Most complete player ever - Djokovic or Federer

[Moxie]

So basically he was robbing himself of time...and we all know how Nadal hates it when he doesn't have enough time for his shots or his routine is disturbed.

Basically, yes, that's my understanding.

 

[El Dude]

I know we're talking about Open Era only, but what about Pancho Gonzales? I know most if not all of us never got a chance to see him play, but from what I've read and seen on the few clips are available, if we're talking about "ever" then we have to include him (and Laver). Both could do just about anything they wanted with a tennis racquet - given the context they played in. I think also that Pancho would have adjusted to the Open Era game much better than Laver or Rosewall, if he had been younger. The guy beat a 19-year old Jimmy Connors when he was 43!

 

[Moxie]

Here's a question, and I don't want to revive the US Open thread for it, so I'll put it in this conversation: I finally watched Federer v. del Potro USO QF. (I was working during most of the USO and missed a lot of matches. Catching up in the freezing weather and pending snow storm.) I thought folks were telling us that Roger lost because of back issues. I didn't see it in that match, or in the thread of that time. Just checking: did Roger lose because JMDP played better, or because Fed was impaired? (I also watched Nadal v. JMDP SF. It was interesting how much more delPo employed the 2HBH than in the match v. Fed.)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So basically he was robbing himself

That is much better than rubbing himself, which he does before serving.

 

[Moxie]

That is much better than rubbing himself, which he does before serving.

Yuck. Seriously? If you're going to make a tasteless joke, it should be funny. You're going in the bin with Kevin Spacey, too. :lulz2:

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

It's Fedal Wars everywhere, everywhere once again!

 

[Moxie]

It's Fedal Wars everywhere, everywhere once again!

There's no avoiding it, my friend.

 

[britbox]

I know we're talking about Open Era only, but what about Pancho Gonzales? I know most if not all of us never got a chance to see him play, but from what I've read and seen on the few clips are available, if we're talking about "ever" then we have to include him (and Laver). Both could do just about anything they wanted with a tennis racquet - given the context they played in. I think also that Pancho would have adjusted to the Open Era game much better than Laver or Rosewall, if he had been younger. The guy beat a 19-year old Jimmy Connors when he was 43!

Pancho was a beast by all accounts - Connors always rated him as the best ever. Not sure what his opinion is now.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Rafa’s serve and return of Serve is what sets him behind Roger but he should be well ahead of Novak ranking on this poll/thread. Rafa is a superior net player whereas Novak is below average.

Novak has a better serve, infinitely better return, and a significantly better backhand.

 

[mrzz]

Novak has a better serve, infinitely better return, and a significantly better backhand.

I knew these blind Djokovic fans would one day come out of their holes...

 

[Busted]

That is much better than rubbing himself, which he does before serving.

:lulz2: Please note that I'm being good and not starting a flame war with Carol by saying something really, really mean...

 

[Busted]

Here's a question, and I don't want to revive the US Open thread for it, so I'll put it in this conversation: I finally watched Federer v. del Potro USO QF. (I was working during most of the USO and missed a lot of matches. Catching up in the freezing weather and pending snow storm.) I thought folks were telling us that Roger lost because of back issues. I didn't see it in that match, or in the thread of that time. Just checking: did Roger lose because JMDP played better, or because Fed was impaired? (I also watched Nadal v. JMDP SF. It was interesting how much more delPo employed the 2HBH than in the match v. Fed.)

I haven't watched the replay - but in real time you could see his movement wasn't as crisp as it had been and the wasn't playing with the same authority - especially off the backhand side - that he'd played with all season. The same was true of all of Federer's USO matches. At times his concentration wasn't there and he wasn't as mentally sharp either. He even talked about that at some of the press conferences after his matches - especially the ones he struggled in - Tiafoe, Youhzny, DelPo. If you contrast the USO match vs. how he played DelPo in Miami, Shanghai and Basel you can clearly see the difference and how much more flow there was to Federer's game. DelPo didn't play badly in Shanghai or Basel but Roger's movement was clearly way played better in all 3 of those matches..

 

[Moxie]

I haven't watched the replay - but in real time you could see his movement wasn't as crisp as it had been and the wasn't playing with the same authority - especially off the backhand side - that he'd played with all season. The same was true of all of Federer's USO matches. At times his concentration wasn't there and he wasn't as mentally sharp either. He even talked about that at some of the press conferences after his matches - especially the ones he struggled in - Tiafoe, Youhzny, DelPo. If you contrast the USO match vs. how he played DelPo in Miami, Shanghai and Basel you can clearly see the difference and how much more flow there was to Federer's game. DelPo didn't play badly in Shanghai or Basel but Roger's movement was clearly way played better in all 3 of those matches..

