Djokovic is technically the most complete baseliner today [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Djokovic is technically the most complete baseliner today

Pages : [1] 2

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:48 AM
since volleys don't count as baseline strokes, i've made this conclusion.

discuss.

habibko
05-13-2009, 07:56 AM
whatever happened to Nadal and Federer? did they die today?

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 07:56 AM
I don't think he'll ever win another grand slam title, that Aust Open was it. He seems weak physically, more suited to the non-slams.

jonathancrane
05-13-2009, 07:57 AM
since volleys don't count as baseline strokes, i've made this conclusion.

discuss.

Affirmative
But practically he's still a mug :p

Priam
05-13-2009, 07:58 AM
Nalbandian

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:58 AM
I don't think he'll ever win another grand slam title, that Aust Open was it. He seems weak physically, more suited to the non-slams.

he needs to work on his fitness for the long matches that might come in the slams.

regardless, i make him the favourite for this year's us open. nadal will probably be too burnt out, and that would leave only murray in his way.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 08:00 AM
Nalbandian

nalbandian is a good example of a fine baseliner, but he's just too inconsistent, and with this injury of his who knows what will be of him.

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 08:01 AM
Nadal is only playing 2 events between Wimbledon and the US Open, so there is no chance of any burnout, and he'd probably only play one event before the US if he thought there was a physical problem. Djokovic is going to have to deal with a fresher Nadal than the one who made him cry at the Olympics.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 08:04 AM
Nadal is only playing 2 events between Wimbledon and the US Open, so there is no chance of any burnout, and he'd probably only play one event before the US if he thought there was a physical problem. Djokovic is going to have to deal with a fresher Nadal than the one who made him cry at the Olympics.

i don't think nadal will want to skip events and lose the momentum. after all, the momentum he gathered starting from the clay season is what got him his first wimbledon and the #1 ranking last year.

physical and even mental fatigue is natural for any tennis player, even one of spartan origin.

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 08:08 AM
Just saying, Nadal had a much better American hardcourt season than Djokovic last year (Nadal won the US Open event series and Gold Medal), and this year Nadal will only focus on the US Open because he knows its the most important tournament of the year for him. So don't expect Nadal to sacrifice his stamina this time for the non-slams. Most importantly, no Olympics. Djokovic ran out of gas last year at the US Open, and that was with a lighter schedule than Nadal, so I'd be worried about Djokovic burning out.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 08:12 AM
Just saying, Nadal had a much better American hardcourt season than Djokovic last year (Nadal won the US Open event series and Gold Medal), and this year Nadal will only focus on the US Open because he knows its the most important tournament of the year for him. So don't expect Nadal to sacrifice his stamina this time for the non-slams. Most importantly, no Olympics. Djokovic ran out of gas last year at the US Open, and that was with a lighter schedule than Nadal, so I'd be worried about Djokovic burning out.

no doubt nadal's focus will be on the Open, though, what i'm saying is, you don't want to skip events and let dangerous rivals such as murray or djokovic back in.

after winning his first grand slam, mid season last year was a major slump for djokovic, yet still he managed to break nadal's streak in cincinnati. this year i can't see him falling before the final in new york.

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 08:15 AM
I don't think Nadal is going to care if Djokovic and Murray win a bunch of hardcourt events. Murray won a bunch last year and it didn't help him in the slams, and Djok won the YEC. A healthy Nadal will always out-do them in 5-setters.

Either way, we've seen Nadal's schedule, only 2 hardcourt events before the US Open, this isn't a hard year schedule-wise compared to last year. If anyone is going to beat Nadal at the US Open they are going to have to out-duel him at 100%.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 08:25 AM
I don't think Nadal is going to care if Djokovic and Murray win a bunch of hardcourt events. Murray won a bunch last year and it didn't help him in the slams, and Djok won the YEC. A healthy Nadal will always out-do them in 5-setters.

Either way, we've seen Nadal's schedule, only 2 hardcourt events before the US Open, this isn't a hard year schedule-wise compared to last year. If anyone is going to beat Nadal at the US Open they are going to have to out-duel him at 100%.

oh but he should. u are missing out on the psychological aspect of the game. the winner is determined by slight differences, sometimes a little extra confidence can go a long way.

either way, both djokovic and murray have the tools to take him out in a hardcourt match

Priam
05-13-2009, 08:31 AM
Djoker certainly has the tools but his fitness is still suspect. I don't trust him in tight best of 5 matches.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 09:00 AM
let's move onto the evidence:

the forehand:

his best weapon. he can produce a flat shot, hitting his opponent off court without the need to aproach the net, or use spin to force an error/ take control of the rally. the 2nd best forehand on clay, though i would appreciate him using the forehand dropshot more often.

the backhand:

surgical precision and can generate power if needed. viable weapon in all backhand-backhand or even backhand-forehand exchanges, though known to break down at times, unlike the forehand. the double edged backhand dropshot is one of the trademarks of the serbian slayer.

movement:

always in place. u will have a hard time hitting a clean winner against djokovic. hits defensive shots from an open stance and slides on clay and hardcourts alike.

serve:

lots of power and variety on the first serve, the 2nd serve mostly a kicker, though more than solid.

return of serve:

one of the best returners today, good anticipation in most cases and on average can place the return deeper than most other players.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 09:04 AM
i take it everyone agrees.

Mimi
05-13-2009, 09:07 AM
:lol::bigwave: not smart enough to judge their skills, but i believe you since you are a very fair poster :dance:

habibko
05-13-2009, 09:10 AM
gotta love the fact that the MOST complete baseliner doesn't even have a proper slice

Arsen :worship:

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 09:17 AM
hello mimi.

let us compare djokovic to other top players:

forehand:

nadal has a better forehand on clay, though on hardcourts i would give djoko the edge.
djokovic has a better forehand than murray
federer's forehand is an abomination as of this year. no comparison necessary

backhand:

nadal has been firing his crosscourt backhand lately, though i would give djokovic the edge in this department.
murray arguably has the best 2 handed backhand today. i would say djokovic is on par with him.
federer's backhand... next.

serve:

djokovic has a better serve than nadal.
murray has improved his serve, maybe he's on par with djokovic now.
federer's serve is pretty much what's keeping him alive. it's hard to read and that's its main advantage. though the consistency is dropping. djokovic takes it.

movement:

nadal is a better mover on all surfaces
murray anticipates as if he reads minds, no comparison possible.
federer has gotten lazy. djokovic clearly moves better than him on any surface.

return of serve:

djokovic is the best returner today.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 09:20 AM
hello habib.

u might not have noticed but djokovic is using his backhand slice with increased frequency both as a defenive shot and as an attacking shot preceding a net approach. it is one key part of his backhand that i left out in my review, accidentally as it slipped my mind.

habibko
05-13-2009, 09:22 AM
hello habib.

u might not have noticed but djokovic is using his backhand slice with increased frequency both as a defenive shot and as an attacking shot preceding a net approach. it is one key part of his backhand that i left out in my review, accidentally as it slipped my mind.

it wasn't accidental my friend, you can't remember what doesn't exist.

his horrendous attempt of a slice sits up like a lazy chicken on labor.

habibko
05-13-2009, 09:23 AM
no Nadal and Murray are better returners than Djokovic, and Federer's serve is the best among all the top 4, no comparison.

leng jai
05-13-2009, 09:24 AM
hello habib.

u might not have noticed but djokovic is using his backhand slice with increased frequency both as a defenive shot and as an attacking shot preceding a net approach. it is one key part of his backhand that i left out in my review, accidentally as it slipped my mind.

I'm afraid you're mistaken, Fakervic can't hit an attacking slice.

Lopez
05-13-2009, 09:36 AM
You just love to start sh1t don't you :lol: ?

I can hear the flow of vCash. Unless you are being too obvious

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 09:39 AM
oh but he should. u are missing out on the psychological aspect of the game. the winner is determined by slight differences, sometimes a little extra confidence can go a long way.

either way, both djokovic and murray have the tools to take him out in a hardcourt match

Yeah Del Potro really psyched everyone out with all those hardcourt wins :rolleyes: oh wait he psyched himself out :o

Give these guys all the wins they want, they won't scare anyone in the slams :p

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 09:52 AM
Anyone has the tools to take anyone out, look at Murray, we've seen he has the tools to beat Federer, but he crumbled in the only match that mattered, and if Murray meets Federer again in a GS Final I'd still put my money on Federer owning him mentally and winning in straight sets again.

After seeing Murray being wiped off the court by Nadal in windy conditions it shows how fragile he is, just put him in a GS Final or make him play in breezy conditions, thats all it takes.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 10:00 AM
it wasn't accidental my friend, you can't remember what doesn't exist.

his horrendous attempt of a slice sits up like a lazy chicken on labor.

federer slices because he must. he can't cope with the finishing power of djokovic, nadal or andy murray, respectivelly.

djokovic needs not slice as much, though it is a shot he is developing as we speak.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 10:08 AM
no Nadal and Murray are better returners than Djokovic, and Federer's serve is the best among all the top 4, no comparison.

nadal, perhaps if you look at quantity over quality.

murray is also up there, but i have made my choice with djokovic.

as for federer's serve, i have stated why i don't rank it #1

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 11:03 AM
i don't think nadal will want to skip events and lose the momentum. after all, the momentum he gathered starting from the clay season is what got him his first wimbledon and the #1 ranking last year.

physical and even mental fatigue is natural for any tennis player, even one of spartan origin.


good point. i could not agree more. he thrives on that clay season momentum and confidence. that is what takes him straight into Wimby with a highly tuned up ground game and a ton of confidence.

but back to the topic in question: Nole is quite rock solid off the ground. being just 21, he still has a huge upside.

now that you throw in the word "technically", he is right up there near the top. could be a little more consistent and could have a better slice. all that is coming.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 11:51 AM
What means technically? If we exclude movement on court? I can't see how you would rate the Baseline Game of Djokovic above Nadal overall. If you subtract the athletic supremacy of Nadal by calling it non-technical, then I would agree that Nole is the best at the moment.

petar_pan
05-13-2009, 11:55 AM
he needs to work on his fitness for the long matches that might come in the slams.

regardless, i make him the favourite for this year's us open. nadal will probably be too burnt out, and that would leave only murray in his way.

murray is better on hard and he should win in their's pontential match on us open.
also nadal will be favourite against djokovic too.djokovic has complex of nadal.

federer is tehnically better for sure.

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 12:03 PM
This gets my vote for the most delusional thread of all-time. I'll be bumping this in September baybay!

nastoff
05-13-2009, 12:14 PM
There's nothing wrong with Nadal's technique is there? But yeah Djokovic is probably the most technically sound when his game works. Most of the time it doesn't.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 12:16 PM
What means technically? If we exclude movement on court? I can't see how you would rate the Baseline Game of Djokovic above Nadal overall. If you subtract the athletic supremacy of Nadal by calling it non-technical, then I would agree that Nole is the best at the moment.

as i said, nadal is a better mover.

as for murray, he might even be THE best mover on hardcourts right now. though he's not that good on clay.

but, imo, djokovic's other qualities make up for that.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 12:33 PM
as i said, nadal is a better mover.

as for murray, he might even be THE best mover on hardcourts right now. though he's not that good on clay.

but, imo, djokovic's other qualities make up for that.

Make up for that? Nadal holds a 13:4 record, I don't think that is due to his volley game or serving.

Har-Tru
05-13-2009, 12:36 PM
Federer retired?

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 12:42 PM
Make up for that? Nadal holds a 13:4 record, I don't think that is due to his volley game or serving.

your point?

gasquet is a technically sound player, and he'll probably be banned for cocaine use.

Forehander
05-13-2009, 12:43 PM
Is he really technically the best? His forehand stroke is a very damaging stroke to his body. He is already doing an incredible amount of work on the flexibility exercise to maintain those tennis strokes, but yet he still contracts back injuries at young age. The most damaging part of his tennis is at times the lack of rotation with the hips during a full power shot on the run with legs spread apart. He rotates the upper body too much up the air and can cause horrific injury over time. I do hope he can improve in that field in future.

tennis2tennis
05-13-2009, 12:44 PM
whatever happened to Nadal and Federer? did they die today?

:worship:

«Ivan»
05-13-2009, 12:58 PM
no Nadal and Murray are better returners than Djokovic

:tape: "hatred leads me throughout my life".

MacTheKnife
05-13-2009, 01:08 PM
i take it everyone agrees.

I agree. I've said for a long time Djok was the most technically sound player out there. Just to many people can't separate that from results, wins, fitness, and attitude, etc.

MacTheKnife
05-13-2009, 01:10 PM
Is he really technically the best? His forehand stroke is a very damaging stroke to his body. He is already doing an incredible amount of work on the flexibility exercise to maintain those tennis strokes, but yet he still contracts back injuries at young age. The most damaging part of his tennis is at times the lack of rotation with the hips during a full power shot on the run with legs spread apart. He rotates the upper body too much up the air and can cause horrific injury over time. I do hope he can improve in that field in future.

The most damaging stoke to his body right now is his serve. Far to much back arch, and the ball toss is way to inconsistent causing him to make body adjustments all over the place with an excessive back arch.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 01:19 PM
Is he really technically the best? His forehand stroke is a very damaging stroke to his body. He is already doing an incredible amount of work on the flexibility exercise to maintain those tennis strokes, but yet he still contracts back injuries at young age. The most damaging part of his tennis is at times the lack of rotation with the hips during a full power shot on the run with legs spread apart. He rotates the upper body too much up the air and can cause horrific injury over time. I do hope he can improve in that field in future.

Actually he is one of the players who does most rotation with upper body and hips of both FH and BH today. His shots heavily relies on open/close body/hips with minimum arms participation. That is why his drop shots and volleys are inconsistent (from excellent to awful) and why he is improving with his slice at such a slow rate.

fred perry
05-13-2009, 01:22 PM
Technically, he is the most complete baseliner, that is, when he Completes a match, which isn't as often as one would think or expect. :wavey:

habibko
05-13-2009, 01:30 PM
:tape: "hatred leads me throughout my life".

not sure what you meant by that ivan, there are certainly many things I don't like about Djokovic but I certainly don't "hate" him, I only "hate" Birdsh**, Toaderling and Boredo :rolleyes:

I was saying the truth :shrug: notice I didn't bring Roger's name there.

