Agassi: Djokovic is 30 but he has body of a 25 years old man

[DarthFed]

I love how he mentions Novak has a better body for the game but Fed's movement and overall game is much less taxing. That less taxing style and overall greater talent is why he can still win slams 7-8 years after his prime. Since you love to bring up 2011 you should note that Fed turned 30 that year, an all around poor season for him, yet not nearly as bad as Nole's 2017 when he turned 30. Nole's game in his mid 20's (peak/prime) has been better than Roger in his 30's (way past his prime). Let's not leave that part out, you're comparing a geriatric who is currently dominating the tour to a guy 6 years younger.

 

[mrzz]

You really need to break down the surfaces if you want to discuss whose body is more suited to the game. Different surfaces ask different things from the body -- and actually and obviously different playing styles would contribute to that. It is hard to argue against Djokovic´s physique on hard courts, but on the other hand on grass Federer´s style make it look like the body is irrelevant, so maybe this discussion may be a bit void from the start...

 

[Federberg]

You really need to break down the surfaces if you want to discuss whose body is more suited to the game. Different surfaces ask different things from the body -- and actually and obviously different playing styles would contribute to that. It is hard to argue against Djokovic´s physique on hard courts, but on the other hand on grass Federer´s style make it look like the body is irrelevant, so maybe this discussion may be a bit void from the start...

I think it's an irrelevance mate. In terms of body, what seems to be most relevance is height (and I suppose weight, but since these are all elite athletes we can take that forgranted). We've seen over the years that the top guys tend to fall into the 6ft 1 to 6ft 4 range generally. It's not body, it's meeting of movement and playing style. Roger's tendency to play first strike tennis with his athleticism is clearly less taxing than the more attritional styles of Novak and Rafa, despite their greater degree of athleticism. I'll wager that because Roger spends less time on court and probably runs less miles per game he's a sight younger than some might think, and Rafa and Novak are a sight older. But that's just my opinion

 

[Obsi]

I have to be honest here, and even though it's insulting, it's also factual... you're a moron. I can't describe you any other way. Moxie and Front got it, as I'm sure many others did. If you don't even get basic humor and sarcasm what's the point of continuing with this! Don't even know why I'm responding to be honest. Guess I just want to help you!

You're an idiot.

 

[Ricardo]

Your defence is childish and idiotic. You weren't sarcastic when you said that Djokovic in 2018 needs to have a year like Federer in 2017 in order to show he is a superior player than Roger.



Dunderhead, in the post #16 I stated the following:

"When I said Djokovic is better than Federer in everything except being aesthetically pleasing to the eye I meant:
- overall better gamewise
- mentally stronger
- higher tennis intelligence
- better body for tennis"

And in the post #41 I stated this:

"I said his game is overall superior which in other words means Federer's game is better in some parts but taken everything into account, Novak's is better"

So, yes, you lied when you made the clam that I said Djokovic is better in every aspect.



Chucklehead, see dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peak



Djokovic has never beaten peak Federer.



Since 2011 the head to head record at slams is 7:2 to Novak.



It's a fact that Federer's style of play is far less taxing on body.



Bonehead, you've failed to refute my argument.



Bubblehead, I quote the official ATP site:

"Having received a walkover from Czech Jiri Vesely in the second round, Djokovic’s biggest concern heading into the second week of the Open will be a lack of match play. Top of mind will be the walkover Djokovic received from Fabio Fognini in the Roland Garros quarter-finals in 2011. At the time Djokovic was on a 43-match winning streak (41-0 on the year), but the disruption to his rhythm was attributed in part to his stumble against Roger Federer in the semi-finals."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/djokovic-short-on-match-play-us-open-2016



You failed to provide a link or video that shows what Novak said. You're a liar.

there is so much bs in one post, hard to believe it all came from one person. Easiest thing to do though, is to cut the crap and go straight to the centre of such argument that "Djokovic is overall superior to Federer".

Anything you said so far
"overall better gamewise
- mentally stronger
- higher tennis intelligence
- better body for tennis"

You have provided zero evidence to none of these, so it is nothing but your silly opinion. I say 'silly' as all aspects of facts don't support it, so you basically just turn a blind eye and say things which you, only yourself want to hear (typical characteristic of an idiot). So here are directly comparable facts:

Prime Djoker did not play prime Federer, it has always been that either pre-prime Djoker vs prime Fed or post-prime Federer vs prime Djoker. We never had the chance to see prime Djoker vs prime Federer, so the only comparison offered is the above........which clearly shows post-prime Fed had done decisively better vs prime Djoker than pre-prime Djoker vs prime Fed, it is not even close, evidence clearly refute your typical blind and stupid belief.

Of course i am not simple like you to base it all on H-H, as its key fact how they fared vs the field......so career achievements need to be compared. While being as shameless like you to say weak era, this is where i would chop you down so easily. If you say prime Fed achieved more due to weak comp, please entertain us on the fact that a well past his prime Fed has achieved everything in sight this year (winning every big events he entered) while Djoker not yet 30 has got nothing of note. Shall we call it weak competition again? i actually don't care how you will answer as anything from you will be stupid, as i know your line of thinking

When Fed achieved more....weak competition
When Djoker achieved more.....strong competition
When they both played same comp and Fed achieves more, what competition do we call this?

unfair?

