Most complete player ever - Djokovic or Federer

[Moxie]

I still say you're talking about "old" Fed v. spanky new and current Djokovic.  It's not a 1:1 analogy.  Novak is still capable of dumping a smash, for example. And his lack of margin for error on shots creates a lot of them, when he's not confident.  He is currently, and with good reason. The most telling stat, though, is his percentage in Major finals.  His fans are making much of him withstanding an unkind crowd at the USO final this year, but 34-year-old Roger wasn't going to win that final, anyway.  A big "club in the bag" is opportunism, and mental strength.  Novak is an emotional player, and hasn't, therefore, always made the best of his opportunities.  Maybe he has changed, or maybe he is making hay while the circumstances favor him.  I would say the fact that he can go "walkabout" mentally counts against him.

 

[Mastoor]

This is the first time I read someone considers Federer most complete player, they normally all chose Novak in that category, while Fed is considered most elegant, with most interesting style to watch beside being the most achieved.

 

 

 

[brokenshoelace]

 

 

<cite>@Mastoor said:</cite>
This is the first time I read someone considers Federer most complete player, they normally all chose Novak in that category, while Fed is considered most elegant, with most interesting style to watch beside being the most achieved.

This is probably yet another proof that you need to broaden your horizons beyond Djokovic-centric media. Federer being the most complete player is the de facto answer everyone gives. Almost nobody used to consider Djokovic the most complete player which is why the discussion is relevant now, because for the first time in forever, there's an argument for someone else being more complete than Federer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, I see about 6 message boards changes hasn't taught people what logical fallacies are:

Argument A): Djokovic beat Nadal on clay in 2015.

Argument B): Djokovic beat Nadal on clay in 2011.

Argument C): Therefore Nadal's form has nothing to do with why Djokovic beat him on clay in 2015.

A 6 year old can tell why this is dumb.

 

[Mastoor]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>




This is probably yet another proof that you need to broaden your horizons beyond Djokovic-centric media. Federer being the most complete player is the de facto answer everyone gives. Almost nobody used to consider Djokovic the most complete player which is why the discussion is relevant now, because for the first time in forever, there's an argument for someone else being more complete than Federer.

 

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>




This is probably yet another proof that you need to broaden your horizons beyond Djokovic-centric media. Federer being the most complete player is the de facto answer everyone gives. Almost nobody used to consider Djokovic the most complete player which is why the discussion is relevant now, because for the first time in forever, there's an argument for someone else being more complete than Federer.

 

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>




This is probably yet another proof that you need to broaden your horizons beyond Djokovic-centric media. Federer being the most complete player is the de facto answer everyone gives. Almost nobody used to consider Djokovic the most complete player which is why the discussion is relevant now, because for the first time in forever, there's an argument for someone else being more complete than Federer.

Where does "Djokovic-centric" media exist?  All i can read (there's no tennis media in Serbian) is media in English language which as you should know Nike biased, yet i have never ever come across anyone stating something as idiotic as Mirkin is the most complete player ever. As opposed to that in last 5 years many people named Novak as the most complete player ever. I remember that we discussed that in other forums in past when Agassi, Rasheed and Bolletieri talked about it, so i don't know why you pretend this is novelty for you.

 

 

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
Also, I see about 6 message boards changes hasn't taught people what logical fallacies are:

Argument A): Djokovic beat Nadal on clay in 2015.

Argument B): Djokovic beat Nadal on clay in 2011.

Argument C): Therefore Nadal's form has nothing to do with why Djokovic beat him on clay in 2015.

A 6 year old can tell why this is dumb.

and whoever argues Nadal of 05-10 beat mentally and physically frail Djokovic on clay equates to current Djokovic not being able to beat any Nadal on clay, also needs to admit, he's dumb.