«Ivan»
05-13-2009, 02:04 PM
not sure what you meant by that ivan, there are certainly many things I don't like about Djokovic but I certainly don't "hate" him, I only "hate" Birdsh**, Toaderling and Boredo :rolleyes:

I was saying the truth :shrug: notice I didn't bring Roger's name there.
i won't say he is technically the most complete baseliner because i'm not sure,i would like to think he is but(sorry)your attitude as an absolute tennis expert on mtf could be annoying.according to most of respectable experts along with ferrer,recently nadal nole is the best returner on tour.not observation,facts tell.statistics.

murray and rafa are best defenders,far best.rafa is from another planet though,like him or not.the way you often dismiss somone's opinion or fact could be "who's this guy who knows every answer?"

hope no hurt feelings.bottom line-you don't know are rafa and murray better returners,you just state something as an absolute,unique truth.you're maybe noticed i like roger but don't take every bad word of him as personal attack.we all know who roger is(was is better for now).

(am i became serious?on mtf?not good,i want old chooper back)

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 02:05 PM
not sure what you meant by that ivan, there are certainly many things I don't like about Djokovic but I certainly don't "hate" him, I only "hate" Birdsh**, Toaderling and Boredo :rolleyes:

I was saying the truth :shrug: notice I didn't bring Roger's name there.

i think we have something in common general habibko. i have very little use for Berdych and Mugerling. i do see their attitudes improving slightly over time however.

Mugerling got the message real clear last time. he now knows not to fuck with somebody who can beat you with his feet.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 02:06 PM
(am i became serious?on mtf?not good,i want old chooper back)

:lol:

groundstroke
05-13-2009, 02:14 PM
Federer is the best baseliner, followed by Nadal, Murray and then Djokovic.

w78dexon_y
05-13-2009, 02:17 PM
no Nadal and Murray are better returners than Djokovic, and Federer's serve is the best among all the top 4, no comparison.

Djokovic is the best returner. No doubt. And Rog's serve is what keep shim down for a 1.5 years already! That's because the other top 3 figured his serve out. (Forget about the past. Rog used to be the best servere).

By the serve:

1. Murray
2. Djokovic
3. Rafa
4. Rog

w78dexon_y
05-13-2009, 02:22 PM
finishingmove, what about Djoker's unforced errors?? He lost many MS tourneys, OLimpic games gold, just because of too many UE??!
Why's he making them? IS there a chance he will reduce it? One thing is for sure:

He won't win any significance tourney anymore, unless he reduces his UE!

Fumus
05-13-2009, 02:22 PM
let's move onto the evidence:

the forehand:

his best weapon. he can produce a flat shot, hitting his opponent off court without the need to aproach the net, or use spin to force an error/ take control of the rally. the 2nd best forehand on clay, though i would appreciate him using the forehand dropshot more often.

the backhand:

surgical precision and can generate power if needed. viable weapon in all backhand-backhand or even backhand-forehand exchanges, though known to break down at times, unlike the forehand. the double edged backhand dropshot is one of the trademarks of the serbian slayer.

movement:

always in place. u will have a hard time hitting a clean winner against djokovic. hits defensive shots from an open stance and slides on clay and hardcourts alike.

serve:

lots of power and variety on the first serve, the 2nd serve mostly a kicker, though more than solid.

return of serve:

one of the best returners today, good anticipation in most cases and on average can place the return deeper than most other players.

Evidence is empirical. Your opinions are subjective.

What does the phrase mean "the most complete", anyways? I think you are essentially admitting by saying "the most complete", that he(Djokovic) doesn't have any weapons. That's the truth, he's a totally defensive player, he's a counter puncher.

IMHO, Davydenko is a better baseliner than Djokovic. The best ever being Agassi. Toss a David Nalbandian in there too, when he's healthy and on his game.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 02:29 PM
superb logic there, fumus.

give me a moment to recover and consider a reply.

«Ivan»
05-13-2009, 02:31 PM
he's a totally defensive player

nole could be everything but defensive player.noone said such a nonsence here.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 02:32 PM
superb logic there, fumus.

give me a moment to recover and consider a reply.

Most people take a second and then write a reply. It's good that you've let me known that you're going to write a reply. Here I was foolishly thinking I might have ended this argument. :D

nole could be everything but defensive player.noone said such a nonsence here.

:confused:

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 02:44 PM
Evidence is empirical. Your opinions are subjective.

What does the phrase mean "the most complete", anyways? I think you are essentially admitting by saying "the most complete", that he(Djokovic) doesn't have any weapons. That's the truth, he's a totally defensive player, he's a counter puncher.

IMHO, Davydenko is a better baseliner than Djokovic. The best ever being Agassi. Toss a David Nalbandian in there too, when he's healthy and on his game.

well the bolded part is true, i doubt we can build a discussion on that, though...

davydenko is like a poor version of djokovic in everything he does. i don't know how u came up with him being a better baseliner.

rocketassist
05-13-2009, 02:45 PM
Nalbandian, PMK and even Hewitt still return serve better than Djokovic.

If a guy like Karlovic serves bombs at him he will struggle.

rocketassist
05-13-2009, 02:46 PM
well the bolded part is true, i doubt we can build a discussion on that, though...

davydenko is like a poor version of djokovic in everything he does. i don't know how u came up with him being a better baseliner.

Davydenko is way more aggressive, he's a shot maker who can be on and off. Djokovic is usually solid with a strong consistent deep hitting.

They aren't similar.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 02:48 PM
your point?

gasquet is a technically sound player, and he'll probably be banned for cocaine use.

My point is that Nadal's baseline Game is better since it brought him 5 Slams more a nr. 1 spot complete dominance on one surface and a 13:4 record against Djokovic. His forehand is technically much better then djokovic's exactly because it earned him the above advantages. His backhand I would rate almost on a par.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 02:52 PM
Davydenko is way more aggressive, he's a shot maker who can be on and off. Djokovic is usually solid with a strong consistent deep hitting.

They aren't similar.

the only thing davydenko does better than djokovic is drop volley, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

Guga_fan
05-13-2009, 02:59 PM
I think that on early 2008 and late 2007 he was a much more complete baseliner, and at that time he really was a better version of Davydenko, and he had a great defense. After he changed his racquet his game changed a lot, his forehand has much less capacity to counter punch and his backhand down the line is way worse than it used to be, and his return of serve is also worse.
Nowadays I think Rafa is the most complete baseliner, but when Djokovic's game click he gets that spot. It's rare seeing his game click these days though.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 03:13 PM
My point is that Nadal's baseline Game is better since it brought him 5 Slams more a nr. 1 spot complete dominance on one surface and a 13:4 record against Djokovic. His forehand is technically much better then djokovic's exactly because it earned him the above advantages. His backhand I would rate almost on a par.


finishingmove i think commander data may have a point. lets look at a little differently:

1. Clay Monster does not have a big serve.

2. He does not return all that well on quicker surfaces. Tsonga who has faced him a few times said just that yesterday. we dont need anybody to tell us. we can see this for ourselves.

3. he doesnt particularly have a formidable net game. he hits too many drop volleys at the net and other times tries to guide them. still other times, he lack the confidence to go forward

so what gives? how is he able to win slams (6) on all surfaces? how is he able to have the best record on hard courts like he did last year of all the players? and hard courts are supposed to be his worst surfaces.

bottom line: it is has to be his ground game. its not just all offense. defense has to be taken into account as well. and as commander data says, how do you account for that 13-4 head to head record.

it cant be all mental. you do have to actually produce on the court. no doubt in his heart of hearts, he probably believes if he plays close to his best, he will win most of the time if not all the time.

strangely enough, most of the other players probably feel the same way going into a match against him. most hate to see him across the net in a best of 5 sets match no matter the surface. and it is nice to have that mental edge but at the end of the day, he still has to produce.

that production is his consistent ground game. at this point in time, i see nobody better off the ground than him. his ground game comes through for him time and again.

his movement gets him there and his topspin gives him the consistency he needs to win. his mind tells him to fight to the death out there.

in his last match against Djokovic on clay, Clay Monster was winning better than 60% of the rallies that went for more than 8 shots. i am sure those numbers get a lot more ridiculous when roland garros rolls around.

tnosugar
05-13-2009, 03:14 PM
Djoker certainly has the tools but his fitness is still suspect. I don't trust him in tight best of 5 matches.

his fitness seems to have improved a lot. I expected him to be tired in the Madrid opener, but he looks ok. After Hambur and RG one will be able to tell whether the new training schedule and fitness coach are panning out.

I think that if he was indeed the best baseliner he should be beating Nadal in the baseline game. Currently he is not, since saying that someone is technically the best does not mean much. The way you use your legs, position yourself, read the serve, etc is also a matter of technique, not just your FHs and BHs in a baseline slugfest. He is in the top 3 however, probably in the top 2.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 03:20 PM
i'm not counting the mental factor here, on which nadal is overdosing right now.

it's a huge factor in tennis, bigger than u hold it to be, CD.

Pfloyd
05-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Maybe on HC alongside with Murray. On Clay and Grass Nadal is a step above Djokovic and Murray at the moment.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 03:28 PM
well the bolded part is true, i doubt we can build a discussion on that, though...

davydenko is like a poor version of djokovic in everything he does. i don't know how u came up with him being a better baseliner.

It took you the better part of five minutes to come up with 3 sentences? I'm glad you notified me before you did. You are mistaken about Djokovic's patterns of play, which are the X and Os of how tennis players win points. When do you see Djokovic taking balls on the rise and forcing opponents to run side to side ala Davydenko or Nalbandian? Just how does Djokovic wins points, then? He out maneuvers his opponents. As you have noted he's a complete player. (It's a bit redundant as most players in the top 10 aren't especially unfinished in any area.) Djokovic however isn't a pure baseliner. He's a counter puncher, slowly picking away an opponent until finding an attack-able ball. Being called a counter-puncher isn't a negative thing, it just means more often than not he's most comfortable not forcing the play.

the only thing davydenko does better than djokovic is drop volley, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

You have to stop looking at strokes purely as a measurement criteria in rating players. If this was the case Safin would the best player in the world. It's how the players use those strokes, the patterns of play they choose to win points. Don't get lost in the hype, tennis commentators everywhere over exaggerate the importance of picturesque strokes you don't have to.

I think that on early 2008 and late 2007 he was a much more complete baseliner, and at that time he really was a better version of Davydenko, and he had a great defense. After he changed his racquet his game changed a lot, his forehand has much less capacity to counter punch and his backhand down the line is way worse than it used to be, and his return of serve is also worse.
Nowadays I think Rafa is the most complete baseliner, but when Djokovic's game click he gets that spot. It's rare seeing his game click these days though.

I agree with this to some extent. However as a Guga fan, I doubt you'd ever consider Djokovic a fearsome baseliner.

miura
05-13-2009, 03:29 PM
He is indeed one of the best at the moment, but I don't think he is the best.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 03:31 PM
i'm not counting the mental factor here, on which nadal is overdosing right now.

it's a huge factor in tennis, bigger than u hold it to be, CD.


actually i consider the game to be about 30% mental so that is quite huge.

having the technical capacity to produce is what brings about that mental edge. you have to be able to get it done off the ground with your racquet.

mental edge comes from winning and it requires constant nourishement in tennis.

i am saying that he is able to go out there and produce.

nobody on the planet can discount his movement and his ability to exercise his options off the ground.

look at it another way: all the mental toughness and confidence on the palnet is useless if you are not the mover you need to be at the very top of the game.

in addition, dont stop at the movement. you also need at least 2 weapons and you must be consistent enough to be able to produce in the clutch.

i believe both his forehand and his backhand are weapons. he has the consistency he needs off both wings and he has the finishing power of both wings. he can also pass you like a demon off both wings. name one other player who can do what he can do. he basically never misses when he is on.

finally, his numbers do not lie.

this is not a knock against Djokovic. i like him a lot. its just that Nadal is simply better off the ground.

Djokovic does have a better backhand and one that can be quite penetrating but Nadal`s backhand is more consistent and far more dangerous in the clutch.

seeing is believing so just watch him.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 03:39 PM
It took you the better part of five minutes to come up with 3 sentences? I'm glad you notified me before you did. You are mistaken about Djokovic's patterns of play, which are the X and Os of how tennis players win points. When do you see Djokovic taking balls on the rise and forcing opponents to run side to side ala Davydenko or Nalbandian? Just how does Djokovic wins points, then? He out maneuvers his opponents. As you have noted he's a complete player. (It's a bit redundant as most players in the top 10 aren't especially unfinished in any area.) Djokovic however isn't a pure baseliner. He's a counter puncher, slowly picking away an opponent until finding an attack-able ball. Being called a counter-puncher isn't a negative thing, it just means more often than not he's most comfortable not forcing the play.

i was just trying to find some meaning in that middle paragraph of your post :lol:

as for djoko's game, why do u think i'm mistaken? i am aware of how djokovic is playing right now, and it's not his A game. fact is that he can just hit topspin forehands deep enough into the court and it's enough to win vs 99% of the tour. he certainly posseses the ability to take the ball on the rise, off of both wings. hardcourts are his natural surface, u'll find him more aggressive there, on any given day.



You have to stop looking at strokes purely as a measurement criteria in rating players. If this was the case Safin would the best player in the world. It's how the players use those strokes, the patterns of play they choose to win points. Don't get lost in the hype, tennis commentators everywhere over exaggerate the importance of picturesque strokes you don't have to.


of course there's truth in this, and there are factors beyond the groundstrokes that make the player and make the wins.

i am just trying to conduct a raw analysis

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 03:48 PM
clay death, u are stating the obvious.

of course nadal has got the tools.

though, for example, his forehand is an excellent shot for clay; but do you think that is what wins him matches on hardcourts? how much has it changed since he was labeled a claycourt specialist? recently he himself realized he should try and hit it flatter.

he has also improved his serve, but to what extent? same goes for murray.

the boom they both made last year is not due to petty technical improvements, it's due to the belief in success.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 03:52 PM
actually i consider the game to be about 30% mental so that is quite huge.

having the technical capacity to produce is what brings about that mental edge. you have to be able to get it done off the ground with your racquet.

mental edge comes from winning and it requires constant nourishement in tennis.

i am saying that he is able to go out there and produce.

nobody on the planet can discount his movement and his ability to exercise his options off the ground.

look at it another way: all the mental toughness and confidence on the palnet is useless if you are not the mover you need to be at the very top of the game.

in addition, dont stop at the movement. you also need at least 2 weapons and you must be consistent enough to be able to produce in the clutch.

i believe both his forehand and his backhand are weapons. he has the consistency he needs off both wings and he has the finishing power of both wings. he can also pass you like a demon off both wings. name one other player who can do what he can do. he basically never misses when he is on.

finally, his numbers do not lie.

this is not a knock against Djokovic. i like him a lot. its just that Nadal is simply better off the ground.

Djokovic does have a better backhand and one that can be quite penetrating but Nadal`s backhand is more consistent and far more dangerous in the clutch.

seeing is believing so just watch him.