 

[Federberg]

If you say prime Fed achieved more due to weak comp, please entertain us on the fact that a well past his prime Fed has achieved everything in sight this year (winning every big events he entered) while Djoker not yet 30 has got nothing of note. Shall we call it weak competition again?

It's even worse than that mate, but I agree with you completely. They'll say that Federer faced weak competition, which logically should mean that Federer is not all that great. But then when Novak is in his prime and Roger is not, they'll then make out that when Novak is in the ascendancy Federer is actually great, even though he's clearly not as good as he once was. It's logically inconsistent. It takes a special type of moron to twist themselves around in that way!

 

[Obsi]

there is so much bs in one post, hard to believe it all came from one person. Easiest thing to do though, is to cut the crap and go straight to the centre of such argument that "Djokovic is overall superior to Federer".

Anything you said so far
"overall better gamewise
- mentally stronger
- higher tennis intelligence
- better body for tennis"

You have provided zero evidence to none of these, so it is nothing but your silly opinion. I say 'silly' as all aspects of facts don't support it, so you basically just turn a blind eye and say things which you, only yourself want to hear (typical characteristic of an idiot). So here are directly comparable facts:

Prime Djoker did not play prime Federer, it has always been that either pre-prime Djoker vs prime Fed or post-prime Federer vs prime Djoker. We never had the chance to see prime Djoker vs prime Federer, so the only comparison offered is the above........which clearly shows post-prime Fed had done decisively better vs prime Djoker than pre-prime Djoker vs prime Fed, it is not even close, evidence clearly refute your typical blind and stupid belief.

Fidiot, pre-prime Djokovic had a gluten intolerance problem which seriously affected his level of play.

Of course i am not simple like you to base it all on H-H, as its key fact how they fared vs the field......so career achievements need to be compared. While being as shameless like you to say weak era, this is where i would chop you down so easily. If you say prime Fed achieved more due to weak comp, please entertain us on the fact that a well past his prime Fed has achieved everything in sight this year (winning every big events he entered) while Djoker not yet 30 has got nothing of note. Shall we call it weak competition again? i actually don't care how you will answer as anything from you will be stupid, as i know your line of thinking

When Fed achieved more....weak competition
When Djoker achieved more.....strong competition
When they both played same comp and Fed achieves more, what competition do we call this?

unfair?

Dolt, in 2017 Djokovic had motivational issues and elbow injury. That's the explanation why Federer had much better results than Novak this year.

 

[Busted]

I think it's an irrelevance mate. In terms of body, what seems to be most relevance is height (and I suppose weight, but since these are all elite athletes we can take that forgranted). We've seen over the years that the top guys tend to fall into the 6ft 1 to 6ft 4 range generally. It's not body, it's meeting of movement and playing style. Roger's tendency to play first strike tennis with his athleticism is clearly less taxing than the more attritional styles of Novak and Rafa, despite their greater degree of athleticism. I'll wager that because Roger spends less time on court and probably runs less miles per game he's a sight younger than some might think, and Rafa and Novak are a sight older. But that's just my opinion

I have to disagree with the idea that Djokovic and Nadal have a "greater degree of athleticism" than Federer. In fact, I'd argue that it's the exact opposite. Roger's playing style is much more athletic than either of them. His game is harder to execute. What's so "athletic" about endlessly running from one side of the baseline to the other? They've exhibited very little variety and rarely come forward - which requires greater athleticism than defensive retrieving. They're games require greater physicality - but not athleticism. I'm not even sure either one of them even knows how to serve-and-volley. Or maybe they're just allergic to it.

 

[Federberg]

I have to disagree with the idea that Djokovic and Nadal have a "greater degree of athleticism" than Federer. In fact, I'd argue that it's the exact opposite. Roger's playing style is much more athletic than either of them. His game is harder to execute. What's so "athletic" about endlessly running from one side of the baseline to the other? They've exhibited very little variety and rarely come forward - which requires greater athleticism than defensive retrieving. They're games require greater physicality - but not athleticism. I'm not even sure either one of them even knows how to serve-and-volley. Or maybe they're just allergic to it.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be. I meant that Novak and Rafa are required to be more athletic than Roger because of their attritional styles. Not that they are intrinsically more athletic than him. But perhaps the use of the word athletic is inaccurate and I should have said they need to run more...

 

[Fiero425]

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be. I meant that Novak and Rafa are required to be more athletic than Roger because of their attritional styles. Not that they are intrinsically more athletic than him. But perhaps the use of the word athletic is inaccurate and I should have said they need to run more...