The notion that Nadal's prime was back in 05-07 is a joke and i know you, broken, have argued this. Nadal;s best years and without a doubt 2008, 2010 and 2013.. This is undeniable. I would argue Nadal was better in 2010 than he was even in 08.. he won 3 slams for the first time in 2010. So the notion that by 2011, Nadal was a beat up, old lion who Djokovic preyed on is one the biggest, fattest and intellectually dumb arguments of today. Nadal was playing fantastic tennis in 2011, he made all those finals and lost to one guy - Djokovic. It had little, if anything to do with Nadal's level coming down. Even in 2012, Nadal started strong. The Nadal that took Djokovic to 5 sets at AO 2012 was MUCH better than the Nadal that got murdered by Tsonga in 08 AO semis, MUCH BETTER. Djokovic was always a nightmare matchup for Nadal but he was mentally weak and couldn't even play long matches. Once he got physically strong and mentally strong, Nadal was in major trouble NO MATTER WHAT LEVBEL BE BROUGHT TOBTHE TABLE. Of course, Nadal is one of the GOATs, so he was able to beat Nole between 2011-2014, even on hards, om occasion, but Nole has owned him between 11-15. I see today's Nole beating Nadal of 05-07 on clay, possibly easier than he beat 11 Nadal, Nadal considerably improved from 08 onwards...

I know you are a Nadal fan and this blinds you a bit but you'll come around, gradually. What i say above pretty strong.

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
and whoever argues Nadal of 05-10 beat mentally and physically frail Djokovic on clay equates to current Djokovic not being able to beat any Nadal on clay, also needs to admit, he's dumb.

The notion that Nadal's prime was back in 05-07 is a joke and i know you, broken, have argued this. Nadal;s best years and without a doubt 2008, 2010 and 2013.. This is undeniable. I would argue Nadal was better in 2010 than he was even in 08.. he won 3 slams for the first time in 2010. So the notion that by 2011, Nadal was a beat up, old lion who Djokovic preyed on is one the biggest, fattest and intellectually dumb arguments of today. Nadal was playing fantastic tennis in 2011, he made all those finals and lost to one guy - Djokovic. It had little, if anything to do with Nadal's level coming down. Even in 2012, Nadal started strong. The Nadal that took Djokovic to 5 sets at AO 2012 was MUCH better than the Nadal that got murdered by Tsonga in 08 AO semis, MUCH BETTER. Djokovic was always a nightmare matchup for Nadal but he was mentally weak and couldn't even play long matches. Once he got physically strong and mentally strong, Nadal was in major trouble NO MATTER WHAT LEVBEL BE BROUGHT TOBTHE TABLE. Of course, Nadal is one of the GOATs, so he was able to beat Nole between 2011-2014, even on hards, om occasion, but Nole has owned him between 11-15. I see today's Nole beating Nadal of 05-07 on clay, possibly easier than he beat 11 Nadal, Nadal considerably improved from 08 onwards...

I know you are a Nadal fan and this blinds you a bit but you'll come around, gradually. What i say above pretty strong.

Holy shit, when have I ever argued that Nadal's prime was 05-07? Nadal's prime was 08-10, easily. Are you on drugs?

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
Holy shit, when have I ever argued that Nadal's prime was 05-07? Nadal's prime was 08-10, easily. Are you on drugs?

nope but you have selective amnesia. I remember you feverishly arguing that Nadal was past his prime on clay, post 2008. Your argument basically was that Nadal may have improved on hards but had deteriorated on clay. Perhaps you don't remember but yes, you did argue it. If you are the same broken i used to argue with, you absolutely made this argument. It all started by you trying to explain to us that Nadal is actually more vulnerable vs Djokovic on clay than in other surfaces and then you went on to say that even though nadal had improved on hards, he had deteriorated on clay and that for you, Nadal had a better chance vs Djoker outside of clay. I remember disagreeing with all of these points...  If you forgot, fine... was a long time ago.

 

[MikeOne]

btw, has anyone amassed as many points as Djokovic? He's holder of 3 slams, 5 masters, eoy championship. The other 3 masters, he's made 2 finals and a semi and the other slam, final. Did Federer ever amass this amount of points?

 

[calitennis127]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
Also, I see about 6 message boards changes hasn't taught people what logical fallacies are:

Argument A): Djokovic beat Nadal on clay in 2015.

Argument B): Djokovic beat Nadal on clay in 2011.

Argument C): Therefore Nadal's form has nothing to do with why Djokovic beat him on clay in 2015.