I think you put into good words what i meant but was to lazy to write out ;) Thanks CD.

Mental thoughness and techical ablities go hand in hand, it is impossible to separate the two.

Nadal is mental though to large degree because of his ground game, because he knows what his game can do for him. His technique on the FH gives him the weapon and stability to win so much. His BH gives him the reason the run and reach those hopeless (almost) winners from his opponents and counterpunch. His ground Game is the best out there at the moment.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 03:54 PM
i was just trying to find some meaning in that middle paragraph of your post :lol:

as for djoko's game, why do u think i'm mistaken? i am aware of how djokovic is playing right now, and it's not his A game. fact is that he can just hit topspin forehands deep enough into the court and it's enough to win vs 99% of the tour. he certainly posseses the ability to take the ball on the rise, off of both wings. hardcourts are his natural surface, u'll find him more aggressive there, on any given day.

of course there's truth in this, and there are factors beyond the groundstrokes that make the player and make the wins.

i am just trying to conduct a raw analysis

You will find no meaning in my opinions.

You are mistaken because this is how he plays. You must understand the definition of what a counter puncher is and how they play, then compare and contrast that to what an aggressive baseliner is. I didn't say he can't play aggressive. I've seen Nadal serve and volley before too, should I call him a serve and vollier? I never said he didn't have the ability to take the ball on the rise either. It's like you see my words and miss the point.

Everyone is more aggressive on hard courts, they're hard courts, a flat bounce rewards a well struck ball. None of this changes the basic patterns of play Djokovic likes to employ, they're just more effective on hard court.

Being a counter puncher doesn't mean be run around from side to side all the time. No body plays like that. It means hitting neutral shots in contemplation of taking advantage of an attack-able or weaker ball hit by your opponent. This is how Djokovic plays.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 03:56 PM
I think you put into good words what i meant but was to lazy to write out ;) Thanks CD.

Mental thoughness and techical ablities go hand in hand, it is impossible to separate the two.

Nadal is mental though to large degree because of his ground game, because he knows what his game can do for him. His technique on the FH gives him the weapon and stability to win so much. His BH gives him the reason the run and reach those hopeless (almost) winners from his opponents and counterpunch. His ground Game is the best out there at the moment.


thanks commander data. i knew you would undertand what i was trying to say.

defense rests. i have nothing more to say on this matter. like i always, seeing is believing. all they have to do is open their eyes and learn to see a little more clearly.

his forehand is the most destructive forehand the game has ever known. he can kill you with his backhand as well and often does.

his inside-out forehand is almost unplayable and worse, you are having to guess 1/2 of time. he may just go behind you.

both murray and gasquet have said that he basically never misses in the clutch when he is on. that is PRODUCION and his confidence rolls from it. its his strokes that get it done for him.

seeing is believeing. see it for yourself folks. that way they would never have to take our word for it. and if all else fails, one can always check the numbers. they are as cold as death itself.

l_mac
05-13-2009, 03:56 PM
I don't really understand the question (even though it is not a question, but a statement)

Why are you including serve? Can we include smashes? I don't like Nole's f/h, it's not consistent enough.

Anyway, Nadal is the best player from the baseline in the game today. There's a reason why no-one wants to get into a rally with him. But I'm not sure if that is what the thread is about :confused: As I write this Nadal just went through set 1 with no UEs :worship:

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 03:58 PM
i think there's a misunderstanding here, fumus.

'baseliner' doesn't necessarily imply a player aggressive from the baseline. at least in my book.

under that term, i am merely trying to encompass a certain set of skills.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 04:05 PM
i think there's a misunderstanding here, fumus.

'baseliner' doesn't necessarily imply a player aggressive from the baseline. at least in my book.

under that term ,i am merely trying to encompass a certain set of skills.


with all due respect, your "book" is a little short on answers. get a copy of the book commander data and i wrote.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 04:08 PM
with all due respect, your "book" is a little short on answers. get a copy of the book commander data and i wrote.

can i find it on amazon?

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 04:12 PM
can i find it on amazon?


i only wish finishingmove.

take this match against Melzer: 14 games played and 1 unforced error. that is called production.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 04:14 PM
i think there's a misunderstanding here, fumus.

'baseliner' doesn't necessarily imply a player aggressive from the baseline. at least in my book.

under that term, i am merely trying to encompass a certain set of skills.

You're changing you're tune now.

Please change the title of this thread so as no more misunderstanding may occur.

BIGMARAT
05-13-2009, 04:16 PM
baseline game? I think It's really hard to say who has the best right now but I also tend to understand where the thread starter is coming from to say Nole has the best groundies.

I mean come to think of it, Why is Nole the only player that can play on all surfaces and be a contender? Its because hi's baseline strokes are too good and technically sound.

But I know Rafa's fans would disagree and they have the right to as Rafa is winning everything right now, however I think Rafa is winning because of his mental toughness and athletecism more than his stroke. Rafa juat always tend to frustrate his oponents by his defense and force them to do more thus creating more errors.

«Ivan»
05-13-2009, 04:18 PM
Anyway, Nadal is the best player from the baseline in the game today.

classic imac.most complete and the best are two diff.things.i can give you a credit for cd-ish posts-word,words-nothing-words,words-nothing in between,empty words.

btw,i'm reading,reading 'n only thing i can see is "my player is","since i don't like nole...".commander_data 'n cd in line.mtf is amazing.who invented it:hatoff:

l_mac
05-13-2009, 04:20 PM
baseline game? I think It's really hard to say who has the best right now but I also tend to understand where the thread starter is coming from to say Nole has the best groundies.

I mean come to think of it, Why is Nole the only player that can play on all surfaces and be a contender? Its because hi's baseline strokes are too good and technically sound.

But I know Rafa's fans would disagree and they have the right to as Rafa is winning everything right now, however I think Rafa is winning because of his mental toughness and athletecism more than his stroke. Rafa juat always tend to frustrate his oponents by his defense and force them to do more thus creating more errors.

:haha:

Arsen, this is trolling.

:worship:

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 04:20 PM
i only wish finishingmove.

take this match against Melzer: 14 games played and 1 unforced error. that is called production.

nadal is leagues ahead of anyone else on clay. what else is new?

You're changing you're tune now.

Please change the title of this thread so as no more misunderstanding may occur.

seriously i don't know how should i put it..

aggressive and defensive are adjectives commonly used with baseliner. by default it implies neither.

i thought there would be no mistake..

l_mac
05-13-2009, 04:24 PM
classic imac.most complete and the best are two diff.things.

Are they? That's why I'm saying I didn't really understand finishing move's premise.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 04:29 PM
classic imac.most complete and the best are two diff.things.i can give you a credit for cd-ish posts-word,words-nothing-words,words-nothing in between,empty words.

btw,i'm reading,reading 'n only thing i can see is "my player is","since i don't like nole...".commander_data 'n cd in line.mtf is amazing.who invented it:hatoff:

What language are you writing in? Can you translate into english for me? thanks.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 04:35 PM
nadal is leagues ahead of anyone else on clay. what else is new?



seriously i don't know how should i put it..

aggressive and defensive are adjectives commonly used with baseliner. by default it implies neither.

i thought there would be no mistake..

No that's because everyone plays from the baseline today. Are you living in 1975?

He's a counter puncher so by your logic, your thread is mislabeled.

l_mac
05-13-2009, 04:40 PM
What language are you writing in? Can you translate into english for me? thanks.

:hug: I will translate. I speak fluent choops.

classic imac.most complete and the best are two diff.things.i can give you a credit for cd-ish posts-word,words-nothing-words,words-nothing in between,empty words.

Classic l-mac. Being the most complete is not the same as being the best. I credit you for making a clay death-esque post, full of words but no meaning.

btw,i'm reading,reading 'n only thing i can see is "my player is","since i don't like nole...".commander_data 'n cd in line.mtf is amazing.who invented it

By the way I am reading these posts, and all I can see is posts whose actual meaning is "My favourite player is ..." or "I don't like Nole." Commander Data and Clay Death lead the line in this. MTF is amazing. Who invented it?

Steelq
05-13-2009, 04:42 PM
Most complete and the best player are 2 different terms.If he is the most complete that doesn't mean he is the best.Steven Gerard is a world's most complete football player,but Messi and C.Ronaldo are the best ones at the moment.

Sapeod
05-13-2009, 04:43 PM
as i said, nadal is a better mover.

as for murray, he might even be THE best mover on hardcourts right now. though he's not that good on clay.

but, imo, djokovic's other qualities make up for that.
Djokovic is a good all around player, except the volleys but I don't see him as the best baseliner. Nadal still the best at the moment.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 04:44 PM
No that's because everyone plays from the baseline today. Are you living in 1975?

He's a counter puncher so by your logic, your thread is mislabeled.

monfils is a baseliner too.

u don't have to literally stand on the line.

counter punchers are a form of baseliners

l_mac
05-13-2009, 04:44 PM
Most complete and the best player are 2 different terms.If he is the most complete that doesn't mean he is the best.Steven Gerard is a world's most complete football player,but Messi and C.Ronaldo are the best ones at the moment.

Well, he certainly isn't the most complete. You could make a better arguement for him being the best.

«Ivan»
05-13-2009, 04:45 PM
:hug: I will translate. I speak fluent choops.



Classic l-mac. Being the most complete is not the same as being the best. I credit you for making a clay death-esque post, full of words but no meaning.



By the way I am reading these posts, and all I can see is posts whose actual meaning is "My favourite player is ..." or "I don't like Nole." Commander Data and Clay Death lead the line in this. MTF is amazing. Who invented it?

:hug:

l_mac
05-13-2009, 04:46 PM
monfils is a baseliner too.

u don't have to literally stand on the line.

Have you got me on ignore :mad: You never answered my question about smashes.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 04:49 PM
Have you got me on ignore :mad: You never answered my question about smashes.

u think we shouldn't count the serve? every rally begins with a serve...

l_mac
05-13-2009, 04:52 PM
u think we shouldn't count the serve? every rally begins with a serve...

No, I don't think you should include serve :D

But you should include smashes.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 04:54 PM
No, I don't think you should include serve :D

But you should include smashes.

i disagree.:tennis:

l_mac
05-13-2009, 04:57 PM
i disagree.:tennis:

:boggo:

edit: :mad:

http://img2.menstennisforums.com/500/boggosmilie.png http://img2.menstennisforums.com/500/boggosmilie.png http://img2.menstennisforums.com/500/boggosmilie.png

Vida
05-13-2009, 05:01 PM
Today? yes, though I believe that players technical completeness does not change much over time, so today its got a lot to do with consistency, confidence and such. There are players like Federer and Nalbandian who struggle and hence are "less complete" now (good example is Fed's forehand now days, more so than BH which was always attackable). For Djoker, good term is "sound", cause he has a huge range of options to play with, and is least succeptible to a particular way of attacking or defending against. Some are calling it "no weakness" and tend to take it as him being a defensive player, but this I find wrong. Murray, or Nadal are players who predominantly use defense as a way of winning. Murray especially.

From the baseline, Novak hits with more spin off both sides. Thats a technical thing from which he draws consistency, but is explosive in his deliveries as well - though not as much as Federer. So every bit of both, but probably not as high as in others. Murray plays safe, using placement and movement (they all anticipate); Nadal's surface dependability is the highest, and he must rely on toughness (though he is insane now). Federer never really relied on toughness on the other hand, but on his attack and flair and eventually players found out a way against him (tipsy, stepanek, andreev last year are examples I could think of now that are good).

Basically, because of that complete soundness from all strokes + movement + serve comes excellent surface independency and adaptability to different players.

I remember long ago debating with someone over "no weakness" idea, and I was fazed by how people thought he is weak cause he has "no weapon". Well, that's a weapon in itself isn't it?

But Nole has other problems in bringing his "A game" (whatever that might mean in a case). His head is full of various shit from all sides, though I find some are exaggerated (like, he being some hero in Serbia and feeling more obligated and so pressurized). He has issues with conditioning and heat and health generally as well.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 05:05 PM
monfils is a baseliner too.

u don't have to literally stand on the line.

counter punchers are a form of baseliners

Interesting because a few pages back you were telling me he plays the same game as Davydenko.

So we can agree that this thread is ridiculous, because you have essentially stated nothing, you've made no observation or critiques. You are simply picking and choosing things to disagree with from different posters posts. This thread should be called Djokovic is the most complete Novak Djokovic there is or Novak Djokovic is a tennis player. No disagreement here. You're spot on.

«Ivan»
05-13-2009, 05:11 PM
Interesting because a few pages back you were telling me he plays the same game as Davydenko.

So we can agree that this thread is ridiculous, because you have essentially stated nothing, you've made no observation or critiques. You are simply picking and choosing things to disagree with from different posters posts. This thread should be called Djokovic is the most complete Novak Djokovic there is or Novak Djokovic is a tennis player. No disagreement here. You're spot on.

that was rude.'n they say fumus is nice,one of rares.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 05:12 PM
fumus, i hope you're trolling.

El Legenda
05-13-2009, 05:13 PM
http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/external/wherethisthreadgoing.jpg

pica_pica
05-13-2009, 05:15 PM
>100 posts for this thread! Amazing :eek:
I have no comments on this as I don't play tennis myself. And I guess many of us here aren't professional enough to say who's most complete and who's not.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 05:30 PM
fumus, i hope you're trolling.

No.

I explained to you why Djokovic was a counter puncher. You changed your tune from trying to argue that and then went to say counter punchers are baseliners. Which wasn't what you were trying to say when you made this thread in the first place.

Now you're arguing just to argue posting just to post.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 05:35 PM
gonzalez and monfils sport a similar game, they are both baseliners.

stepanek, melzer on the other hand are serve and volley players.

i'm not inventing this on the fly. it's how it is.

so yes, davydenko and djokovic are similar, as are davydenko and monfils, as are gonzalez and monfils.

but that's NOT (at all) the point of this thread.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 05:38 PM
Why are you mixing most technically sound and most effective? Those are completely deferent things. When it comes to most effective, it can be statistically proved and in this moment that would be Nadal. When it comes to "technically sound", it is prone to subjectivity and deferent people will look on it differently. Personally, I found Djokovic's groundies more technically sound than Nadal's, mostly because Nadal's shots are produced mostly from the strength of his arms, not from the technique to use the whole body to generate the speed and pace. The other factors I would include when judging the technically sound shots: trajectory of the racket, trajectory of the balls, generated pace, handling the pace from opponent shots, arms movement, upper body movement, lower body (hips) movement, legs movement, consistency, ability to create angles, disguise etc.
And for the counter-puncher dispute: counter-punchers are players who prefer to use pace from the opponents shots instead of creating pace on their own. And yes, Djokovic can play as a counter-puncher, he does that especially when defending, but he is very very far from being a counter-puncher player solely. His is aggressive base-liner who plays his best when dictating points not when he is defending.

