Who is more talented: Novak Djokovic or Michaël Llodra?

legendkillar wrote: Rafter had a 350G racquet!! Essentially it points to the fact that having a heavier frame requires more touch from the player. Take Federer. His 90in racquet weighs 305G I think, that is quite heavy for such a small racquet. Murray has a 330G racquet. Nadal used to use a 295G racquet and Djokovic is 312G. Even these little details tell us something

IIRC, Sampras had a St Vincent ProStaff 6.0 85 at 357 gms with lead tape to make it 380+ gms.

Nadal did add some weight to his racquet, correct?

laverfan wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:... who do you think is more talented out of Karlovic and Nadal?

You are expecting a answer.... .

Of course it is Karlovic, he plays with an SHBH which is the best measure of talent. He has also beaten Federer on a fast Cincy 2008 court (ah I forgot about the GF/mono ).

Karlovic has never beaten Nadal, including the Queens 'fast' grass in 2008, the same year Nadal won W. But still Karlovic has more talent because he can still play with 11 (or 9) foot faults.

Did Tenez tell you that by PM?
Sounds like something he would say.

LK, what do you think?
I know it is a bit different to compare players from different generations, but it can be done.
For example I can say Federer has more talent than Wilander, even though Federer is from another generation.
Who do you think is more talented out of Nadal and Karlovic? It's question that's been very much on my mind recently.

Karlovic has a SHBH, a very aggressive gamestyle, he hasn't got great stamina, and on average hits more aces than Nadal. So I'm edging towards Ivo.

To be honest I haven't rated Karlovic as a good all round player. This is a guy with mixed highs and lows, has had massive flutuations in his ranking. A guy who can turn it on when he shows and just blast players off the court or he is someone who if the serve is not working sinks like a stone in matches against players with decent groundstrokes.

Not sure it is comparable to really compare Nadal and Karlovic.

legendkillar wrote:To be honest I haven't rated Karlovic as a good all round player. This is a guy with mixed highs and lows, has had massive flutuations in his ranking. A guy who can turn it on when he shows and just blast players off the court or he is someone who if the serve is not working sinks like a stone in matches against players with decent groundstrokes.

Not sure it is comparable to really compare Nadal and Karlovic.

I agree they have different gamestyles, so it's difficult to make a direct comparison.
But if you read the comments here, you will find that if a gamestyle takes 'more talent' than another one, two players having polar gamestyles actually makes it easier to judge who is more talented.

Amritia3ee wrote:Did Tenez tell you that by PM? Sounds like something he would say.

I have been assimilated into the tribe.

laverfan wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Did Tenez tell you that by PM? Sounds like something he would say.

I have been assimilated into the tribe.

Tell me LF, who is in this tribe?

legendkillar wrote:To be honest I haven't rated Karlovic as a good all round player. This is a guy with mixed highs and lows, has had massive flutuations in his ranking. A guy who can turn it on when he shows and just blast players off the court or he is someone who if the serve is not working sinks like a stone in matches against players with decent groundstrokes.

Not sure it is comparable to really compare Nadal and Karlovic.

For me, the more all-court game a player has, the more talented he is.
There are talented players who prefer to sit on the base-line as today's playing conditions allow them as a safer and easier option.

They degrade the game of tennis and reduce it to table-tennis on a larger scale.

Karlovic
does really well for himself to play the way he does as his movement
due to his size really lets him down. If he had Nadal's athletic ability
he certainly would not be moon-balling from the baseline

Hand to eye coordination isn't everything but I still hold it as the main talent for any racquet sports incl. tennis. Then come athleticism (not fitness) which enable movement, and IQ, i.e. anticipation.
These talents would shine in any era and they still do.

However, as the playing conditions have slowed down the balance of those has changed and athleticism enhanced with aerobic endurance (read fitness) are now leading the trend transforming the original, beautiful all-court game to monotonous baseline rallying that is (for me, at least) only bearable to watch when a non base-liner is on the other side of the net.

Why do you support Djokovic then?
He sticks the baseline, he only S&V 4 times during the whole USO.
Volleying is by far the weakest aspect of his game, and his baseline play can be very robotic at times.
I hate to say this, but when you do criticise modern tennis (which you have every right to do, you are entitled to your own opinion), it sounds like you just hate everything about Djokovic. Top 5 in the world stamina wise, can't volley, is a baseliner, and has a DHBH (you said you much prefer SHBH).

As for me, I dont agree with your views at all. I love baseline duels, but I also think that more variety would be good, a contrast in styles. Nadals game is far more unorthodox than Djokovic, and like me many find it thrilling (hence why he is so popular). Federer is very popular too, and 1% ahead (of Nadal) in the Facebook fan count!

Amritia3ee wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Did Tenez tell you that by PM? Sounds like something he would say.

I have been assimilated into the tribe.

