AUSTRALIAN OPEN, Melbourne, ATP GRAND SLAM

[mrzz]

Quality interview from Andy. Btw @britbox, do you happen to have the Berdych post-match interview? Been trying to find it with no luck

Yep, not exactly a Murray fan but quite honest interview.

 

[britbox]

 

[britbox]

Order of Play - Monday:

 

[Carol]

Two weeks ego Mischa was swept by Rafa in Brisbane (6-1 6-1) and today he has beaten #1

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, not to start a shitstorm around here, but watching Roger play this style of tennis perfectly highlights how tennis pundits nowadays are nothing but hot-take seeking band-wagoners. The notion that Novak is a more complete player is laughable. More complete baseliner? Sure. But player? Please. Nobody can play the diverse brand of tennis Roger brings to the table. Most talented player in history by a country mile.

 

[Denis]

Also, not to start a shitstorm around here, but watching Roger play this style of tennis perfectly highlights how tennis pundits nowadays are nothing but hot-take seeking band-wagoners. The notion that Novak is a more complete player is laughable. More complete baseliner? Sure. But player? Please. Nobody can play the diverse brand of tennis Roger brings to the table. Most talented player in history by a country mile.

Lol, 'not to start a shitstorm here' and then re-introduce the GOAT debate through the back door. OK I'll bite. There are obvious weaknesses to Federer's game. He doesn't defend as well as Nadal and Djokovic do, and his backhand is a good shot but nothing close to Djokovic's backhand for example. Now, Djokovic might not be as good at the net and Fed has a better serve overall, but that doesn't mean that Fed is a 'more complete player'. In fact, you introduce different concepts at the end, that of 'most talented player' and 'diversity' which are different things of its own.

 

[Federberg]

^Come on Denis. There's no question that Novak is the more complete baseliner, but all round game? Come on.. the guy can't even smash properly. His volleys are still basic, and there's not a huge amount of variety in his game. What he does he does exceptionally well, but let's not imagine variety where there is none. Rafa has a more all round game than Novak, so does Andy Murray. I don't get why conceding an obvious point is such a big deal for fans. This isn't even close

 

[Denis]

^Come on Denis. There's no question that Novak is the more complete baseliner, but all round game? Come on.. the guy can't even smash properly. His volleys are still basic, and there's not a huge amount of variety in his game. What he does he does exceptionally well, but let's not imagine variety where there is none. Rafa has a more all round game than Novak, so does Andy Murray. I don't get why conceding an obvious point is such a big deal for fans. This isn't even close

That's a bit insulting frankly, and ad hominem.

I think it's pretty obvious. Yes, Fed volleys better, but his backhand is worse. So there you go. How can you say Fed is more complete if he doesn't master one of the most important shots in the game as well as Djokovic.

To be clear: I am not arguing Djokovic is the most complete player. I don't think there is such a thing. For instance, Murray's forehand sucks, so does his second serve, but his lobs are the best in the game.

They all have strengths and weaknesses, but just to single out Novak's netplay and ignore Fed's backhand makes no sense to me.

 

[mrzz]

^ugh. Let´s save the debate for another thread. As Denis hinted, there are different things at stake here - most talented, most complete, whatever. Let´s not discuss while we do not even know what the heck we´re discussing about. Let´s focus on the important fact of the day:

A Nadal fan in the heat of the moment celebrating Federer´s accomplishment.

 

[Federberg]

That's a bit insulting frankly, and ad hominem.

I think it's pretty obvious. Yes, Fed volleys better, but his backhand is worse. So there you go. How can you say Fed is more complete if he doesn't master one of the most important shots in the game as well as Djokovic.

To be clear: I am not arguing Djokovic is the most complete player. I don't think there is such a thing. For instance, Murray's forehand sucks, so does his second serve, but his lobs are the best in the game.

They all have strengths and weaknesses, but just to single out Novak's netplay and ignore Fed's backhand makes no sense to me.

Federer's backhand isn't up to Novak's standard, but frankly whose is? Federer's backhand is a relative weakness, not a weakness. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Novak's volleying is average, and his overhead smash is an outright weakness. There's a difference. Now does that take much away from Novak? Not at all. He is the best baseline player I have ever seen... period.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Lol, 'not to start a shitstorm here' and then re-introduce the GOAT debate through the back door. OK I'll bite. There are obvious weaknesses to Federer's game. He doesn't defend as well as Nadal and Djokovic do, and his backhand is a good shot but nothing close to Djokovic's backhand for example. Now, Djokovic might not be as good at the net and Fed has a better serve overall, but that doesn't mean that Fed is a 'more complete player'. In fact, you introduce different concepts at the end, that of 'most talented player' and 'diversity' which are different things of its own.