Guga_fan
05-13-2009, 05:38 PM
Fumus, could you please write here your definition of an agressive baseliner (something davydenko is) and the diferences between him and a counterpuncher?

Burrow
05-13-2009, 05:39 PM
since when did melzer become a serve and volleyer? recently? cause he certainly hasn't always been that way.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 05:41 PM
since when did melzer become a serve and volleyer? recently? cause he certainly hasn't always been that way.

they come to the net as much as the court speed allows.

lalo, zverev - more snv players...

GugaF1
05-13-2009, 05:44 PM
I agree with the OP. Djokovic holds the better technic and variety of shots as far as being a baseliner. He can play very well agressivelly as well as defensively. And has no apparent weakness that can be explored.

He does however, has some issues for my taste. His forehand is great, but is too extreme in grip. He needs to do a good deal of work most of the time in order to rotate his body and generate explosive forehands. And an extreme western forehand like his, do tend to lose the sting and break down overtime, easier than a more simple compact semi western forehand like Federer, Agassi.

The serve, he needs to improve the efficiency of it. A lot of matches he just spins the second serve in, and drops the firts serve % bellow 50 often. An agressive baseliner, which is what see him as. Needs to count on an efficient powerful serve, it is something he needs to develop further.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 05:52 PM
yes djokovic can play offensively and defensively, but the only point of mentioning this is as heretic said, the fact that, although he's a great defender, he fully utilizes his skills when he's playing an aggressive hardcourt game.

what i mean is, it's totally irrelevant here what a counter puncher is, or is djokovic a counter puncher.

the term baseliner stands in the title to avoid this kind of labelism

Johnny Groove
05-13-2009, 06:01 PM
Djokovic is very sold off both wings and is very effective from the baseline. He does not possess a slice and his drop shot is dodgy at best. We've seen in the past that he can't keep up his play in grueling conditions and his mentality can still go off from time to time.

He can play aggressively and can also defend, but he isn't the most complete baseliner in the game.

prima donna
05-13-2009, 06:05 PM
so yes, davydenko and djokovic are similar, as are davydenko and monfils, as are gonzalez and monfils.

There are numerous differences between the respective playing styles of Davydenko and Djokovic. For example, Davydenko literally hugs the baseline at all times, taking the ball incredibly earlier so as to use the pace of his opponent against him. Moreover, given the frailty of Davydenko's physique, he is required to implement such a strategy in order to remain viable as a top 20 player. Also, given the physical attributes of the two players in question, it's difficult to draw any sort of a parallel: Djokovic is tall, possesses amazing lower body strength, and yet is susceptible to heat exhaustion; on the other hand, Davydenko is thin, relatively short, and relishes playing in warmer conditions.

The weakest part of Davydenko's game is probably his serve, he is proficient in all other elements of the game. Djokovic's artillery consists of a decent serve and an above average backhand DTL. All in all, I would say that Davydenko strategizes better than Djokovic. After all, for a player who isn't at all physically imposing to remain amongst the elite of tennis, there must be intangibles involved. Djokovic hits with more spin than Davydenko, and tends to rely upon raw power when playing against his inferiors, while reverting to a more defensive posture when faced with top caliber players.

Davydenko's counterpart is Andy Murray, perhaps even Andre Agassi. In the case of the former, much like Davydenko, he enjoys taking the ball early and hitting flat, while in the case of the latter, there is a case to be made in the sense that like Davydenko, he was physically fit and loved taking the ball early.

As for your comparison between Monfils and Davydenko, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 06:07 PM
Nah. His forehand is ugly as hell and he can't slice.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:12 PM
prima_donna: it was a drastic comparison to help fumus understand what i mean by 'baseliner'.

and i still don't see how u can say davydenko is a better baseliner than djokovic, especially a better strategist.

that's like calling gonzalez a tactical genius

davydenko falls victim to his own style far too often.

Serenidad
05-13-2009, 06:15 PM
In terms of just plain FH and BH, I would take Davydenko's strokes over Djokovic.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 06:18 PM
gonzalez and monfils sport a similar game, they are both baseliners.

stepanek, melzer on the other hand are serve and volley players.

i'm not inventing this on the fly. it's how it is.

so yes, davydenko and djokovic are similar, as are davydenko and monfils, as are gonzalez and monfils.

but that's NOT (at all) the point of this thread.

What is the point of this thread? Enlighten me.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:20 PM
What is the point of this thread? Enlighten me.

dissect djokovic's game and determine the technical value of his groundstrokes compared to other players.

edit: not only groundstrokes, as i have included movement as a trait.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 06:23 PM
:hug: I will translate. I speak fluent choops.



Classic l-mac. Being the most complete is not the same as being the best. I credit you for making a clay death-esque post, full of words but no meaning.



By the way I am reading these posts, and all I can see is posts whose actual meaning is "My favourite player is ..." or "I don't like Nole." Commander Data and Clay Death lead the line in this. MTF is amazing. Who invented it?

:hug: seriously thanks. i really did not understand choops.



"All I can see is posts whose actual meaning is "My favourite player is ..." or "I don't like Nole." Commander Data and Clay Death lead the line in this. MTF is amazing. Who invented it?"


Well, maybe you should try harder to see, no?

Just a asmall example, I raised the relevant question of what is meant by "technically" of course this never got an answer...:rolleyes:

Anyway being mentioned in the same sentence with CD shows that my reputation here is growing, a fact which is appreciated.

GugaF1
05-13-2009, 06:23 PM
Why is davydenko in these talks ? given, he is a great baseliner, but he is not even in the top 10 currently, I believe. Nor has he achieved near what Djokovic has.

A Murray, Nalbandian perhaps... there can be some discussion. But Davydenko, he is not even in the picture. And Nadal and Federer, the first his skills are more in the athletic and mental realm which fuel his already comptent game.The second at the momment is not at the top of his game by far.

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 06:26 PM
prima_donna: it was a drastic comparison to help fumus understand what i mean by 'baseliner'.

and i still don't see how u can say davydenko is a better baseliner than djokovic, especially a better strategist.

that's like calling gonzalez a tactical genius

davydenko falls victim to his own style far too often.

Davydenko isn't a strategist at all, in my opinion, as isn't Faker. Both are baseliners who try to win the point by striking the last shot. Faker by grinding and Davydenko by ballbashing.

About PMK falling victim to his own style, all players are victims of their own styles.

dissect djokovic's game and determine the technical value of his groundstrokes compared to other players.

Dissecting Faker's game is the tennis parallel of dissecting the music of the Ramones.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 06:26 PM
dissect djokovic's game and determine the technical value of his groundstrokes compared to other players.

Then you are wrong.

According to the rankings he is only the 4th best player in the world, since we've established in this thread that everyone is a baseliner. And also since we've established there is no way to rate empirically the value of strokes.

According to the logic you've proposed Djokovic is only 4th most complete baseliner in the world therefore he cannot be the most complete.

Please change the name of this thread.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:30 PM
Then you are wrong.

According to the rankings he is only the 4th best player in the world, since we've established in this thread that everyone is a baseliner. And also since we've established there is no way to rate empirically the value of strokes.

According to the logic you've proposed Djokovic is only 4th most complete baseliner in the world therefore he cannot the most complete.

Please change the name of this thread.

there are factors we are not taking into consideration in this analysis. with those factors in place, u get the current rankings, respectively.

and what i mean by technically is the technique of his strokes, and his defensive ability to slide on hardcourts.

Okonsky
05-13-2009, 06:30 PM
I agree with the OP. Djokovic holds the better technic and variety of shots as far as being a baseliner. He can play very well agressivelly as well as defensively. And has no apparent weakness that can be explored.

He does however, has some issues for my taste. His forehand is great, but is too extreme in grip. He needs to do a good deal of work most of the time in order to rotate his body and generate explosive forehands. And an extreme western forehand like his, do tend to lose the sting and break down overtime, easier than a more simple compact semi western forehand like Federer, Agassi.

The serve, he needs to improve the efficiency of it. A lot of matches he just spins the second serve in, and drops the firts serve % bellow 50 often. An agressive baseliner, which is what see him as. Needs to count on an efficient powerful serve, it is something he needs to develop further.

:yeah:

Arsen, do not change the name.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 06:33 PM
there are factors we are not taking into consideration in this analysis. with those factors in place, u get the current rankings, respectively.

:confused: You've said everyone is a baseliner, there is no differentiation. Therefore all tennis players are baseliners. He cannot be better than 4.

You can't reword this. Logically you make no sense. Unless you want to admit that Djokovic is a counter puncher. In which case, you're still wrong.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 06:35 PM
Just a asmall example, I raised the relevant question of what is meant by "technically" of course this never got an answer...:rolleyes:


I think I covered that part in a previous post. :shrug:

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:38 PM
:confused: You've said everyone is a baseliner, there is no differentiation. Therefore all tennis players are baseliners. He cannot be better than 4.

You can't reword this. Logically you make no sense. Unless you want to admit that Djokovic is a counter puncher. In which case, you're still wrong.

for the X-th time, there are factors beyond the skillset i am analyzing here, which determine the ranking and success of a player.

and for crying out loud, why are you holding onto that counter puncher thing?? i don't see any relevancy in that.

prima donna
05-13-2009, 06:41 PM
and i still don't see how u can say davydenko is a better baseliner than djokovic, especially a better strategist.
I haven't concluded that Davydenko is more effective from the baseline than Djokovic; however, I do believe that it is quite fair to consider Davydenko the better thinker of the two. Davydenko's failure to make a Grand Slam final isn't a consequence of his strategical approach, but rather his inability to close the deal. For example, he lost in straights at Roland Garros '07 against Federer, a match which he could have easily won in straights. He also pushed Federer to four sets at the Aussie Open, although on that particular occasion the better man simply won.

I don't believe that one is more talented than the other. Djokovic is more physically gifted than Davydenko, which gives him more leverage as a server and a baseliner. Davydenko has far exceeded my expectations, especially when I take into account his stature. Djokovic has better results, so what ? That doesn't make him a better strategist. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as to suggest that Roddick has a higher tennis I.Q. than Djokovic. Tennis I.Q. doesn't translate into talent, which essentially means that just because player A's backhand is better than player B's doesn't necessarily mean the former is smarter than the latter.

Roddick was quite small prior to having hit a sudden growth spurt in his late teens, which is part of the reason why he's able to grind out matches: he did plenty of running as an undersized kid, which breeds a strategical awareness that may be absent in the game of a more physically gifted player. Unfortunately, Davydenko didn't have the same luck, so he's had to compensate for what he lacks in terms of stature by using his brain.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:46 PM
I haven't concluded that Davydenko is more effective from the baseline than Djokovic; however, I do believe that it is quite fair to consider Davydenko the better thinker of the two. Davydenko's failure to make a Grand Slam final isn't a consequence of his strategical approach, but rather his inability to close the deal. For example, he lost in straights at Roland Garros '07 against Federer, a match which he could have easily won in straights. He also pushed Federer to four sets at the Aussie Open, although on that particular occasion the better man simply won.

I don't believe that one is more talented than the other. Djokovic is more physically gifted than Davydenko, which gives him more leverage as a server and a baseliner. Davydenko has far exceeded my expectations, especially when I take into account his stature. Djokovic has better results, so what ? That doesn't make him a better strategist. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as to suggest that Roddick has a higher tennis I.Q. than Djokovic. Tennis I.Q. doesn't translate into talent, which essentially means that just because player A's backhand is better than player B's doesn't necessarily mean the former is smarter than the latter.

Roddick was quite small prior to having hit a sudden growth spurt in his late teens, which is part of the reason why he's able to grind out matches: he did plenty of running as an undersized kid, which breeds a strategical awareness that may be absent in the game of a more physically gifted player. Unfortunately, Davydenko didn't have the same luck, so he's had to compensate for stature by using his brain.

the last 2 times djokovic met federer, he won after losing the first set, then altering his strategy.

what is davydenko's and roddick's h2h with federer? :lol:

maybe i'm not catching what you're trying to say

prima donna
05-13-2009, 06:46 PM
Faker by grinding and Davydenko by ballbashing.
.
So taking the ball early is akin to ball bashing ?

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:48 PM
as u can see from my example, davydenko and roddick are practically on the same tactical level.

i have a feeling u are overrating davydenko a bit here.

FlavorNuts
05-13-2009, 06:49 PM
Nalbandian..

Fumus
05-13-2009, 06:52 PM
for the X-th time, there are factors beyond the skillset i am analyzing here, which determine the ranking and success of a player.

and for crying out loud, why are you holding onto that counter puncher thing?? i don't see any relevancy in that.

You aren't reading what I am writing. You just keep typing whatever you want without reading. Like I said earlier, you see my words you just aren't getting the point.

You didn't say Djokovic has the best X-factor skillset in the world did you? No you said a bunch of other stuff which I showed you that you were wrong about. Even now your thinking about how you can reword this differently so it's less wrong.

Don't.

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 06:52 PM
So taking the ball early is akin to ball bashing ?

Not necessarily, but Davydenko is definitely a ballbasher.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:53 PM
i mean davydenko has good 'micro strategy', or what u'd call point construction, but he hasn't got much variation on the macro plan (no plan B)

being a choker doesn't help his case either.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 06:56 PM
You aren't reading what I am writing. You just keep typing whatever you want without reading. Like I said earlier, you see my words you just aren't getting the point.

You didn't say Djokovic has the best X-factor skillset in the world did you? No you said a bunch of other stuff which I showed you that you were wrong about. Even now your thinking about how you can reword this differently so it's less wrong.

Don't.

listen, fumus, you're obviously seeing this whole thread from a totally different perspective than i am, and after 100+ posts, i can't say i'm getting closer to understanding you. maybe you should start your own thread or something.

Serenidad
05-13-2009, 06:58 PM
Yeah, Davydenko really is a basher. I think everyone can admit that. I still think his groundstrokes are better than Djokovic's regardless of ranking/success. Karlovic has a better serve than most everyone, but his career is a joke. Doesn't mean he can't be better at something.

