Most complete player ever - Djokovic or Federer

[Billie]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
Yeah, we've all got a few skeletons in the closet on long term predictions. I thought Nadal would win 8 slams and be cooked at the age of 25. Likewise, I didn't think he could win the US Open either.

See, like I say:  never say never.   I learned my lessen a long time ago.

(ok, we need a wink smiley, pronto)

 

[Billie]

@brokenshoelace   I see that you conceded a lot of my points.  I think that you sometimes argue with me, just because it is me, not because of the points I try to raise. B-)

Why on earth would you say that I dislike you?  I don't dislike you.  Yeah I don't like it when you start being a xxxx, you know, to some of the long time posters, but I guess you can't help it so after a day or two I forgive you.  Tennis matters being discussed I never take personally.  I am surprised that you haven't figured it out yet, but I'll admit that I do sometimes say things, exaggerate perhaps a bit, to get a rise out of you.

 

As for the # of slams that players over 30 won, well there is one in 2012, there is one in 2015 (a couple of months shy of 30), and frankly since Delpo in 2009, I don't see those younger, stronger, more explosive players winning them either.  And if it weren't for Nole, there might have been 2 major wins for a certain 34-year young guy this year.

Yeah, we should count Rafa, Nole and Murray in the younger generation of major winners that make Federer look slower.  But frankly, do you really think that if these 3 players, especially Rafa and Nole being the players that they are now (for Nole) or 2013 Rafa were transported back to 2004-2006 wouldn't win any slams off of Federer's haul during that time?  I would be stunned if you or anybody else would think so.    Back in that time Rafa was just clay (I am sorry but that is the truth) and Nole was really too young and too fragile, but they did climb up the rankings through that competition very easily, even as youngsters and took their places as #2 and #3.

We can play games about how it is easy for Nole now because he doesn't have any competition left, but frankly I don't really care.  I look at their whole career and don't pick and chose only the years that suit my argument.  Fed was lucky that he didn't have to face the best versions of Rafa and Nole in those years, Nole is lucky this year that everybody seems to be getting too old and Nadal is lucky that he has FO to fall back to.  Everybody lucky and happy, how about that?

The end.

 

 

[Mastoor]

I don't even understand the need to discuss who is the more complete player between one with obvious liability (Mirkin and his backhand) and the other one with no liabilities (No1e). Obviously, the one with no obvious weaknesses, especially without those that can be exploited over and over again, should be considered most complete.

 

[britbox]

This should probably be revisited after Roland Garros 2016... but what if Nole never wins an RG? How would it stack up?

 

[Carol]

In my opinion none player is a complete player. Roger has a great serve and FH but not the BH as more elegant he seems to be. Novak plays too mechanic, like a robot, when you watch him you know exactly where he is going to hit the ball, I mean what direction the ball goes but maybe because his high and extreme confidence he doesn't make many mistakes which is a huge advantage to do well and to win

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Well the 'Most Complete Player' I have seen has to be Federer.He is a natural shot maker,his fhand,especially his inside out fhand was just copy book,he may not have the fastest serve in the ATP,but he can place it to perfection anywhere on the court.Federer's one handed bhand when on is a great shot,also he can volley as well.

 

[DarthFed]

This should probably be revisited after Roland Garros 2016... but what if Nole never wins an RG? How would it stack up?

It'd be a big strike against him. That is just fact regardless of circumstances. However I think this will be a moot point as I can't picture him not winning it. Too great of a player and he obviously has all the motivation in the world to get it done.

 

[shawnbm]

As to the question posed, I side with those who go with Roger, and I don't think it is that hard a conclusion to reach. As Moxie said, it is a question of shots in the bag--the ability to hit winners and a variety of things on court. There are certain areas where Roger has more variety and completeness--his service, his forehand (no need to even discuss this), his overhead (likely has missed fewer than any other great I can think of), his volleying abilities (way better), his slice backhand (far superior) and his ability to hit knifing forehand slices both as approach shot and the squash defensive shot to restart the point). If you are talking completeness, his backhand is part of it. Only one guy with his unique attributes has been able to "exploit Fed's weakness on the backhand side". If this is some great weakness, why can't anybody else do it and "dominate" Federer? No, his backhand is tremendous and mostly because it is versatile. Does it breakdown more than years before? Sure, but so has his forehand, especially wide to the deuce court because of loss of speed. But from 2004-2007, it was the biggest weapon in tennis without question. If we are talking about all the skills to hit all the shots, just ask yourself this question--if the surfaces were not as homogenized as everyone concedes they are with the changes in the grass used at SW19 and increased grittiness of hards in most events, who would be able to adapt to the surfaces and go from the hards and clay in the spring to Wimbledon with more serve and volley and then back to the hards and indoor events where surfaces are faster? I think Roger would be the guy more than anyone else.