A 6 year old can tell why this is dumb.

 

You're right. A 6-year-old who knows some recent tennis history would point out that your little syllogism omits Djokovic's victory over Nadal in Monte Carlo in 2013 as well as his victory over Nadal in Rome 2014, not to mention that he was up a break in the 5th set of the 2013 Roland Garros semifinal and also had match points in the 2009 Madrid semifinal.

 

[calitennis127]

 

 

<cite>@Moxie said:</cite>
I still say you're talking about "old" Fed v. spanky new and current Djokovic.  It's not a 1:1 analogy.  Novak is still capable of dumping a smash, for example. And his lack of margin for error on shots creates a lot of them, when he's not confident.  He is currently, and with good reason. The most telling stat, though, is his percentage in Major finals.  His fans are making much of him withstanding an unkind crowd at the USO final this year, but 34-year-old Roger wasn't going to win that final, anyway.  A big "club in the bag" is opportunism, and mental strength.  Novak is an emotional player, and hasn't, therefore, always made the best of his opportunities.  Maybe he has changed, or maybe he is making hay while the circumstances favor him.  I would say the fact that he can go "walkabout" mentally counts against him.

 

Federer losing this year's US Open final had little to nothing to do with him being 34. That is ridiculous. How many younger players did he have to spank to prove that wasn't the case? He owned Wawrinka in the semifinal in very impressive fashion and was on a roll. He frankly played better in this year's US Open than he did when he last won it in 2008.

The main shortcoming of Djokovic's career is the slew of horrible, inexcusable losses to Nadal like the 2013 US Open, a match he was in control of in the third set and simply gave away to an inferior, less talented player. That has to be the worst major final loss of Djokovic's career by far.

 

 

[calitennis127]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
So the notion that by 2011, Nadal was a beat up, old lion who Djokovic preyed on is one the biggest, fattest and intellectually dumb arguments of today. Nadal was playing fantastic tennis in 2011, he made all those finals and lost to one guy - Djokovic. It had little, if anything to do with Nadal's level coming down. Even in 2012, Nadal started strong. The Nadal that took Djokovic to 5 sets at AO 2012 was MUCH better than the Nadal that got murdered by Tsonga in 08 AO semis, MUCH BETTER.

 

100% agreed. I would add that Nadal in 2011 stormed through most of the draws and then lost to Djokovic, who was playing at too high a level for Nadal to do anything about.

 

 

 

[calitennis127]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
nope but you have selective amnesia. I remember you feverishly arguing that Nadal was past his prime on clay, post 2008. Your argument basically was that Nadal may have improved on hards but had deteriorated on clay. Perhaps you don't remember but yes, you did argue it. If you are the same broken i used to argue with, you absolutely made this argument. It all started by you trying to explain to us that Nadal is actually more vulnerable vs Djokovic on clay than in other surfaces and then you went on to say that even though nadal had improved on hards, he had deteriorated on clay and that for you, Nadal had a better chance vs Djoker outside of clay.

 

This is also entirely accurate, and it fits in with Broken's misguided over-emphasis on "age". As soon as a player hits 26, Broken starts nit-picking at every little mistake a player makes and saying "back when he was 23 or 24, that never happened", which is simply bogus. I can find dozens of highlights of players drop-shotting Nadal or volleying away from him when he was 25 or younger and Nadal sprinting after the ball and not even getting a racket on it in time. Because Nadal was younger than 25, in Broken's mind Nadal's speed in just making an effort in the direction of the opponent's shot was reason to be awed by his movement. But at age 26+, Nadal in the exact same scenarios not getting to the ball was proof positive that Nadal had "slowed down" and "didn't move as well as he used to". This type of thinking is why Broken so emphatically declared that 2011 would be the year that went down as Novak's best, and it turns out that he has had an even better year 4 years later in 2015.

As for 2008 Nadal, it is important to remember some details: before Nadal's summer run began, let's not forget that he withdrew from Rome in the first round against Ferrero, supposedly with foot blisters. Then in Hamburg he and Djokovic played a drawn-out, brutal 3-setter for the #2 ranking; Nadal was a mere one set from falling to #3. And then in the Hamburg final, Nadal and Federer played three tough sets.