Before the clay season Djokovic's career was "over" and "one-slam wonder" now all of a sudden we get these "quality" threads in bulk. If we're even talking TECHNIQUE the Djokovic FH technique looks very labored and unorthodox. I'm thinking of this thread in terms of if I had someone I was coaching I definitely wouldn't say mirror Djokovic's technique. Davydenko's strokes are smooth and far more textbook. Regardless of playing style/success.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 07:05 PM
i mean davydenko has good 'micro strategy', or what u'd call point construction, but he hasn't got much variation on the macro plan (no plan B)

being a choker doesn't help his case either. Davydenko's point construction starts and ends with him getting into rhythm and hitting the ball early into corners (most likely alternating them). He doesn't follow well opponents positioning and you can rarely see him hitting behind the player. But he posses probably the best footwork, those steps and timing are almost work of art to watch.

prima donna
05-13-2009, 07:07 PM
the last 2 times djokovic met federer, he won after losing the first set, then altering his strategy.
Not so. Federer played a solid first set in Miami, while Djokovic was abysmal. In the second set, Federer squandered opportunity after opportunity, which eventually led to him losing the set. In the third set, well, Federer couldn't keep a ball in the court. Djokovic wasn't made to improvise, all that was required of him was steady, consistent play -- which wasn't there in the first set. That has little to do with strategic alteration.

In Rome, Federer played decently, while Djokovic played terrible tennis for much of the match. He was in a losing position for this very reason in both sets 2 and 3. Hence, these are not the best examples to cite.


what is davydenko's and roddick's h2h with federer?
Once again, talent and intelligence don't always correlate. Roddick is outclassed, while Davydenko has choked away opportunity after opportunity against Fed. Also, the only strategical blunder Roddick is guilty of is his propensity to hit approach shots to Fed's forehand -- not very smart.


maybe i'm not catching what you're trying to say
H2Hs aren't the only standard by which to judge players. Tennis is about match-ups, you've concluded that based on results, Djokovic is both a superior thinker and baseliner -- which is a simplistic way of analyzing sport.

As to your remark about overrating Davydenko, he's made the quarters of the Aussie Open thrice, the semis of the U.S. Open twice, and the semis of Roland Garros twice. Those are respectable achievements, not sure how I'm overrating him by simply stating that he's had to compensate for his frail stature by adopting a rigorous off-court regimen, as well as occasionally using his brain to defeat his opponents.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 07:11 PM
listen, fumus, you're obviously seeing this whole thread from a totally different perspective than i am, and after 100+ posts, i can't say i'm getting closer to understanding you. maybe you should start your own thread or something.

Ok let me break this down to for you...

You started this thread with a ridiculously ambiguous title, either by clever design or stupidity. I came in a little late but you had posted about Djokovic strokes and them issued them as evidence to why Djokovic was the "most complete baseliner". I then explained to you that strokes are strictly a matter of opinion and cannot be empirically rated. I said Djokovic was not the best baseliner in the world, then I named some other candidates. I explained to you the patterns of play a baseliner employs. I then illustrated that Djokovic doesn't play a true baseline game but is in fact a counter puncher. You argued me on that for awhile but eventually you switched your tune and then said counter punchers were baseliners thinking that this would satisfy your thesis. I said while in theory that is true it makes you're entire thread null because that would make every professional playing tennis in the world a baseliner. Thus Djokovic could only be number 4. You then said there are hidden factors and skill sets I'm not analyzing and that is how you rate Djokovic the best.

Did I miss anything?

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 07:13 PM
I think I covered that part in a previous post. :shrug:

Yeah you partly did. I missed it, sorry. Would be more relevant what finishingmove thinks about it, though, since he asked the question. We could take what you say, then you would need to go on, to further define what complete means...

I wouldn't be surprised if, at the end of the day, the definition leads us the Federer. I think he has the technically more advanced game then Djoker. but as long as there is not clear def. what exactly is meant by the titel, we are talking in circles.

prima donna
05-13-2009, 07:15 PM
Not necessarily, but Davydenko is definitely a ballbasher.
Have we now redefined the term 'ball-basher' ? The likes of Berdych and Gulbis come to mind when I see such a term being used. Davydenko's game doesn't contain much variety, that is true, but I'm not sure whether I'd apply such a designation. In that case, you'll agree that Andre Agassi was a ball-basher, too.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 07:17 PM
Yeah you partly did. I missed it, sorry. Would be more relevant what finishingmove thinks about it, though, since he asked the question. We could take what you say then you would need to go on to further defines what complete means...

I wouldn't be surprised if, at the end of the day, the definition leads us the Federer. I think he has the technically more adavanced game then Djoker. but as long as there is not clear def. what exactly is meant by the titel, we are talking in circles.

Oh yea, you noticed that too.

I like what I said earlier. Fishingmove has essentially said "Novak Djokovic is the best Novak Djokvoic there is or Novak Djokovic is a tennis player". I mean, ok, I get it you admire his game, great move on. Yea, he's a great player, I agree.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:19 PM
Yeah you partly did. I missed it, sorry. Would be more relevant what finishingmove thinks about it, though, since he asked the question. We could take what you say, then you would need to go on, to further define what complete means...

I wouldn't be surprised if, at the end of the day, the definition leads us the Federer. I think he has the technically more advanced game then Djoker. but as long as there is not clear def. what exactly is meant by the titel, we are talking in circles.

listen, it's simple. take those things i included as baseliner skills, rate them, calculate the sum.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:21 PM
fumus, stop polluting the thread.

if u don't understand that counter punchers are a form of baseliners, then i can't help you.

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 07:22 PM
Have we now redefined the term 'ball-basher' ? The likes of Berdych and Gulbis come to mind when I see such a term being used. Davydenko's game doesn't contain much variety, that is true, but I'm not sure whether I'd apply such a designation. In that case, you'll agree that Andre Agassi was a ball-basher, too.

Agassi was a ball-basher, for sure.

I mean, there's a huge difference between guys that try to incessantly hit winners from the back of the court, like Davydenko and Agassi, to guys who use a big shot to finish the point at the net (a dying breed).

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:24 PM
As to your remark about overrating Davydenko, he's made the quarters of the Aussie Open thrice, the semis of the U.S. Open twice, and the semis of Roland Garros twice. Those are respectable achievements, not sure how I'm overrating him by simply stating that he's had to compensate for his frail stature by adopting a rigorous off-court regimen, as well as occasionally using his brain to defeat his opponents.

that's fair and it stands. maybe i should've said how you're underrating djokovic in the comparison.

for example, djokovic has smarter serve placement, changes the pace during a point, uses the backhand slice (don't recall seeing davydenko using it)

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 07:26 PM
Agassi was a ball-basher, for sure.
.

:rolleyes:

prima donna
05-13-2009, 07:27 PM
Agassi was a ball-basher, for sure.

I mean, there's a huge difference between guys that try to incessantly hit winners from the back of the court, like Davydenko and Agassi, to guys who use a big shot to finish the point at the net (a dying breed).
Trying incessantly to hit winners ?
H2oj2IJlUGo
36SSdFPPp9w

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 07:28 PM
:rolleyes:

Your point being?

vamosinator
05-13-2009, 07:31 PM
listen, fumus, you're obviously seeing this whole thread from a totally different perspective than i am, and after 100+ posts, i can't say i'm getting closer to understanding you. maybe you should start your own thread or something.

Anybody in their right mind would be laughing at this thread, its like it was written on opposite day or something :rolleyes: its a great bump thread though for after the us open thats for darn sure :wavey:

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 07:32 PM
Ok let me break this down to for you...

I then explained to you that strokes are strictly a matter of opinion and cannot be empirically rated. I said Djokovic was not the best baseliner in the world, then I named some other candidates.

Hence it is a matter of an oppinion, fm said his with opening the thread, you said yours with naming your candidates. What is the diference between you two so you attack him for opening the thread?


I explained to you the patterns of play a baseliner employs. I then illustrated that Djokovic doesn't play a true baseline game but is in fact a counter puncher.

And you were wrong, if someone can play from time to time counter-punching style when defending, it doesn't make him a counter-puncher. It is like saying that Hewitt and Djokovic have the same style.


Thus Djokovic could only be number 4.

I don't get this one... You are practically saying that whoever is #1 has the most complete baseline game (or is the best baseliner whatever).

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 07:33 PM
Trying incessantly to hit winners ?
H2oj2IJlUGo
36SSdFPPp9w

You put two completely atypical points and tries to prove a point to me.

That would work if you were talking to one of those Nadulltards who started watching tennis in 2008, but I've watched so many matches of those two.

Actually, almost every player goes to the net against Nadull, mainly for the difficulty of hitting a clean winner against him.

Davydenko actually lost the point - can't volley. Agassi won the point barely - I watched that match and he lost many points at the net.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 07:33 PM
Your point being?

It is well illustrated by the video: There is a difference between a tactician and a ball-basher don't you think? Otherwise everybody that plays from the baseline is a ball-basher. that seems a bit dull.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 07:35 PM
listen, it's simple. take those things i included as baseliner skills, rate them, calculate the sum.

You've included as baseliners skills? You've included. LOL. Rate them, calculate them?!? ROFL. I don't think anyone can do that math but you. Only you know what you're talking about.

fumus, stop polluting the thread.

if u don't understand that counter punchers are a form of baseliners, then i can't help you.

I have accepted that's the way you feel. I've also explained to you why that makes this thread nonsensical. You're polluting the forum when you're posting just to post. I understand that you admire Djokovic's game he's a great player, I agree. Talented definitly, does he have awesome strokes, no doubt. Does he make some amazing plays on the tennis court, I can't argue that.

It's right now there are 3 other players ahead of him that have fared better of the past 365 days. If you want to call them all baseliners than he cannot be the best.

You'd fair better in trying to convince me that Novak should be everyone's favorite player.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 07:36 PM
You put two completely atypical points and tries to prove a point to me.



No, no. That Agassi point is not atypical. Agassi frequnetly tried to construct points. In my understanding, a ball-basher is someone that mindlessly goes for the winners.

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 07:38 PM
It is well illustrated by the video: "A. Agassi a master tactician." there is a difference between a tactician and a ball-basher don't you think. Otherwise everybody that plays from the baseline is a ball-basher. that seems a bit dull.

Wow, what a tactician Agassi was.

Hit hard, hard, hard, hard - opponent still keeps gettin' to shots - to avoid the UE you try an awful dropshot that puts you in a bad position, lob - opponent can't hit a decent overhead because he's a mug - another bash, ball hits the net - forcing you to go forward - dropshot volley (the volley of non-volleyers).

That was more of a scraped point than "master tactics".

prima donna
05-13-2009, 07:40 PM
that's fair and it stands. maybe i should've said how you're underrating djokovic in the comparison.

for example, djokovic has smarter serve placement, changes the pace during a point, uses the backhand slice (don't recall seeing davydenko using it)

I've established that Djokovic is more physically gifted, and that such an attribute allows him greater leverage both as a server and baseliner. For example, Djokovic can uncork gargantuan forehand winners out of seemingly nowhere, while Davydenko cannot. Same theory with respect to the service: Djokovic can hit huge 1st serves; Davydenko can't.

With respect to Djokovic's service placement: the taller player is always at an advantage in this department, height facilitates the process of finding angles. Is Ivo Karlovic a better tennis player than, say, Roger Federer ? No, but he does have the height advantage.

Of course, the premise of your argument has more to do with innate assets than talent. Take the NBA for instance: there are great point guards who have refined their games, sure, but nevertheless such players are limited by innate elements (e.g., height, athleticism -- assuming that you believe athleticism to be an innate quality).

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 07:40 PM
listen, it's simple. take those things i included as baseliner skills, rate them, calculate the sum.

okay. you mean if we look for the player that has the most diversity in his baseline game and multiply that with the destructiveness each of this shots, then Djoker gets the highest score?

Action Jackson
05-13-2009, 07:41 PM
Agassi was such a tactician, when his game didn't work, he never switched it up. He hit hard yes, but I wouldn't call him a ball basher, that would be Tursunov, Söderling, Enqvist.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 07:41 PM
No, no. That Agassi point is not atypical. Agassi frequnetly tried to construct points. In my understanding, a ball-basher is someone that mindlessly goes for the winners.

Quite correct.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:42 PM
fumus, you're slipping.

yes it's my opinion, of course.

some have agreed and some have stated their own opinion.

you're just freaking out over some things that this thread is not even about.

relax :hug:

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 07:46 PM
Wow, what a tactician Agassi was.

Hit hard, hard, hard, hard - opponent still keeps gettin' to shots - to avoid the UE you try an awful dropshot that puts you in a bad position, lob - opponent can't hit a decent overhead because he's a mug - another bash, ball hits the net - forcing you to go forward - dropshot volley (the volley of non-volleyers).

That was more of a scraped point than "master tactics".

Okay you hate Agassi, you hate all payers that don't S/V okay mate it get it. its your right to do so.

But I think Agassi played great tactial baseline tennis. It takes more then a ball-basher to win all 4 Grandslams.

prima donna
05-13-2009, 07:47 PM
Davydenko actually lost the point - can't volley. Agassi won the point barely - I watched that match and he lost many points at the net.
Actually, I disagree with your premise: Agassi wasn't trying to "incessantly hit winners," as you've described it. He loved to move his opponents from side-to-side, especially in the heat. Same goes for Davydenko. I've conceded that neither player is a paragon of variety, but neither player would approach a match in the same fashion as, say, Tomas Berdych.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:49 PM
okay. you mean if we look for the player that has the most diversity in his baseline game and multiply that with the destructiveness each of this shots, then Djoker gets the highest score?

take one of the elements important for baseliners, examine the various facets of it and rate it. when you're done processing the elements, sum it up.

TheWall
05-13-2009, 07:51 PM
Agassi in his earlier days was a ball-basher, going for broke more often than not.

When he got older he did play more patient and tried to wear his opponents down. But I'm not sure if that was really tactical (point construction ala Coria). He just placed his shots left/right/left/right... until the opponent missed or a good chance for a winner arrived.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 07:52 PM
Agassi was such a tactician, when his game didn't work, he never switched it up. He hit hard yes, but I wouldn't call him a ball basher, that would be Tursunov, Söderling, Enqvist.

Agassi tried to construct points. it is a tactic activity to construct a point. because if you don't have any tactic you can not construct the point. it is really not ball-bashing. Maybe he couldn't switch his game up too much when his basline shots were off, doesn't imply he played tacticless baseline bashing. :rolleyes:

Guga_fan
05-13-2009, 07:52 PM
Finishingmove, are you considering regularity as a factor? I would probably go with Nalby if you weren't and with Nadal if you were. Nowadays it's to tough to rate Novak's game, but I get this impression that it can fall apart any time, his forehand is not clean as it used to be. I guess he is doing well without playing his A game because he didn't have the toughest opposition on clay this year yet.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 07:54 PM
Hence it is a matter of an oppinion, fm said his with opening the thread, you said yours with naming your candidates. What is the diference between you two so you attack him for opening the thread?



And you were wrong, if someone can play from time to time counter-punching style when defending, it doesn't make him a counter-puncher. It is like saying that Hewitt and Djokovic have the same style.



