

skaj

Legend
Disagree. Novak is the bigger, longer, and more dynamic athlete. He's also arguably fitter, having demonstrated incredible stamina in matches much longer and more physical then tennis in Borg's era. Also remember that Borg was well known to have partied and used recreational drugs during his prime (and later described by his ex wife as a "cocaine addict")


Are you serious? Borg was the size of Gilles Simon or David Goffin, both of whom are towered over by Novak. Novak also has noticeable long arms for his height/frame. His reach advantage over someone like Borg is MASSIVE.




???? I have no idea what that means, all I can tell you is that Borg's movement compared to today was somewhat pedestrian.
And you are calling me slow... Which part don't you understand? I'll gladly explain it to you. What you commented on with your last sentence was an explanation why your observation from that sentence is wrong.

Which part of cm don't you understand? You are acting like I said "no, Djokovic is not taller than Borg". Then you say that Djokovic is towering over people of Borgs height, then you post photos where he is towering no one, just pics of him and another person who is (7-8cm)shorter. Bizarre. And you are calling me stubborn?
Maybe he is towering over someone like Michael Chang, who also moved as well as him by the way, or better actually.

Yes, the matches are more physically demanding today, so you can see Djokovic looking super tired after the long ones. You didn't see Borg looking like that, so your explanation does not work. He was well known for winning long matches actually, so if he did use recreational drugs and party hard in his prime it means that his physique was indeed amazing.
The bigger, longer and more dynamic part I have explained already in my last post. I will have to quote myself from that post here: " And physical reach is not the only factor in court coverage, anticipation and court sense, at which Borg was better, also play a great part in it(Hingis for example had medium speed and legs certainly not long, but she covered the court amazingly well). Djokovic, like most players today, moves more dynamically(quicker) than most player in Borg's era, including Bjorn, consistently. " Then goes the sentence you didn't get, and it means that they move quicker on average, but their maximum is not higher. Borg just didn't use his maximum or was close to it as consistently, because the pace of the game was slower so he didn't have to.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
LOL, are we still debating if tennis in Borg´s time had similar movement requirements as that of today?


watch the videos people! :-D
 
D

Deleted member 770948

Guest
The shot we know for certain is the volley.
This year at Roland Garros, Mark Woodforde said Nadal is the #1 ranked volleyer in the world (after another commentator asked him "Where would you rank Nadal in terms of volleying?").
And in past years John McEnroe said Nadal is the best volleyer in the top 10.
 
Top