I appreciate that, but just being "not as crisp" nor as "mentally sharp" is not the same as being injured in his back, which is what I thought I was being told, during the USO I couldn't watch. To me, this sounds like Federer fans making excuses for his play. Or, to put it another way, the other guy was better on the day. It happens. And it sounds like it happened to Roger during the USO.

 

[DarthFed]

im guessing you wouldn't question anything if you had seen the Tiafoe and Youzhny matches. Also note that his play was always going to be affected by not being able to practice as much after Montreal.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I appreciate that, but just being "not as crisp" nor as "mentally sharp" is not the same as being injured in his back, which is what I thought I was being told, during the USO I couldn't watch. To me, this sounds like Federer fans making excuses for his play. Or, to put it another way, the other guy was better on the day. It happens. And it sounds like it happened to Roger during the USO.

Actually, Roger himself put it very nicely in his final interview at USO. I am just paraphrasing from memory and you can look up for exact wordings. Because, he was compromised, going in Roger knew that a serious player on the other side of the net will take him out.
It is only surprising that it took so long. Actually, I made the same statement before Roger made about his Canada matches.
There is really no reason why he should have been allowed to reach final. He won matches there mostly due to his aura and
gutless opponents as Fiero likes to say.

 

[Moxie]

Actually, Roger himself put it very nicely in his final interview at USO. I am just paraphrasing from memory and you can look up for exact wordings. Because, he was compromised, going in Roger knew that a serious player on the other side of the net will take him out.
It is only surprising that it took so long. Actually, I made the same statement before Roger made about his Canada matches.
There is really no reason why he should have been allowed to reach final. He won matches there mostly due to his aura and
gutless opponents as Fiero likes to say.

So you're saying that he lost because he had a bad back, despite the visual evidence. His footwork in that match looked very good, and, except for DF-ing away a game, his serve didn't seem especially hampered. That's fine, but then don't complain if Rafa fans believe he might have lost certain matches because he was "compromised." Watching that match, I have to say, I think del Potro was just better.

 

[mrzz]

My take is that he wasn't injured on the del Potro match. He was, as Darth noted way back, paying the price of the lack of practice. He was also obviously not confident enough, neither in his body, neither in his shots. Lack of confidence, in tennis, specially at this level, is a killler.

So, on one hand, there is a narrative behind his USO loss, but on the other... I don't think the word "injury" should be used on that particular match. He lost to a good player who was the better man that day, simple as that.

What will be always hard -- probably impossible -- for Federer fans to swallow is the abysmal difference in level when compared to just about any other tournament in 2017. If you rank his hard court tournaments from best to worst, USO and Montreal are neck and neck fighting to be the worst (and to me USO is the worst), while all the others are miles ahead. It is hard not to look for an explanation for such a huge discrepancy.

 

[DarthFed]

My thought is that the back definitely wasn't right and mentally he was afraid to push it at times. He may have looked fine most of the time throughout the USO but there were extended periods where he wasn't getting low for shots and lacked explosive movement especially on the return. If Moxie had seen the Tiafoe and Youzhny match she'd be singing a different tune.

But if you show up to play then there are no excuses. No guarantee things play out differently if he had never got hurt. He lost that match because he played like ass. DP was not impressive that match and that's why I was telling everyone here that Nadal would destroy him. The only time DP looked like a top 10 player last year was during Fall.

 

[Moxie]

OK, so he lost at the USO, not because he had a bad back, but because he didn't have enough practice. Even though he won the AO with barely a match played in 7 months. As you point out, mrzz, no Fed fan seems to be able to accept that he just played crap. I'll leave it for you people to sort out. But it is fannish of those who will insist that there has to be another reason that Roger played less than stellar. God forbid he should be human.

 

[Moxie]

My thought is that the back definitely wasn't right and mentally he was afraid to push it at times. He may have looked fine most of the time throughout the USO but there were extended periods where he wasn't getting low for shots and lacked explosive movement especially on the return. If Moxie had seen the Tiafoe and Youzhny match she'd be singing a different tune.

But if you show up to play then there are no excuses. No guarantee things play out differently if he had never got hurt. He lost that match because he played like ass. DP was not impressive that match and that's why I was telling everyone here that Nadal would destroy him. The only time DP looked like a top 10 player last year was during Fall.

You do see how many excuses you are reading into Roger's performances, right? I did see the Tiafoe match, and some of Youzhny. You simply can't believe that anyone can outplay Roger, even for certain periods of time. You almost never credit any opponent of Roger, win or lose. Which is not only ungenerous, it's untrue.