I don't get this one... You are practically saying that whoever is #1 has the most complete baseline game (or is the best baseliner whatever).

I did not attack him for opening the thread. I'm sorry that you felt attacked. I said that the title was phrased ambiguously. Either by clever design or stupidity. Meaning that no one knows what he's talking about except for him. For instance, what does "the most technically complete baseliner" mean? Fishingmove has changed the definition a few times. I think he's trying to say Djokovic has the best strokes. I said earlier that's an opinion, by nature one cannot define one stroke better than another. Better as in more effective? better as in better looking? better as it win more cheap points out right? What truly makes a shot better than another shot? Players build their games around consistent backhand believing this is better than a shot making one and etc. etc. Therefore none of that can be defined. It's all conjecture. It's like saying the color red is better than the color blue.

Hewitt and Djokovic are very similar. I don't disagree. Djokovic doesn't play counter punching from time to time that's the basis of his game. Djokovic does not run his opponents from side to side by taking the ball early as the basis of his game. He maneuvers really well in hopes that he will be able to take control of the rally. That's a counter puncher.

Fishingmove says that counter punchers are baseliners so therefore his title isn't wrong. If you aren't going to differentiate between styles of play than this thread has no point. That is to say in today's game every player is a baseliner. So out of all the players in the world Djokovic is number 4...he is not the best.

I hope I have been helpful.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 07:55 PM
Nadal is the best baseliner. Now we can close the thread.

I agree. :)

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 07:55 PM
Finishingmove, are you considering regularity as a factor? I would probably go with Nalby if you weren't and with Nadal if you were. Nowadays it's to tough to rate Novak's game, but I get this impression that it can fall apart any time, his forehand is not clean as it used to be. I guess he is doing well without playing his A game because he didn't have the toughest opposition on clay this year yet.

u don't have to count consistency.

Action Jackson
05-13-2009, 07:56 PM
Agassi tried to construct points. it is a tactic activity to construct a point. because if you don't have any tactic you can not construct the point. it is really not ball-bashing. Maybe he couldn't switch his game up too much when his basline shots were off, doesn't imply he played tacticless baseline bashing. :rolleyes:

Mecir, Wilander, Kucera, Murray, Nalbandian those are actual players that thought about what they are doing when it comes to construction points. Yes, Agassi was a ball basher, but as The Wall said he got better over time.

When Agassi was losing, what plan did he have to adjust, he didn't have one. I gave 3 examples of ballbashers.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 07:56 PM
Nadal is the best baseliner. Now we can close the thread.

And whose double account you are? :lol:

Fumus
05-13-2009, 07:56 PM
Mecir, Wilander, Kucera, Murray, Nalbandian those are actual players that thought about what they are doing when it comes to construction points. Yes, Agassi was a ball basher, but as The Wall said he got better over time.

When Agassi was losing, what plan did he have to adjust, he didn't have one. I gave 3 examples of ballbashers.

Agassi wasn't a tactician persay, but he didn't just hit hard at the lines and hope for the best. I think he played that way earlier in his career.

Commander Data
05-13-2009, 08:00 PM
Mecir, Wilander, Kucera, Murray, Nalbandian those are actual players that thought about what they are doing when it comes to construction points. Yes, Agassi was a ball basher, but as The Wall said he got better over time.

When Agassi was losing, what plan did he have to adjust, he didn't have one. I gave 3 examples of ballbashers.

We have to agree to disagree. i don't see nalbandian as someone that obviously thinks more about constructing points then Agassi :shrug: ( I talk about the older Agassi here..)


Good night you all!

Fumus
05-13-2009, 08:00 PM
fumus, you're slipping.

yes it's my opinion, of course.

some have agreed and some have stated their own opinion.

you're just freaking out over some things that this thread is not even about.

relax :hug:

Slipping? Was I somewhere else?

You're thread is about nothing so anything that I post that is about anything is not what this thread's about.

Vida
05-13-2009, 08:03 PM
Nalbandian is a master. I miss him very much.

prima donna
05-13-2009, 08:03 PM
I don't disagree with the notion that Agassi was, to an extent, a ball-basher; my problem is that such a classification lumps him in with the likes of Gulbis and Berdych.

The term 'ball-basher' seems to have taken on an expanded meaning, if you will.

Action Jackson
05-13-2009, 08:04 PM
Agassi wasn't a tactician persay, but he didn't just hit hard at the lines and hope for the best. I think he played that way earlier in his career.

When he lost all the hair, then he did change his game, though the Wall pretty much summed it up, how it went for Agassi.

I mean he is not in the Enqvist, Söderling or Tursunov mold at all, when it comes to hitting for the sake of it.

Only reason Agassi tried a moonball against Kucera, because he was pissed off.

finishingmove
05-13-2009, 08:07 PM
I don't disagree with the notion that Agassi was, to an extent, a ball-basher; my problem is that such a classification lumps him in with the likes of Gulbis and Berdych.

The term 'ball-basher' seems to have taken on an expanded meaning, if you will.

agreed.

berdych's tennis IQ must be through the floor...

can't put them in the same group.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 08:08 PM
When he lost all the hair, then he did change his game, though the Wall pretty much summed it up, how it went for Agassi.

I mean he is not in the Enqvist, Söderling or Tursunov mold at all, when it comes to hitting for the sake of it.

Only reason Agassi tried a moonball against Kucera, because he was pissed off.

Agassi's game play was pretty obvious and repetitive. As he got older he was less and less of a shot maker. He was more like a reverse grinder.

I know he wasn't one of your favorites.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 08:24 PM
I did not attack him for opening the thread. I'm sorry that you felt attacked. I said that the title was phrased ambiguously. Either by clever design or stupidity. Meaning that no one knows what he's talking about except for him. For instance, what does "the most technically complete baseliner" mean? Fishingmove has changed the definition a few times. I think he's trying to say Djokovic has the best strokes. I said earlier that's an opinion, by nature one cannot define one stroke better than another. Better as in more effective? better as in better looking? better as it win more cheap points out right? What truly makes a shot better than another shot? Players build their games around consistent backhand believing this is better than a shot making one and etc. etc. Therefore none of that can be defined. It's all conjecture. It's like saying the color red is better than the color blue.

I don't agree with the term most complete baseliner or best baseliner either, but I haven't tried to crucify poor guy even if his intention was to emphasize his favorite player. Those terms are too wide IMO and includes success, rankings and other things. On the other hand I might have agreed with him if the term was most complete technically sound baseliner or something like that.


Hewitt and Djokovic are very similar. I don't disagree. Djokovic doesn't play counter punching from time to time that's the basis of his game. Djokovic does not run his opponents from side to side by taking the ball early as the basis of his game. He maneuvers really well in hopes that he will be able to take control of the rally. That's a counter puncher.

That is not a counter-puncher, I wrote in one of my previous posts that counter-punchers are players who feels most comfortable when they are using opponents pace especially when changing the direction instead of creating their own. That is Hewitt. Djokovic feels most comfortable when he is attacking exactly by creating his own pace. If he is able to hit some passing shot by counter-punching here and there doesn't make him a counter-puncher. He played for almost 9 months mostly pushing the balls and grinding the points(he still does that in some points) but his defining style is not either of it. The style is defined by the most used style from the player, the style he is preferring, being most comfortable doing it, playing best at it.


Fishingmove says that counter punchers are baseliners so therefore his title isn't wrong. If you aren't going to differentiate between styles of play than this thread has no point. That is to say in today's game every player is a baseliner. So out of all the players in the world Djokovic is number 4...he is not the best.

I hope I have been helpful.

If he said the best you would have been right for rubbing the rankings in his face, but from what I can see the title was (and still is) most complete.

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 08:26 PM
Quite correct.

Bullshit.

Okay you hate Agassi, you hate all payers that don't S/V okay mate it get it. its your right to do so.

But I think Agassi played great tactial baseline tennis. It takes more then a ball-basher to win all 4 Grandslams.

Nope it doesn't.

Actually, I disagree with your premise: Agassi wasn't trying to "incessantly hit winners," as you've described it. He loved to move his opponents from side-to-side, especially in the heat. Same goes for Davydenko. I've conceded that neither player is a paragon of variety, but neither player would approach a match in the same fashion as, say, Tomas Berdych.

He moved opponents side-to-side because he didn't have any explosive shot as, say, Tsonga's forehand, that could earn him clean winners.

I don't disagree with the notion that Agassi was, to an extent, a ball-basher; my problem is that such a classification lumps him in with the likes of Gulbis and Berdych.

The term 'ball-basher' seems to have taken on an expanded meaning, if you will.

Gulbis and Berdych are Agassis with more explosive shots and less court sensibility.

agreed.

berdych's tennis IQ must be through the floor...

can't put them in the same group.

Berdych's tennis IQ isn't that bad. He's just technically flawed in some areas, not allowing for any variation in his game. He doesn't have a kick serve, doesn't have a slice and has a very flat forehand - it's not like his game allows him to take off the gas when playing.

asmazif
05-13-2009, 08:31 PM
/\ yep, basically.

Fumus
05-13-2009, 08:37 PM
I don't agree with the term most complete baseliner or best baseliner either, but I haven't tried to crucify poor guy even if his intention was to emphasize his favorite player. Those terms are too wide IMO and includes success, rankings and other things. On the other hand I might have agreed with him if the term was most complete technically sound baseliner or something like that.



That is not a counter-puncher, I wrote in one of my previous posts that counter-punchers are players who feels most comfortable when they are using opponents pace especially when changing the direction instead of creating their own. That is Hewitt. Djokovic feels most comfortable when he is attacking exactly by creating his own pace. If he is able to hit some passing shot by counter-punching here and there doesn't make him a counter-puncher. He played for almost 9 months mostly pushing the balls and grinding the points(he still does that in some points) but his defining style is not either of it. The style is defined by the most used style from the player, the style he is preferring, being most comfortable doing it, playing best at it.



If he said the best you would have been right for rubbing the rankings in his face, but from what I can see the title was (and still is) most complete.

Meh. I went a little over board. Crucify him, I don't know about that. It's just I hate it when people post just to post. These are like the people you talk to everyday that talk with out listening. There is no place for people like that on a forum. They should have a blog and just post their opinions so they won't have to pretend to read and respond to what other people have written. They can have their one sided conversations alone.

Hertic every player likes to be in control of a rally, it's how they get there that counts. Hewitt didn't lob serves in just to wait to be run around did he?

I know what Fishingmove said, I was illustrating how illogical it was. Make up a term that means nothing and then say someone is that. That's posting just to post to start with. ;)

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 08:42 PM
In my understanding, a ball-basher is someone that mindlessly goes for the winners.

Quite correct.

Bullshit.


I am dying to hear your definition of ball-bashers.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 08:57 PM
Hertic every player likes to be in control of a rally, it's how they get there that counts. Hewitt didn't lob serves in just to wait to be run around did he?


Definitely not every player, most of the retrievers doesn't know what to do when they have an upper hand in the rallies and you can see them either making an UE or desperately trying to hit a repositioning shot who will allow them to get back into defending again. (for example after a drop shot or a short ball from the opponent you can see them hitting slow and deep shots and after that rushing back to the baseline). But it is true that Hewitt was definitely not one of those players.

GugaF1
05-13-2009, 09:03 PM
Agassi was a real master at time and space in tennis from the baseline. He used his great skills in order to cut the opponents time and reduce his space. And that is alll that tennis is about, time and space. If you end your opponets time and space, game over.


Agassi didn`t need to change his strategy often, basically because if he was on form, he did not lose to nearly all players. Simple as that. The type of players that Agassi could lose even when playing well was the likes of Sampras. And Sampras would mostly had an adavantage over Agassi because while Agassi was about cutting the oppnents air supply (time and space) from the baseline, Sampras did it from the get go, with the serve and volley already.

From the baseline, Agassi game was nearly flawless as far as an agressive baseliner goes. And no real great player changes his stragy often, they don`t need to. great players basically look to play their A games, and if they are playing nearly well equals win basically. And that includes Federer, Sampras, borg, Johny Mc.

GugaF1
05-13-2009, 09:04 PM
Agassi had such an influence in the game and was such a Master from the baseline. That nearly 80% of the players today play with a similar style, looking to cut down the opponents time. Something that is not credited to Agassi alone, started with Borg maybe Connors as well. But from my generation agassi `perfected` the agressive baseline game.

w78dexon_y
05-13-2009, 09:10 PM
I agree with OP.
Djoker has the game (not just a baseline play) with no techincal flaw. The only player on the tour at this time. Once he got his physical condition right, he will be unstoppable. Every second GS will be his. And to me, he is very close to it at this point. HE can be there at any time.

He is another Jimmy Connors.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 09:18 PM
i see the thread has been in the process of being hijacked by a few clueless ones. evidently they have yet to learn the most fundamental lesson in life:

its better to keep your mouth shut and just let people wonder if you are a true moron than to open it and remove all doubt. and people basically shit on smart asses these days anyway. sooner you learn that the better.

actually finishingmove made a solid attempt to try to find an answer to a very key question. who really is the most technically sound baseliner on the planet.

this is different from who is the most efficient, most brutal, and most deadly baseliner on the planet. that would have to the guy who dominates the world of tennis on all surfaces from the backcourt. his is a "slam dunk" case of being able to get it done from the baseline since he has a relatively weak serve and he is not that competent at the net. and he doesnt have a particularly strong return of serve on quicker courts which is where majority of the action is on the circuit.

so he has to get it done with his wheels and his ground game.

this separation probably should have been made clear from the beginiing but that is what finishingmove had in mind. too bad a few clueless termites have to try to ruin his thread.

i believe he is closer to the truth with his question. Djokovic is rock solid sound off the ground. the mecahnics of his backhand and his forehand are near perfect. he happens to be a great athlete and a great mover so it does help his cause in exercising his options off both wings.

now he may be technically closer to the best but he cannot outlast the guy at the top. Nadal is right up there in terms of mechanics too. you dont hit that many balls back and win so much by having flawed strokes. you may want to keep that in mind. notice his movement on either side as he prepares to exercise his options from the backcourt.

his is particularly a slam dunk case since he has no back up aresenal. and as i said earlier, his serve is weak and his net game nonexistent at times. and also that weak return on quicker courts as i have suggested.

most technically sound has been Fed but he had back up arsenal and he was able to hold serve nearly 90% of the time. then came a man with a relentless will and even more relentless topspin. and he was also blessed with great speed and movement.

then came Djokovic and Murray. they both have very sound mechanics off both wings. their backhands are the best in the game. they are excellent strikers of the ball and they do it quite efficiently. that much should be obvious to even somebody who doesnt follow tennis.