Now imagine this scenario happening now or any year post-2010: Nadal withdraws from Rome with injury in the first round, and then scrapes his way through a semifinal and final in two tough three-setters at Madrid (Hamburg). Broken would be talking about how Nadal's injury in Rome and his sloppiness in Hamburg were signs of aging. But when it comes to 2008, all of this is glossed over by Broken and he talks like Nadal just thumped every opponent in straight sets from Monte Carlo on. That is simply contradicted by the facts.

 

 

[Billie]

I've never heard of player's peak lasting what 2-3 years? 

As for Federer losing because he is too old, don't' we have a dominant #1 in women's tennis who is the same age as Federer?  B-)

 

[Moxie]

I don't know that anyone thinks that Nadal in 2011 was beat-up or not in-form.  I agree that Nole was just too good for him.  I thought that was put to bed long ago.  If anyone is making the finer point that Nadal's peak year on clay was 2008, I think that is also true, but that is not to say he wasn't fairly formidable on the surface, even when Djokovic was beating him there on 2011.

 

[Moxie]

How can you possibly say that Federer's losing at the USO this year, (or at Wimbledon, this year or last, for that matter,) has nothing to do with him being 34/age?  Yes, he's still good enough to wrangle a lot of the field, but, against the best player at the height of his game?  I'm not saying that Djokovic at full strength can't beat Roger, but at 3 Majors, including 2 Wimbledons?  That's got something to do with age.

And you should get over moaning about Djokovic's losses at Majors to Nadal, no matter how much it rankles you.  I'm pretty sure his worst loss in a Major final was at Wimbledon v. Murray, when he barely made a show of it.  He even did better in his maiden Slam final v. Fed, which he also lost in straights.  Where he has lost to Nadal in a Slam final, he has taken a set, so, not his worst.

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@calitennis127 said:</cite>


You're right. A 6-year-old who knows some recent tennis history would point out that your little syllogism omits Djokovic's victory over Nadal in Monte Carlo in 2013 as well as his victory over Nadal in Rome 2014, not to mention that he was up a break in the 5th set of the 2013 Roland Garros semifinal and also had match points in the 2009 Madrid semifinal.

You're smarter than this. Never said Djokovic can't or hasn't beaten Nadal on clay when Nadal was perfectly fine. I'm saying clearly, this year, it wasn't the case.

Also, you're smart enough to know that beating Nadal on clay is one thing, and beating him at RG is another. In fact, you made a thread once about why Djokovic may never beat Nadal at RG, despite having beaten him on clay multiple times. Have you not?

So, you're telling me, that Djokovic was able to so routinely do at RG this year what he couldn't do in a million previous tries purely through his own play? Nadal, the 9 time champ, the man who had lost a grand total of one match at RG, couldn't even take a set. You have a whole body of evidence this year, both before and after said loss to suggest Nadal wasn't himself. To act otherwise is insulting.

And remember, all I said in this thread is that Djokovic had never been a favorite against Nadal on clay up until this year, not that he hadn't beaten him. The only time when Djokovic would have been a favorite is if they'd met at RG in 2011. Too bad Djokovic couldn't get past Roger that year.

 

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
nope but you have selective amnesia. I remember you feverishly arguing that Nadal was past his prime on clay, post 2008. Your argument basically was that Nadal may have improved on hards but had deteriorated on clay. Perhaps you don't remember but yes, you did argue it. If you are the same broken i used to argue with, you absolutely made this argument. It all started by you trying to explain to us that Nadal is actually more vulnerable vs Djokovic on clay than in other surfaces and then you went on to say that even though nadal had improved on hards, he had deteriorated on clay and that for you, Nadal had a better chance vs Djoker outside of clay. I remember disagreeing with all of these points...  If you forgot, fine... was a long time ago.