 

[Denis]

As to the question posed, I side with those who go with Roger, and I don't think it is that hard a conclusion to reach. As Moxie said, it is a question of shots in the bag--the ability to hit winners and a variety of things on court. There are certain areas where Roger has more variety and completeness--his service, his forehand (no need to even discuss this), his overhead (likely has missed fewer than any other great I can think of), his volleying abilities (way better), his slice backhand (far superior) and his ability to hit knifing forehand slices both as approach shot and the squash defensive shot to restart the point). If you are talking completeness, his backhand is part of it. Only one guy with his unique attributes has been able to "exploit Fed's weakness on the backhand side". If this is some great weakness, why can't anybody else do it and "dominate" Federer? No, his backhand is tremendous and mostly because it is versatile. Does it breakdown more than years before? Sure, but so has his forehand, especially wide to the deuce court because of loss of speed. But from 2004-2007, it was the biggest weapon in tennis without question. If we are talking about all the skills to hit all the shots, just ask yourself this question--if the surfaces were not as homogenized as everyone concedes they are with the changes in the grass used at SW19 and increased grittiness of hards in most events, who would be able to adapt to the surfaces and go from the hards and clay in the spring to Wimbledon with more serve and volley and then back to the hards and indoor events where surfaces are faster? I think Roger would be the guy more than anyone else.

Kind of weird he has a losing h2h against Djokovic then. How do you explain that? Despite his brilliant slice forehand and the amazing overhead, he ended up losing 23 times to Djokovic (not counting the time he chickened out of a final). I guess despite being more complete, he just got unlucky?

 

[Rides]

I think one way to explain Djokovic's winning H2H vs Federer is that 14 of the 23 wins have come since Roger turned 30.

 

[britbox]

I think one way to explain Djokovic's winning H2H vs Federer is that 14 of the 23 wins have come since Roger turned 30.

Agreed. Older players who hang around usually take a hit on the H2H against younger rivals and also their win percentages drop.

I'd take a weakened H2H (which will likely get worse) verses Djoker, just to see Roger still competing on the tour.

 

[DarthFed]

Why even try to talk sense to him with a clownish statement like that. Roger is washed up as most players his age are. Even Murray is ranked ahead of him and Stan is a greater player at this point at least at slams.

Over 30 of their matches have come since 2010 with Roger being a shell of himself. It's sad it's taken this long of Roger playing at this level for Nole to overtake him in the head to head.

 

[Ricardo]

Kind of weird he has a losing h2h against Djokovic then. How do you explain that? Despite his brilliant slice forehand and the amazing overhead, he ended up losing 23 times to Djokovic (not counting the time he chickened out of a final). I guess despite being more complete, he just got unlucky?

what's wrong with you joker fans? if H-H is something you show off about, for Nole to finally have a winning one till 2016 when his opponent is 34... how does that sound impressive? it's EMBARRASING - from now on i can see the young comers have winning H-H until Fed retires, and they can all boast to be 'more complete' and 'better' players than him.

If he was more 'complete', he wouldn't have to wait all those years to get a winning record.....just when the guy is old enough to drill a hole in his knee.

Also tell us how he chickened out of a final, the guy never chickened out against Nadal on clay for fear of losing (the peak version of Rafa, not some lame shadow we are seeing now) ... explain why he is afraid of someone who he can beat much easier, even at an age when he should play in the seniors tour.

 

[Ricardo]

I don't even understand the need to discuss who is the more complete player between one with obvious liability (Mirkin and his backhand) and the other one with no liabilities (No1e). Obviously, the one with no obvious weaknesses, especially without those that can be exploited over and over again, should be considered most complete.

Let's start with, who's better shot for shot? Serve, Fed. Forehand, Fed. Backhand, Djoker. Volleys, Fed. Overhead, Fed.

and definition of completeness, who can adjust to different surfaces when different style is required? can you imagine Djoker ever be a great serve and volleyer? Fed won a Wimbledon doing that, while is a competent baseliner himself - just like 99.9% of the tour.

 

[Ricardo]

Why even try to talk sense to him with a clownish statement like that. Roger is washed up as most players his age are. Even Murray is ranked ahead of him and Stan is a greater player at this point at least at slams.

Over 30 of their matches have come since 2010 with Roger being a shell of himself. It's sad it's taken this long of Roger playing at this level for Nole to overtake him in the head to head.

Wait till grandpa rack up more losses against players ranked in the 100s, and these Djoker fans will be happy to jump on the 'fact' that Fed was always a third class player hehe. BTW, this third class player has been the biggest opponent against their tennis god for the past year.... so impressive isn't?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

The article was about the 'Complete Player' Novak was a late bloomer let us not forget that.He had to work on his fhand,also his serve? Roger to me compared to Novak is more of a 'Complete Player'.Roger's bhand slice which he can use as offense or defensive,Novak had to call upon Mark Woodforde to help in his volley play many years ago,before hiring Becker,to Novak's credit at the present time there is not a player that can challenge him,except at RG,where I feel there are a few players that can challenge him.If Novak can achieve 17 Grand Slam Titles,call me

 

[Denis]

I think one way to explain Djokovic's winning H2H vs Federer is that 14 of the 23 wins have come since Roger turned 30.

Thats too easy. Fed got a ton of wins over baby Novak at the start when he was in his prime. You should know that.

 

[britbox]

Thats too easy. Fed got a ton of wins over baby Novak at the start when he was in his prime. You should know that.

I think Roger's spent more time in Novak's prime than Novak spent in Roger's... but this is more than just the H2H.

 

[Ricardo]

Thats too easy. Fed got a ton of wins over baby Novak at the start when he was in his prime. You should know that.

Novak had a losing record all the way till 2016 when Fed is 34 yo, so he was just a baby before that (2016). Alright then.

 

[Denis]

Novak had a losing record all the way till 2016 when Fed is 34 yo, so he was just a baby before that (2016). Alright then.

Are you really that stupid?