When it comes to a "war of attrition," I'd definitely go with Nadal & Djokovic as evidenced by their epic battle in 2012 "down under!" Roger's style allows him to "hang in" long matches, but if stubborn thinking he can win from the baseline, banging away with Nadovic, he's going to come up short! He has to be more offensive and take it to them; ala AO final earlier this year! I couldn't watch those FO matches he lost because of Nadal's act (well documented by me) and Federer unwilling to go for broke; instead hanging back! If passed occasionally at the net, so be it; trying to slug it out from the baseline against any of the top players will end in a loss; esp. now in his waning years, though very successful! It's all going to end sooner or later; look at Nole! We really aren't sure he'll come back yet, but that very well could have been it with such a serious decline in his results after completing his Nole-Slam last season! Winning 1 Masters 1000 event in over a yr can be done by slugs outside the top 10! I think he has something left & hope he comes back strong next season!

 

[Moxie]

You're an idiot.

This is not up to your usual level of insult. I thought the resurrection of the antique "dunderhead" was inspired. At the same time, the fact that you need to insult with nearly every riposte does imply that you know you're arguing from a position of weakness.

 

[Obsi]

the fact that you need to insult with nearly every riposte does imply that you know you're arguing from a position of weakness.

No, no. A person who first throws an insult during debates, is the one arguing from a position of weakness. In this case, it's Federberg.

Can you find a post on any thread where I was disrespectful to a poster who had been respectful to me?

 

[Front242]

No, no. A person who first throws an insult during debates, is the one arguing from a position of weakness. In this case, it's Federberg.

Can you find a post on any thread where I was disrespectful to a poster who had been respectful to me?

There are plenty but no one can be bothered looking. Btw, pull the other one with the gluten intolerance crap. We're not all as naive as you are...

 

[Federberg]

No, no. A person who first throws an insult during debates, is the one arguing from a position of weakness. In this case, it's Federberg.

Can you find a post on any thread where I was disrespectful to a poster who had been respectful to me?

Actually mate, you threw the first direct insult at me! Not that I care mind. I might have used robust language but never directly at you. I guess you're sensitive.

PS,...

 

[Obsi]

There are plenty but no one can be bothered looking.

You're a liar.

Btw, pull the other one with the gluten intolerance crap. We're not all as naive as you are...

The truth hurts.

Actually mate, you threw the first direct insult at me! Not that I care mind. I might have used robust language but never directly at you.

You threw the first insult at me in the post #45.

guess you're sensitive.

Since when having self-respect means being sensitive?

PS,...

You're embarrassing yourself. It's sad that someone of your age is so childish.

 

[Federberg]

Asking how old you are is insulting? As I said... sensitive!

 

[Obsi]

Asking how old you are is insulting? As I said... sensitive!

No, insulting is

It's very indicative that so far you never attacked my claim that your persistent use of is a childlish thing to do. You know you're a childish individual.

 

[Moxie]

@Obsi: Whoever threw the first stone, you are incredibly childish with the insults. I suspect it's painful that not long after you put up this Agassi quote, Djokovic bailed on the rest of this year with injury, so not-so-much the body of a youngster. And try as you might, you've still got a long way to go to prove that Djokovic is better than Federer, as Djokovic does, himself.

 

[Federberg]

No, insulting is



It's very indicative that so far you never attacked my claim that your persistent use of is a childlish thing to do. You know you're a childish individual.

I never attacked your claim because it was clear that I was upsetting you when I used it, it was very much my intention to do that. Calling me childish or trying to insult me are utterly irrelevant and not worthy of my attention. You clearly are young, and sensitive. I almost feel sorry for you. A word of advice, forums are like shark tanks, making it so obvious that an emoji upsets you is like trailing blood in the water. If you stubbornly persist with an argument that I'm sure you not only know is wrong but has spectacularly blown up in your face even as you've ploughed on, it was clear to me that logic and reason weren't going to win the day with you. So I used the emoji to punish you..

 

[Obsi]

@Obsi: Whoever threw the first stone, you are incredibly childish with the insults.

Incredibly childish is using insults such as "Your mother is a whore" or similar. My insults weren't like that.

I suspect it's painful that not long after you put up this Agassi quote, Djokovic bailed on the rest of this year with injury, so not-so-much the body of a youngster. And try as you might, you've still got a long way to go to prove that Djokovic is better than Federer, as Djokovic does, himself.

Your conclusion is stupid. Djokovic missing the rest of season due to injury does not mean Agassi is wrong that Novak has body of a 25 years old. It's a fact that 25 years old tennis players do get injuries that force them taking 6 months breaks.

Think about this: Novak's style of play is very taxing on body and yet he needed to reach age 30 to have for the first time in his career a type of injury that Nadal had when he was 25 years old (you know what happened in 2012).

I never attacked your claim because it was clear that I was upsetting you when I used it, it was very much my intention to do that. Calling me childish or trying to insult me are utterly irrelevant and not worthy of my attention. You clearly are young, and sensitive. I almost feel sorry for you. A word of advice, forums are like shark tanks, making it so obvious that an emoji upsets you is like trailing blood in the water. If you stubbornly persist with an argument that I'm sure you not only know is wrong but has spectacularly blown up in your face even as you've ploughed on, it was clear to me that logic and reason weren't going to win the day with you. So I used the emoji to punish you..

A person who first throws an insult during debate, is the one arguing from a position of weakness.

Grow up.