Well to be clear I wasn't attempting to reintroduce the GOAT debate. I said Roger was the most talented, not the greatest ever (although I do think he is but that's neither here nor there). And yes, the part where I said he's the most talented is a different debate to most complete so I agree with you there, although I would say that being that talented helps him play with such diversity.

I don't think that diversity is irrelevant when it comes to who's more complete though, as having a diverse game would typically imply you have multiple areas of strengths spread across different aspects of the game.

The backhand and returns are clearly in Novak's favor, but that's why I maintain he's a better and more complete baseliner, rather than all-around player. In today's game, where things are so baseline heavy, it means Novak's weaknesses are much more difficult to exploit. This however, does not mean he's more complete, as the rest of his game isn't nearly as polished as Roger's.

Let's keep in mind that A) Federer in his prime was a phenomenal defender. Obviously not quite at the level of the two guys you mention but his defensive lobs are some of the best I've ever seen and his ability to find his way back into the point is up there with the all time greatest defenders, and B) his backhand, in his prime, was only exploitable by one guy. In fact, there were times where it was unplayable. Nobody would have really called it a weakness but it only paled in comparison due to how out of this world his forehand was (greatest forehand ever by a significant margin).

But where the matter of "completeness" really tips the scales in Roger's favor IMO is the serve (which is again, light years ahead of Novak and Rafa), net game (is there something more hyperbolic than "light years"? Because it would apply here), and all around diversity. Let's not forget, this guy won his first Wimbledon title by being a flat out serve and volley player. He then dominated the tour with his baseline play. That's how complete he is.

 

[brokenshoelace]

A Nadal fan in the heat of the moment celebrating Federer´s accomplishment.

 

[teddytennisfan]

it is strange.

when people say ROGER is the most ''complete player ever" ..

they cite that he is -- better than others -- in what?

exactly? which PART of the game? over-all? probably best ''ever' in putting TOGETHER the different aspects of the game.

tha'ts reasonable enough.

but THEN -- peole also like to diminish a player , in comparison based on this debate of ''most complete ever"

ONCE another playe'rs particular shot or qualities are cited as BETTER than rogers;

NOVAK'S backhand is said to be better -- but that' doesn't seem to count IN THE ARGUMENT about ''most complete ever".

where as -- roger's VOLLEYING is 'better'' THEREFORE THAT quality COUNTS.

rafa's forehand might be even better than roger's -- one on one -- according to current standards -- but THAT doesn't count -- because roger's forehand is the KING of the HALL -- and ''we said so" ...

(incidentally -- if people watch the last 2 Wimbledon finals beween them that rafa won the second of these - his first wimby -- RAFA OUTPLAYED ROGER ON VOLLEYES AND NET PLAY -- go and watch it many times -- SO WHY didn't THAT count for rafa as ''more complete/:?"


this 'roger is the most complete player ever" is ABSOLUTE MYTH.

he may be more FINESSED and smoother in transitioning from one shot to another but that's about as far as calling it ''most complete player ever".

one can't use and take a SINGLE shot or even two in which he is ''better than others" and then use that as a basis to say ''he is more complete'' than his rival -- let alone calling him ''THE most complete EVER"...

while refusing or being reluctant to use any OTHER shot by his rival that are BETTER than roger's in order to deny them an equal claim to being ''as complete as roger" -- even if the main difference is their games are generally more reliant on a different emphasis -- which - in the case of rafa and now novak

just happen to have VERY, very good results against''the most complete ever".

roger is the ''most complete ever" -- people say because he does what '''better'' than novak or rafa or andy -- in what EXACTLY?

coming to the net and volleying?

1) RAFA IS ACTUALLY BETTER than roger at that -- ESPECIALLY when roger starts using it -- and rafa RESPONDS by ALSO using it -- and when really face to face there -- 2-1 RAFA is going to win the hand exchange.

SO MUCH for that argument then
2) rafa or novak or andy are playing mostly from the baseline...

SO WHAT? that's the way the game is played today .

and ROGER WON MOST OF HIS OWN WIMBLEDONS playing 80 percent from the baseline for FEAR of getting passed ..so saying roger is ''most complete based on net play and volleys" means diddly squat because he hasn't been that much better at NET than any of the others in actually winning points or games by far...in other words

HE IS JUST AS MUCH A BASELINER as the rest of them...and HAS BEEN BEATEN at many points at the net by rafa or andy .

IT COLLAPSES the whole suggestion of roger being ''more complete as a player" than his counterparts and colleagues.

and that description is based on sentimental claptrap becuse of the beauty of his strokes -- that's all.

 

[teddytennisfan]

ANDY LOSING -- is an example of a player who has HANDS AS GOOD AS ROGER'S at the net..

and THAT SHOWED ANDY - still SERIOUSLY UNDER-USING THAT TALENT with his hands at the net.

