Mens Tennis Forums banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
They realized that copying the most effective game ever is the way to go. So they are doing it, and this is why they have become so good and successful lately. This is why future generations will copy this game even more, and that will massively rise quality and appeal of this sport.

What do you say? Analyze and discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
They realized that copying the most effective game ever is the way to go. So they are doing it, and this is why they have become so good and successful lately. This is why future generations will copy this game even more, and that will massively rise quality and appeal of this sport.

What do you say? Analyze and discuss.
You find their boring mechanical baseline game appealing? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
Of course. You need to have unbiased and analytical eye to find their game appealing.
They might as well be hitting against a wall or against a ball machine. Nothing appealing, just the typical baseline game of hitting flat, deep and hard, ball after ball. Medvedev and Zverev are like the Lindsay Davenport of men's tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
They might as well be hitting against a wall or against a ball machine. Nothing appealing, just the typical baseline game of hitting flat, deep and hard, ball after ball. Medvedev and Zverev are like the Lindsay Davenport of men's tennis.
They are playing chess with controlled aggression, which is objectively very appealing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,160 Posts
Does that mean that media and Fed fans are also subjective when they call Fed's game beautiful?
Yes, of course. I personally prefer Federer's game, but it's up to you whether you find Djokovic's game more beautiful. Beauty is subjective per definition. You can investigate what the majority of people find beautiful, and probably Federer's game would be ahead of Djokovic's in such a survey, but that doesn't mean someone who has another view is wrong. Actually, the world would be extremely boring if everyone had the same taste.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,864 Posts
Djokovic took a few things from Federer and Nadal, he played both prime to prime, specially Nadal and he learned a lot from them specially in the mental side but kept a rather simple and lackluster game with less variety.

Medvedev´s and Zverev´s game are certainly much closer to the Djokovic style but that might be a liability against Djokovic, they´re learning from playing prime Djokovic from the mental side but their similar gamestyle to Djokovic makes them more predictable and less disruptive, it´s always harder to top someone with a lot of experience in his own game than developing a new innovative style like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in their own time, that´s why Medvedev and Zverev are still in the middle 20´s and they can´t figure out how to consistently prevent Djokovic from winning slams left and right .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62,445 Posts
Yes, of course. I personally prefer Federer's game, but it's up to you whether you find Djokovic's game more beautiful. Beauty is subjective per definition. You can investigate what the majority of people find beautiful, and probably Federer's game would be ahead of Djokovic's in such a survey, but that doesn't mean someone who has another view is wrong. Actually, the world would be extremely boring if everyone had the same taste.
Indeed. If everyone liked the same there would be one style of music, one line of food, one line of clothing etc. Frightfully boring. "Objective beauty" is only uttered by someone who hasn't understood what beauty is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
Djokovic took a few things from Federer and Nadal, he played both prime to prime, specially Nadal and he learned a lot from them specially in the mental side but kept a rather simple and lackluster game with less variety.

Medvedev´s and Zverev´s game are certainly much closer to the Djokovic style but that might be a liability against Djokovic, they´re learning from playing prime Djokovic from the mental side but their similar gamestyle to Djokovic makes them more predictable and less disruptive, it´s always harder to top someone with a lot of experience in his own game than developing a new innovative style like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in their own time, that´s why Medvedev and Zverev are still in the middle 20´s and they can´t figure out how to consistently prevent Djokovic from winning slams left and right .
I agreed with most of what you said but saying Djokovic'game is simple and lackluster is ridiculous


Then why don't others copy it and win so much??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,864 Posts
I agreed with most of what you said but saying Djokovic'game is simple and lackluster is ridiculous


Then why don't others copy it and win so much??
Being simple and lackluster doesn´t mean less effective or easier to "copy", his movements are close to perfection, his shots are not the most brilliant yet he usually takes the right decisions more than any other player. His best weapon is his mind, as said he learned a lot from the Federer/Nadal era who were able to raise to the occation and beat anyone in their way even in a bad day.

Medvedev and Zverev are trying to copy this, but as I said, it´s harder to top someone in his own game, this has pros and cons for them, they will be better players against most, they will learn faster from Djokovic but they will have it harder to beat Djokovic himself because he knows what to expect from them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,906 Posts
Novak was a defensive to offensive counterpuncher who has never relied on his serving to win matches outright but now employs more trips to the net & slicing.

Medved is not comfortable doing the latter & Zverev would b just another 6'6" average player outside top 10 w/o his service weapon.

They can attempt to copy but have little of the versatility across all surfaces that the no.1 possesses.
 

·
|
Joined
·
16,927 Posts
Djokovic is known for playing the most "nancy boy" version of tennis, whereby you take minimal risk and just wait for your opponent to make the error.
Jim Courier referred to this at the AO this year, saying that in tiebreakers Djokovic takes minimal risk and just gets the ball back in play until his opponent makes the error.
Courier said Nadal uses the opposite approach, trying to hit winners in the tiebreakers so it will be decided on his own racquet.
The Djokovic method works if you are young or fit enough to play those long rallies, and actually it works even better for Zverev because he's got the big serve to go with it, so he'll also get cheap points on serve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
Being simple and lackluster doesn´t mean less effective or easier to "copy", his movements are close to perfection, his shots are not the most brilliant yet he usually takes the right decisions more than any other player. His best weapon is his mind, as said he learned a lot from the Federer/Nadal era who were able to raise to the occation and beat anyone in their way even in a bad day.

Medvedev and Zverev are trying to copy this, but as I said, it´s harder to top someone in his own game, this has pros and cons for them, they will be better players against most, they will learn faster from Djokovic but they will have it harder to beat Djokovic himself because he knows what to expect from them.
You say his game is simple and lackluster then goes onto say hos movement is perfect and his best weapon is his mind in an 70-80% mentally dependant sport

Maybe read before you click send because that's so contradictory 🥴

Also no one can copy Federer game because it's all about shotmaking which is something you either have or don't and Nadal's top spin fh can't be tought either.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,864 Posts
You say his game is simple and lackluster then goes onto say hos movement is perfect and his best weapon is his mind in an 70-80% mentally dependant sport

Maybe read before you click send because that's so contradictory 🥴

Also no one can copy Federer game because it's all about shotmaking which is something you either have or don't and Nadal's top spin fh can't be tought either.....
His game is simple and luckluster in terms of variety, attractiveness not in terms of ease to emulate it. He does less things but exceptionally good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Djokovic took a few things from Federer and Nadal, he played both prime to prime, specially Nadal and he learned a lot from them specially in the mental side but kept a rather simple and lackluster game with less variety.

Medvedev´s and Zverev´s game are certainly much closer to the Djokovic style but that might be a liability against Djokovic, they´re learning from playing prime Djokovic from the mental side but their similar gamestyle to Djokovic makes them more predictable and less disruptive, it´s always harder to top someone with a lot of experience in his own game than developing a new innovative style like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in their own time, that´s why Medvedev and Zverev are still in the middle 20´s and they can´t figure out how to consistently prevent Djokovic from winning slams left and right .
Nobody matches Fed's variety, but Djokovic having less variety than Nadal? Not buying that.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top