Clay Monster just handles them all with relatively sound mechanics of his own. and he has that relentless will and even more relentless topspin. it gives him the consistency he needs and it allows him to come up with incredible angles. and when it is relentless and hit deep, there are no answers for it. period.

you cannot attack him since he can pass you like a demon. and you cannot deal with him off the ground since he can keep it coming all day. on a good day, he will take 70% of the rallies that exceed 10 shots or better.

he is not as technically sound as Fed, Djokovic, and Murray but he is right up there and he has the heavy topspin. its the relentless topspin cyclones of death that never end that do the damage.

finally, keep in mind that we just may be too harsh on Nadal. its the nature of heavy topspin that is so demanding. it makes him look less efficient but that is the style of play he has chosen and it works for him. very heavy topspin has always required one to be an ironman. Borg, Vilas, and Muster should come to mind. its simply a very demanding to produce the kind of strokes that he is producing out there.

Fed makes it look so easy and to him it is. Djokovic looks effortless when he is executing his ground game. Murray too is very technically sound. at the highest level, one has to be.

bottom line: OP was on the right track. Djokovic`s mechanics are as good as it gets. the others are right up there as well. and Nadal`s strokes are not exactly flawed. they are so good that he hardly ever misses when he is on. flawed mechanics/techniques would never allow you get that many balls back with that kind of pace and direction. they would also break you and sideline you with endless arm, shoulder, and elbow related injuries. not to mention the back issues.

TheWall
05-13-2009, 09:26 PM
Clay Death, I agree with most of your points.
But I wouldn't call Djokovic's forehand technically flawless, it doesn't seem to be an efficient motion. I wonder how big and consistent it will be when Djokovic is older and less flexible.

BTW, don't you think you could've gotten your point across with like 2 instead of 50 sentences?

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 09:31 PM
Clay Death, I agree with most of your points.
But I wouldn't call Djokovic's forehand technically flawless, it doesn't seem to be an efficient motion. I wonder how big and consistent it will be when Djokovic is older and less flexible.

BTW, don't you think you could've gotten your point across with like 2 instead of 50 sentences?

no.

next.

TheWall
05-13-2009, 09:34 PM
no.

next.

So basically every of your posts contains a Nadal essay?

Fumus
05-13-2009, 09:39 PM
no.

next.

So you interpreted Fishingmove's title to mean efficient stroke wise? LOL. I feel like this is the bible and everyone has their own interpretations.

CD, I'm glad to know you're barometer for stroke efficiency but this is a Djokovic praise thread. This is no brilliant assertion on my part. Also, you're the king of posting just to post so philosophically I disagree with your motives. Get a blog, I'll read it and you won't have to pretend to read anyone's posts. Although I'm pretty sure your past pretending.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 09:40 PM
So basically every of your posts contains a Nadal essay?

no. i was just using him for illustrative convenience. i did say that technical soundness/near perfect mechanics and brutal efficiency off the ground in terms of being able to win on all surfaces are 2 different things.

and i also pointed out that Nadal`s strokes, while unique, are not as out of wack as people here would like to believe or assume.

at the very top of this sport, there is no room for flawed mechanics. none what so ever.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 09:41 PM
So you interpreted Fishingmove's title to mean efficient stroke wise? LOL. I feel like this is the bible and everyone has their own interpretations.

CD, I'm glad to know you're barometer for stroke efficiency but this is a Djokovic praise thread. This is no brilliant assertion on my part. Also, you're the king of posting just to post so philosophically I disagree with your motives. Get a blog, I'll read it and you won't have to pretend to read anyone's posts. Although I'm pretty sure your past pretending.

take a hike. you refuse to make an effort to understand what it is that i was trying to say. ask finishingmove. he will help you. i give up.

Federerhingis
05-13-2009, 09:48 PM
hello mimi.

let us compare djokovic to other top players:

movement:

nadal is a better mover on all surfaces
murray anticipates as if he reads minds, no comparison possible.
federer has gotten lazy. djokovic clearly moves better than him on any surface.
return of serve:

djokovic is the best returner today.

Federer is the most natural mover on grass, his movement has declined and his foodwork has been quite sloppy of late, but I still think Roger moves better on grass.

Murray is the best returner today, Nalbandian is the best when he's playing well or indoors.

NikolaBGD
05-13-2009, 09:50 PM
Clay Death:worship:

One of the best posters here...

He likes Nadal too much, but also he try to be objective with other players, always good to read his posts.

Clay Death
05-13-2009, 09:53 PM
Clay Death:worship:

One of the best posters here...

He likes Nadal too much, but also he try to be objective with other players, always good to read his posts.

thanks so much NikolaBGD. i am also quite critical of the Clay Monster which is why many of his fans here hate me with passion.

no big deal. we are all just having fun anyway while talking about the sport we all love so much.

i appreciate your kind words.

NikolaBGD
05-13-2009, 09:58 PM
[QUOTE=Clay Death;8565165]

its better to keep your mouth shut and just let people wonder if you are a true moron than to open it and remove all doubt. [QUOTE]


:devil::worship:

This must be The First Law Of MTF ;)

groundstroke
05-13-2009, 10:01 PM
Djokovic's serve is a joke, Murray's serve is a joke, Nadal's serve is comparable to Sharapova's.

TheWall
05-13-2009, 10:08 PM
at the very top of this sport, there is no room for flawed mechanics. none what so ever.

Courier and Roddick were at the top with technically flawed backhands, Berasategui's forehand is IMO a mess technically but it was one of the best of its time nevertheless, and many other players were at the top with some technical flaws (like forehand-volleys).

Henry Chinaski
05-13-2009, 10:09 PM
14 pages and counting. good effort arsen

Clydey
05-13-2009, 10:17 PM
hello mimi.

let us compare djokovic to other top players:

forehand:

nadal has a better forehand on clay, though on hardcourts i would give djoko the edge.
djokovic has a better forehand than murray
federer's forehand is an abomination as of this year. no comparison necessary

backhand:

nadal has been firing his crosscourt backhand lately, though i would give djokovic the edge in this department.
murray arguably has the best 2 handed backhand today. i would say djokovic is on par with him.
federer's backhand... next.

serve:

djokovic has a better serve than nadal.
murray has improved his serve, maybe he's on par with djokovic now.
federer's serve is pretty much what's keeping him alive. it's hard to read and that's its main advantage. though the consistency is dropping. djokovic takes it.

movement:

nadal is a better mover on all surfaces
murray anticipates as if he reads minds, no comparison possible.
federer has gotten lazy. djokovic clearly moves better than him on any surface.

return of serve:

djokovic is the best returner today.

Statistically Murray is actually the best returner.

My personal opinion is that both Djoker and Murray move better than Nadal on a hardcourt, but Nadal moves better everywhere else.

Clydey
05-13-2009, 10:20 PM
Anyone has the tools to take anyone out, look at Murray, we've seen he has the tools to beat Federer, but he crumbled in the only match that mattered, and if Murray meets Federer again in a GS Final I'd still put my money on Federer owning him mentally and winning in straight sets again.

After seeing Murray being wiped off the court by Nadal in windy conditions it shows how fragile he is, just put him in a GS Final or make him play in breezy conditions, thats all it takes.

The USO match had breezy conditions. 40mph winds is not breezy conditions. Get a clue.

And stop referring to Nadal as "The Rafa". It makes you sound like a ****. Note to mods, I am not calling him a ****. I am saying that certain things he says can potentially make him sound like a ****.

Clydey
05-13-2009, 10:26 PM
Djokovic is the best returner. No doubt. And Rog's serve is what keep shim down for a 1.5 years already! That's because the other top 3 figured his serve out. (Forget about the past. Rog used to be the best servere).

By the serve:

1. Murray
2. Djokovic
3. Rafa
4. Rog

Murray and Nadal are the best returners statistically. Nadal has caught up to Murray now that the clay season has started, which has more to do with his baseline game. They are now neck and neck. On hardcourts, Murray was a mile ahead of everyone statistically.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/en/players/matchfacts/

GugaF1
05-13-2009, 10:26 PM
How many active brain cells do you possess at your disposal `el presidente` ? are you capable of making posts that contains more than 1 phrase without cute little images, flashes and silly one liners...

When you do let me know. I will send one big flashy congratulation sign.


I detest when potentially good threads get possessed by petite arguments nitpicking, personal attacks..

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 10:33 PM
Statistically Murray is actually the best returner.

My personal opinion is that both Djoker and Murray move better than Nadal on a hardcourt, but Nadal moves better everywhere else.

No he is not. Statistically he is the best 1st serve returner. Tied with Nadal on return games win percentage but hence Nadal has more matches played he is the best.

Clydey
05-13-2009, 10:34 PM
No he is not. Statistically he is the best 1st serve returner. Tied with Nadal on return games win percentage but hence Nadal has more matches played he is the best.

Yeah, I checked the stats after I posted that. Murray was a mile ahead just before the clay season started and that's when I last checked. Nadal has caught him up on the clay, which isn't really about return of serve. It's about Nadal's superior baseline game. Return isn't a huge factor on clay like it is on hard.

HeretiC
05-13-2009, 10:39 PM
Yeah, I checked the stats after I posted that. Murray was a mile ahead just before the clay season started and that's when I last checked. Nadal has caught him up on the clay, which isn't really about return of serve. It's about Nadal's superior baseline game. Return isn't a huge factor on clay like it is on hard.

True, pure stats does not reflect the real situation about complex issues every time.

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 10:50 PM
hello mimi.

let us compare djokovic to other top players:

forehand:

nadal has a better forehand on clay, though on hardcourts i would give djoko the edge.
djokovic has a better forehand than murray
federer's forehand is an abomination as of this year. no comparison necessary

backhand:

nadal has been firing his crosscourt backhand lately, though i would give djokovic the edge in this department.
murray arguably has the best 2 handed backhand today. i would say djokovic is on par with him.
federer's backhand... next.

serve:

djokovic has a better serve than nadal.
murray has improved his serve, maybe he's on par with djokovic now.
federer's serve is pretty much what's keeping him alive. it's hard to read and that's its main advantage. though the consistency is dropping. djokovic takes it.

movement:

nadal is a better mover on all surfaces
murray anticipates as if he reads minds, no comparison possible.
federer has gotten lazy. djokovic clearly moves better than him on any surface.

return of serve:

djokovic is the best returner today.

Why is your comparison only applied to the top 3? :rolleyes:

Nadull has moonballing shots so we won't even put him in a discussion about technicalities.

Federer has a better forehand than Faker, period.

Murray has a better backhand than Faker, for sooo many reasons. It's consistent, has a good slice (contrary to Faker) and also has power when needed.

Federer has the best serve in the top 4.

Nadull is fast and is the best mover on clay. On HC, Murray moves better. Federer used to move better than all of them, but he's not a fat lazy married joke.

Murray is the best returner today. It's not even comparable to Faker, c'mon.

w78dexon_y
05-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Clay Death. Pretty good analysys. You went into the depth of the subject. Covered almost everything.

However, i've notice two things to emphasyzed:

Nadal is right up there in terms of mechanics too. you dont hit that many balls back and win so much by having flawed strokes. you may want to keep that in mind. notice his movement on either side as he prepares to exercise his options from the backcourt.

his is particularly a slam dunk case since he has no back up aresenal. and as i said earlier, his serve is weak and his net game nonexistent at times. and also that weak return on quicker courts as i have suggested.
.............................

Clay Monster just handles them all with relatively sound mechanics of his own. and he has that relentless will and even more relentless topspin. it gives him the consistency he needs and it allows him to come up with incredible angles. and when it is relentless and hit deep, there are no answers for it. period.

you cannot attack him since he can pass you like a demon. and you cannot deal with him off the ground since he can keep it coming all day. on a good day, he will take 70% of the rallies that exceed 10 shots or better.

he is not as technically sound as Fed, Djokovic, and Murray but he is right up there and he has the heavy topspin. its the relentless topspin cyclones of death that never end that do the damage.........

...........finally, keep in mind that we just may be too harsh on Nadal. its the nature of heavy topspin that is so demanding.

I agree with almost everything you said; however you missed to indicate Rafa's extra terrestrial physical condition as a one of his main clay games weapon?!

Djokovic with all that near perfectly executed forehand ground strokes you described above, executed them with all the force possible, yet he fails to make a winner against Rafa even after 10+ such strokes in a row??!

In MC and Rome they had a rally of 36 strokes (among many others with 30+), of which at least 10 was Djokovic's deadly ground shots, yet Nadal buffered them all and finally won the point? Can you explain this, please?

Plus Nadal's "relentless" you were talking above is relentless of the predominantly defensive style. Can you, please go little bit deeper in such "defensive relentless" style? Thanks.

(Asking this b/c except Rafa's physical relentless I cannot see any other).

w78dexon_y
05-13-2009, 10:59 PM
Murray and Nadal are the best returners statistically. Nadal has caught up to Murray now that the clay season has started, which has more to do with his baseline game. They are now neck and neck. On hardcourts, Murray was a mile ahead of everyone statistically.

Thanks.
Now does that statisctic reveal how many (%) of his returned balls become the winning points of the opponents??

I mean: returning the balls just to fall on the other side of the court compared to the balls that were returned deeply close to opponent's base line and gave him nothing but troubles. There's the difference in retruned balls.

Clydey
05-13-2009, 11:04 PM
Thanks.
Now does that statisctic reveal how many (%) of his returned balls become the winning points of the opponents??

I mean: returning the balls just to fall on the other side of the court compared to the balls that were returned deeply close to opponent's base line and gave him nothing but troubles. There's the difference in retruned balls.

Subtract the number you see from 100% and that's the percentage of points they lose, whether by being aced, not returning the ball, or losing the rally. Djokovic is behind quite a few guys.

w78dexon_y
05-13-2009, 11:08 PM
Subtract the number you see from 100% and that's the percentage of points they lose, whether by being aced, not returning the ball, or losing the rally. Djokovic is behind quite a few guys.

Sorry: I should rephrase my original questio: Now does that statisctic reveal how many (%) of his successfully returned balls were converted into the winning points of the opponents??

GlennMirnyi
05-13-2009, 11:10 PM
The statistic is "percentage of winning points on return", if I'm not mistaken, not "percentage of serves returned to the opponent's court".

l_mac
05-13-2009, 11:12 PM
The statistic is "percentage of winning points on return", if I'm not mistaken, not "percentage of serves returned to the opponent's court".

:lol:

Guga_fan
05-14-2009, 01:00 AM
I really think Nalbandian is the most complete if consistency isn't a factor:
Backhand - Easily the best on tour (Marat's is not what it used to be). He has a decent slice, creates sick angles out of nowhere, has perfect control and has a really good down the line. And he can consistently take the ball on the rise.