I absolutely HAVE made this argument and stand by it. Nadal looked pretty shaky on clay in 2009 and I was saying it the whole time that year even before he lost to Soderling. People who were on tennis.com at the time remember that, including huntingyou, who argued with me about this. Then, in 2010, while he was great on clay, and that's undeniable (I mean, he dropped 2 sets the entire clay court season), it wasn't his 2008 level. He didn't move as well, and that's my main point of contention. Nadal's movement regressed post his 2009 injury. That's a fact. As a result, he had to adjust his game. That helped him immensely on hards, but hurt him on clay. Of course, he was so freaking good on clay that it didn't matter, but year after year, you could see the dominance ever so slightly fading.

I never said he'd have a better chance vs. Novak off clay though. That's silly. My point of contention in fact, was always that Djokovic needs to be absolutely perfect against Nadal on clay, and if he is, this makes it incredibly tough for Nadal to dictate, whereas on other surfaces he could at least use his serve to get cheap points and set-up 1-2 punches. However, I maintained that anything other than perfection from Djokovic (on clay) and Nadal wins. Simple as that.

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@Moxie said:</cite>
How can you possibly say that Federer's losing at the USO this year, (or at Wimbledon, this year or last, for that matter,) has nothing to do with him being 34/age?  Yes, he's still good enough to wrangle a lot of the field, but, against the best player at the height of his game?  I'm not saying that Djokovic at full strength can't beat Roger, but at 3 Majors, including 2 Wimbledons?  That's got something to do with age.

And you should get over moaning about Djokovic's losses at Majors to Nadal, no matter how much it rankles you.  I'm pretty sure his worst loss in a Major final was at Wimbledon v. Murray, when he barely made a show of it.  He even did better in his maiden Slam final v. Fed, which he also lost in straights.  Where he has lost to Nadal in a Slam final, he has taken a set, so, not his worst.

no, totally wrong. Federer was playing incredible at Wimbledon, despite age. 2015 Murray would've easily troubled 04-07 Federer on grass. People forget 04-07 Federer was beating guys like Keifer 7-5 in 4th set at Wimbledon and having some tough matches. The way Federer destroyed Murray at this year's Wimbledon was frightening, to the point where people were saying he couldn't have played better particularly serving. He loses to Djokovic, who played brilliantly and it's 'age'. So he was 'young' and as good as ever vs Murray, in semis, and all of sudden OLD vs Djokovic in finals? The reality is that this Djokovic could've beaten any Federer, even the Federer from 04-07. Let's not foget that a baby Nadal took Federer to 4 sets in 06 Wimbledon final, took him to 5 in 07 final and beat him in 08 final. What;s to say Djokovic couldn't have beaten 04-07 Federer?

Then US Open comes around and Federer is on probably the hottest Cinci-USO stretch of his entire career. At Cincinatti, he didn't drop a set and rather easily beat Murray and Djokovic, two players arguably better than any rival (other than Nadal) Federer faced in 04-07. The way he beat Anderson 1,1 was ridiculous, treating such a big serve like it were a baby's serve. At USO, he went through the field like they were chumps, including a 3 set destruction of Wawrinka.. He was on his hottest serving streak of his US open career, ESPN made the comparison. Was 04 Federer better at USO? he needed 4 sets to beat Baghdatis and 5 to beat Agassi? 05 Federer? taken to 4 sets by Keifer and Hewitt. 06 Federer? taken to 4 sets by Blake. So this notion that Federer's level was not on par (or even higher) during this year's US open stretch is very very flawed. Of course, he loses to Djokovic in finals and all of sudden, it's age.

The difference between 34 year old Roger and 04-07 Roger is consistency; i.e., being able to show his best day on day out throughout the entire year. 04-07 Federer was hungrier, didn't have a wife and kids and wanted to win everything and hold #1. Today's Federer has other priorities and mainly focused on slams but he can ABSOLUTELY play as WELL AS EVER for a tournament or for a stretch during the year. The Federer at Wimbledon and Cinci-USO runs was as good as ever. Stop using age as an excuse, it seems that's the only reason Djokobic can beat him today, even when Fed is playing better than ever during a hot streak, it's a joke.

 

[britbox]

<cite>@Billie said:</cite>
I've never heard of player's peak lasting what 2-3 years? 

As for Federer losing because he is too old, don't' we have a dominant #1 in women's tennis who is the same age as Federer?  B-)

Can't really compare the WTA.  It's basically a different sport in my opinion.