THAT'S WHY , in part -- he LOST. -- and MISHA BEAT HIM to THAT recognition. and consequently broke down andy's mind. and thus his game.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah because one match in which Federer sucked at net (2008 Wimbledon) means Rafa is better at net. Rafa only comes in to put away what he figures to be easy volleys. As a Sampras but you should know the difference between that and a player actively looking to come to net.

 

[teddytennisfan]

Yeah because one match in which Federer sucked at net (2008 Wimbledon) means Rafa is better at net. Rafa only comes in to put away what he figures to be easy volleys. As a Sampras but you should know the difference between that and a player actively looking to come to net.

oh i know that.


nonetheless -- roger got beaten to the punch.

doesn't matter what the 'intent' is.

REPUTATION isn't the same as actuality.

at net -- roger got beat - at the time when he was supposed to be the best ''at the net". by some 'baseliner".

THAT'S what collapses the argument.

in contrast -- but with the same result -- sampras when he was in hisdecline at wimbleodn got 'beat at the net" BY roger -- did that make sampras suddenly ''not the best?"

or roger ''better?" as rafa was over roger at their best days in wimbledon?

my point is -- the argument itself can be twisted any which way. and - imo -- having seen players from the days of mcenroe - to becker and sampras and roger and nadal and djokovic..

along with the changes in the game - the styles or preferences of players..

to single out a particular characteristic of roger that OTHERS in their times DO NOT DO much about -- that is -- regularly , ore or less, INITIATING an attack game towards the net -- does NOT by itself elect roger as more complete than the players who elect baseline game because that is how the game has evolved.

in the days of sampras -- a becker or sampras COULD play the baseline about as well as ''pure baseliners" -- particularly on more 'neutral ground" such as the hardcourts that at least gave them some equal opportunities to showcase their most characteristic features -- and therefore showed

a becker , a sampras, an ivanisevic more or less adept at both back and front.. in contrast to baseliners who were clearly not very adept as much at the net or in initiating it.

they were - in other words - NOT A RARITY so as to show people players who were ''complete"

and NOT because they were the only ones...

in the case of roger -- hardly anyone really did that -- and when ''someone did it' -- it was roger, THUS is born the IDEA of ''most complete ever" or more complete THAN his rivals.

WHEN YOU are a singer able to sing ten notes compared to a choir that sings 9 notes -- you are taken as 'exceptional'' even if the differences are almost nothing really.

 

[Federberg]

oh i know that.


nonetheless -- roger got beaten to the punch.

doesn't matter what the 'intent' is.

REPUTATION isn't the same as actuality.

at net -- roger got beat - at the time when he was supposed to be the best ''at the net". by some 'baseliner".

THAT'S what collapses the argument.

No it doesn't mate. What a ridiculous argument. One match? That's your sample? For goodness sakes. That's like saying because Roger has beaten Rafa once in Hamburg on clay he's a better clay courter. Make some sense!

 

[teddytennisfan]

Yeah because one match in which Federer sucked at net (2008 Wimbledon) means Rafa is better at net. Rafa only comes in to put away what he figures to be easy volleys. As a Sampras but you should know the difference between that and a player actively looking to come to net.

this argument really starts because some people like to suggest that rafa or novak are not ''as complete'' because their emphasis is different in a game where most players are baseliners anyway -- and THAT includes roger.

 

[Federberg]

this argument really starts because some people like to suggest that rafa or novak are not ''as complete'' because their emphasis is different in a game where most players are baseliners anyway -- and THAT includes roger.

This "observation" starts because people use their eyes

 

[teddytennisfan]

No it doesn't mate. What a ridiculous argument. One match? That's your sample? For goodness sakes. That's like saying because Roger has beaten Rafa once in Hamburg on clay he's a better clay courter. Make some sense!

no -- your counter example doesn't work.

rafa challenged roger at grass 3 times -- in finals -- proving rafa was nearly as good as roger on 2 first occasions -- the second of which was a mere few points at the fifht. no different than TWO GRASS PLAYERS ..

ON CLAY -- the supremacy of nadal is legendary over roger. everyone knows that.

therefore the WIN by rafa --
1 out of 3 in wimbledon is a BETTER measurement and argument that rafa was or could be as good as roger was on grass

of ONE HAMBURG on clay by roger over rafa in CLUMPS of defeat on clay..as an argument that roger was or could be as good as rafa on clay.

SINCE people like to use roger as the standard of ''completeness"

then how come he LOST TO RAFA ON ALL SURFACES far , far more often than rafa lost to roger?
and dont' give us this ''rafa won most of them on clay" nonsense

because ROGER'S 2 wins out of 3 on grass could also be used against rogerwinning over rafa on grass. "roger won mostly on grass". TWICE out of 3