Forehand - Not the best on tour, but has similar attributes to the backhand. His on the run forehand is also pretty good.

Serve - Bad most of the time, but often good enough.

Return - The best on tour by far, on both wings, of both 1st and 2nd serves.

Movement - Could be better, but is pretty good when Dave cares about the match.

fast_clay
05-14-2009, 02:30 AM
djokovic's game is easy on the eye, in general play around the baseline, after the first two shots of a rally are played... i think that's what technically means after reading this thread... and i would agree for the the most part...

shotgun
05-14-2009, 03:09 AM
Some interesting posts have been erased from this thread. :eek: :lol:

Mimi
05-14-2009, 04:12 AM
the clueness mimi learnt a lot about more about tennis skills, thanks to all of you :worship::angel:

Florida
05-14-2009, 04:22 AM
Never expected this thread to go to 15 pages. That tells me one things: Djoko is popular on court and off court! Way to go! I hope he proves to all the haters he is worth the 15 pages, because I honestly believe he is the man!

MacTheKnife
05-14-2009, 04:30 AM
Never expected this thread to go to 15 pages. That tells me one things: Djoko is popular on court and off court! Way to go! I hope he proves to all the haters he is worth the 15 pages, because I honestly believe he is the man!

I just scanned the thread and it looked like half or less were actually about Djok, most of the rest were about who else posters think is more technically sound.

I can't come on MTF to much right now since I DVR matches all day and am always watching them about 4 or 5 hours behind. Once I catch up, then come on here and comment.

Mimi
05-14-2009, 04:36 AM
do come here more often, you are a good poster :wavey:
I just scanned the thread and it looked like half or less were actually about Djok, most of the rest were about who else posters think is more technically sound.

I can't come on MTF to much right now since I DVR matches all day and am always watching them about 4 or 5 hours behind. Once I catch up, then come on here and comment.

Fumus
05-14-2009, 04:45 AM
take a hike. you refuse to make an effort to understand what it is that i was trying to say. ask finishingmove. he will help you. i give up.

You and FM do the same thing 9/10 posters here do. Ignore what everyone else is saying and just continue to say whatever it is you want to say. This is why I post so little in the GM. Every once and awhile a topic comes along that I actually want to discuss and of course no one wants to hear what I am saying they just wanna talk louder over me. I've already responded to everything FM said 1,000 times. You just came in here and started talking about whatever you wanted to talk about. You should go back through the thread and actually read the things I've said respond to the points I've made instead of writing one sentence. You are an amusing poster but only as far as entertainment value.

finishingmove
05-14-2009, 07:49 AM
Why is your comparison only applied to the top 3? :rolleyes:


well, davydenko has been mentioned in this thread, he's quite a solid player, but there's a bunch of people in the top 50 who are lazy and don't have a backhand at all. not to mention guys like devvarman that just run, run and run and make atp finals with no real weapons.

HeretiC
05-14-2009, 09:03 AM
I really think Nalbandian is the most complete if consistency isn't a factor:
Backhand - Easily the best on tour (Marat's is not what it used to be). He has a decent slice, creates sick angles out of nowhere, has perfect control and has a really good down the line. And he can consistently take the ball on the rise.

Yup, that BH is near the perfection, the racket and arms trajectory, the movement of body, shoulders, it is all so well synchronized. It is the stroke that will leave almost all people who understand something about techniques of the strokes with open mouth in disbelief if that is even possible. For me that was the stroke that made me switch to 2 handed BH after 25 years.


Forehand - Not the best on tour, but has similar attributes to the backhand. His on the run forehand is also pretty good.

More than decent when he is positioned well or when he is anticipating opponent (when he has the time to execute the technique which is very sound too). But in combination with his movement (when he plays it without proper preparation and full body movement) it is an unreliable shot and you can see him ripping the net a lot.


Serve - Bad most of the time, but often good enough.
Don't even go there, there was a period of 3-4 months in 2007 when his first serve gained on consistency and was more then useful, but most of the time it is a lottery shot - with other words simply bad. Second serve is "lets play a rally shot" without placement, pace or a high kick and it is not even reliable sometimes. He is probably high up there with the number of DFs.


Return - The best on tour by far, on both wings, of both 1st and 2nd serves.

He is an absolute second serve killer, the best out there, and if there is a stat with second serve return winners percentage I am quite sure he will be on top of it.
For the 1st serve return: it is an area where stats are deceiving a bit. The stats says that he is among the best 1st serve returners, but in real he often does not read the 1st serve well, but thanks to many players who goes for safe 1st serve with higher percentage, he is quickly reading that and starts to treat those as second serves ripping them with much success.


Movement - Could be better, but is pretty good when Dave cares about the match.
It is quite not true that he doesn't care about matches. He is overestimating himself, often underestimating his opponents, and he puts only that much of an effort as he thinks should be enough for the opponent, and he is so stubborn that he wont change a thing even if he can't win a single game. That is why he is having his best matches against the best players and why he is having such a poor unexpected losses to "nobodies". That is lack of judgment.

Slices are average, drop-shots - from disaster when he is forcing them when he is clueless about the game-plan , to excellent precision when his game is on. Amazing ability to construct a point from the baseline thinking in front 2-3 shots ahead.

All in all, technically he is quite a complete package of the baseliner, definitely among the "best".

Commander Data
05-14-2009, 09:03 AM
Agassi was a ball-basher, for sure.

I mean, there's a huge difference between guys that try to incessantly hit winners from the back of the court, like Davydenko and Agassi, to (....)




He moved opponents side-to-side because he didn't have any explosive shot

:lol:


okay. So we have Moonballers, Ball-bashers and a small rest of real Tennis Players that finish points with S/V.

Jōris
05-14-2009, 09:21 AM
This thread reminds me, where did NinaNina go?

HeretiC
05-14-2009, 09:34 AM
This thread reminds me, where did NinaNina go?

Her last post was 1 month ago. :scared:

leng jai
05-14-2009, 09:52 AM
Maybe she met another guy on the bus?

Jōris
05-14-2009, 09:57 AM
Or she and Clydey are busy breeding the most fanatic and irritating Muzzatard imaginable.

leng jai
05-14-2009, 10:00 AM
But Clydey is still posting. Hes making Nina doing all the work obviously. What a guy.

Jōris
05-14-2009, 10:20 AM
But Clydey is still posting. Hes making Nina doing all the work obviously. What a guy.

When she's not breeding with Clydey, she's with Feldman to satisfy his creepy fantasies. Definitely.

habibko
05-14-2009, 11:32 AM
:haha: :haha:

come on guys have a little consideration for her feelings, she does come online, I saw her like yesterday, guess she is content with Clydey's work so far..

tangerine_dream
01-31-2011, 06:51 PM
Time to revisit this thread....

Slow-Court Strategy Paid Off For Djokovic (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41338341/ns/sports-tennis/)
Serb showcased a style of moderation, balancing offense and defense, while soundly defeating Murray
by Steve Tignor
Andy Murray came out of his service stance and stared up at the retractable roof, where a bird was squawking. It kept squawking. He banged his strings off his palm, unhappy with the tension, and sent a couple of defective racquets off to be restrung. A few points after picking up a new frame, he was banging that one against his palm, too. Murray yelled at his player’s box to give him more energy. He barked at the ball kids to bring him his towel, please. He winced after dozens of shots, either in anguish or in pain. Even the chair umpire had it in for him. When Murray questioned why an obvious out call hadn’t been made, he said that umpire Jake Garner “bit back” at him. It was that kind of night.

More important, of course, were the bites that Novak Djokovic took out of Murray. I had expected the Serb to come out firing, the way he had against Roger Federer—why change a winning game; more precisely, why change that winning game. But he started easily, feeling the match out, trying a little of Murray’s style before he got around to his own. I thought it was a mistake; I though he was showing too much respect for Murray’s defense. I was wrong.

The measured game turned out to be the right game for Djokovic. It settled him in and allowed him to open up and find his range at his own pace. The shift was subtle, but before you knew it, he was controlling points without taking a lot of risk. He broke it open at 5-4, 15-30. Over the course of a 39-shot rally, Djokovic gave us offense, then defense, then offense, then defense, then O, then D, and on, and on, until he’d won the point and changed the entire match in the process.

“That made a big difference in the momentum,” Murray said. “He really loosened up after that.”

“I was changing the pace, changing the rhythm,” Djokovic said. “I didn’t want to give him the same pace. I wanted to open up the court more and not let him control the points.”

Djokovic loosened up in a big way in the second. There was a Federer-esque, full-flight quality to his performance through the first five games of that set. It was no fluke, either; it was the logical end to two weeks, and two months, of excellent play. In fact, now that I write that, there were also moments over his last three matches when I was reminded of the single-minded, well-regulated aggression that he had brought to the Davis Cup final last December. Somebody on this blog called Djokovic’s form at the Hopman Cup a few weeks ago “ominous.” I had never associated that word with the happy Perth exo before, but he or she was right. He was ominous right up until the final point tonight.

“After we won the Davis Cup,” Djokovic said, “I was feeling great being on the court. I think that had a big effect on this tournament for me.”

What effect did Murray's injury from Friday have on him? He strained a quad in his semifinal, and as he said tonight he wasn’t moving well. There were moments when he clearly pulled up lame, and other moments when he grimaced—though he’s always kind of grimacing out there. Murray said he wasn’t hurt, but maybe a little weary from his last match. Either way, he began the match tight, went straight to agitated, and by the third was pretty well slumped. He played his usual game to a fault. Weary or injured or neither, he failed to change the points’ dynamics, failed to move forward on numerous occasions when he had the chance, and failed to relax at any point and just compete. And there’s always his fundamental issue: a forehand that’s not as powerful or as versatile as most of his opponents’, including Djokovic’s. The Serb can do anything from anywhere with his forehand; Murray can’t. A Slam will likely always elude him unless he can get more out of that stroke.

Of course, whatever you do on your side, you still have to get the ball past Djokovic, which no one in Melbourne found a way to do very often.

“He put up three or four lobs,” Murray said, “that landed right on the line. It’s tough to do anything with those.” On the third of those lobs, Murray looked back down at the line in annoyed disbelief after the point. “How can he put it there?” he seemed to be asking. After the match, Murray was glum, naturally, but he said he felt a lot better than he had after his defeat by Roger Federer last year. Murray claimed that he wasn’t sure why this was, but before the match tonight, he said that in 2010 he had been especially crushed by the squandered set points in the third-set tiebreaker. He never got that far this time. Let’s hope he recovers more quickly than last year.

This match did not signal anything so extreme as a changing of the guard. But it was perhaps the first Grand Slam final contested by the players who came up in the so-far-unnamed “slow-court era.” The combination of modern frames, modern strings, modern physicality, and modern slow courts have produced a distinct style, which Djokovic and Murray both embody. It’s a style of moderation, one that works on all surfaces. It revolves around two-handed backhands that serve as weapons; strong returns and versatile, rather than blistering, serves; a blend of offense and defense; an ability to change the direction of the ball at any time; a basic competence in all aspects of the sport rather than the reliance on a couple of huge weapons; and an emphasis on speed above else.

Every style has its virtuoso performers, and tonight Djokovic showed us that the slow-court game, at its best, can be as dazzling and beautiful as any other. To see it with Djokovic, though, you have to isolate on him. Watch him move. Watch him dance and leap back there—he can play D, then O, then D, then O. His legs look rubbery when he comes down in a split step. He flies low at all times, and he doesn’t have to turn his body away from the net to get a good cut. Where other players' show-off moves are their bomb serves or their inside-out forehands, The Serb’s is the open-stance, abbreviated-swing, sliding backhand get in the corner. It's worth a look.

If Djokovic can track down another player’s best shot with that move and flip a lob into the rafters that lands like a laser on the baseline, there’s only one word for it. Andy Murray knew it early tonight; the rest of the men's tour might be thinking it right now: That’s ominous.

Commander Data
01-31-2011, 07:21 PM
i take it everyone agrees.

:lol:

Big_Juicy
01-31-2011, 07:38 PM
Murray has a better backhand than Faker, for sooo many reasons. It's consistent, has a good slice (contrary to Faker) and also has power when needed.
.

The bolded part is some of the funniest writing I have ever seen here. Murray's slice backhand was just so good in the finals..:worship:

oranges
01-31-2011, 07:41 PM
The bolded part is some of the funniest writing I have ever seen here. Murray's slice backhand was just so good in the finals..:worship:

Everything Murray sucked in the final, doesn't change the fact he has a much better slice, as in not to be compared at all unless for lolz. Not sure what you find funny in the comment you quoted.

Big_Juicy
01-31-2011, 07:44 PM
Everything Murray sucked in the final, doesn't change the fact he has a much better slice, as in not to be compared at all unless for lolz. Not sure what you find funny in the comment you quoted.

Dodig has the best slice. :worship:

tennis2tennis
01-31-2011, 07:46 PM
this thread

http://www.adelekirby.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

oranges
01-31-2011, 08:00 PM
Dodig has the best slice. :worship:

Was that supposed to be funny or you just had nothing better to say? Rhetorical question. I'm still waiting for an explanation how is Muzza's slice not far better. Gu likes to go completely overboard, but that was not one of those cases. I understand you're elated about Djoko's win, but there's place for it and there's being totally out of context.

Big_Juicy
01-31-2011, 08:01 PM
Was that supposed to be funny or you just had nothing better to say? Rhetorical question. I'm still waiting for an explanation how is Muzza's slice not far better. Gu likes to go completely overboard, but that was not one of those cases. I understand you're elated about Djoko's win, but there's place for it and there's being totally out of context.

And I understand you are completely objective when talking about the most successful tennis nation in the region..

oranges
01-31-2011, 08:05 PM
And I understand you are completely objective when talking about the most successful tennis nation in the region..

Again, nothing better to say? Are we to understand you think Djoko has a better slice since you found it so amusing.

MalwareDie
01-31-2011, 08:06 PM
And I understand you are completely objective when talking about the most successful tennis nation in the region..

Lame nationalist comment.

Roger the Dodger
01-31-2011, 08:07 PM
Potro.

Big_Juicy
01-31-2011, 08:08 PM
Again, nothing better to say? Are we to understand you think Djoko has a better slice since you found it so amusing.

Meanwhile your posts were full of in depth analysis to back-up your opinion..The pot calling the kettle black.

leng jai
01-31-2011, 08:09 PM
Murray had a worse slice than Faker in the final. Its generally better but not that great.

In terms of overall effectiveness and consistency its hard to find anyone better than Faker, but only on hard court.

alfonsojose
01-31-2011, 08:09 PM
Nole's forehand is fugly