Tell me LF, who is in this tribe?

I will let you have three guesses.

legendkillar wrote:[q think before we declare war on todays players who train themselves to be quick and fit, aren't they just products of their environment? Take Murray. The quest for greater fitness has come at a cost to his variation he had in his early days. I would say we have hit a wall in terms of the game and this generation has gotten good as it is ever going to get, but what advances lie ahead that will improve the game? Strings have made a massive difference. Put a wooden racquet in Djokovic's hand and Llodra's on today's court and Djokovic would acclimatise much easier. 80's/90's courts? Llodra.

Djoko could beat Llodra on many surfaces and conditions cause Djoko is more determined and willing, ready to make more sacrifice, etc....but nonetheless I see Llodra as a more natural talent and I am pretty sure that in 1990s conds on grass he would have had the better of Djokovic.

If Edberg and Becker were to comeback today, they woudl be completely useless....yet no-one disputes their talent. Llodra is no different.

Tenez wrote:nonetheless I see Llodra as a more natural talent

Interesting, who do you think is a more 'natural talent' out of Karlovic and Nadal?

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:nonetheless I see Llodra as a more natural talent

Interesting, who do you think is a more 'natural talent' out of Karlovic and Nadal?

Stick them on the grass court with wooden racquets and you'll find out. You can make that suggestion on Nadal's Facebook page. He loves natural surfaces, and may choose to start preferring natural strings, too.
The only problem would be the low bounce.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:nonetheless I see Llodra as a more natural talent

Interesting, who do you think is a more 'natural talent' out of Karlovic and Nadal?

Stick them on the grass court with wooden racquets and you'll find out.

I just sent a PM to Laverfan on why Karlovic is more talented, I quoted that even before you wrote it

Why wooden?

noleisthebest wrote:[You can make that suggestion on Nadal's Facebook page. He loves natural surfaces, and may choose to start preferring natural strings, too.
The only problem would be the low bounce.

How do strings affect the bounce? As for 'natural surfaces', they can have low or high bounce, so don't get what you mean there.



You haven't answered my question at 8:17 yesterday btw

Stop trying to be clever Amri, it doesn't suit you that great.

noleisthebest wrote:Stop trying to be clever Amri, it doesn't suit you that great.

lol same to you NITB, same to you



Any answers to my questions or are they 'too clever' for you?

I think the argument has run it's course Amri.

Posters have posted the different variables to support that the answers can fall in both players favour.

I think it is best to leave the argument as it is. I think it has generated positive feedback in the answers.

legendkillar wrote:I think the argument has run it's course Amri.

Posters have posted the different variables to support that the answers can fall in both players favour.

I think it is best to leave the argument as it is. I think it has generated positive feedback in the answers.

Kool LK
Didn't get an answer to Nadal Karlovic, don't think I'm cut out to be Paxman lol

Will start this topic on v2.

Tenez wrote:If Edberg and Becker were to comeback today, they woudl be completely useless....yet no-one disputes their talent. Llodra is no different.

A good player may not be able adapt, but a great player does. Blue Clay roller-blading, anyone!

Me and Laverfan have been in deep and detailed discussions on PM, on the matter of who is more talented out of Nadal and Karlovic. Try as we did, we couldn't find a definitive answer, so at the end I came up with a 'talent formula' then applied it to Nadal vs Karlovic.

Here were the results:

I have thought of a fantastic talent formula to discover who is more talented out of two people.
I will use it for Karlovic vs Nadal

-Is he SHBH? SHBH takes much more talent than DHBH. Karlovic is SHBH, so hence more talented.

1-0 to Karlovic

-Does he have good stamina. As this is inversely proportional to talent, we can draw conclusions. Karlovic does not have much stamina.

2-0 to Karlovic

-Does he play aggressive tennis? Aggressive tennis always takes more talent then defensive tennis, irrelevant of how good you are.

3-0 to Karlovic

-Would he play better with wooden rackets? I think Karlovic would play better with a wooden racket. I have absolutely no proof of this though.

4-0 to Karlovic

-(5th category only needed in desperate times)

-Would he have beaten him in the year ****. The year **** was the best year for measuring tennis talent, as the conditions were perfect for the player I'm trying to prop up that year the conditions reflected true talent.

5-0 Karlovic



Game Set Match Dr.Ivo

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:If Edberg and Becker were to comeback today, they woudl be completely useless....yet no-one disputes their talent. Llodra is no different.

A good player may not be able adapt, but a great player does. Blue Clay roller-blading, anyone!

Edberg and Becker's strength was to Serve and volley and though they were good at it, we cannot ask them to be good at rallying as well. And should they be good at rallying I cannot how they woudl be better than Monaco or Ferrer who have been BL rallying all their lives.

A successful style makes a name, but a name cannot make a style.

It means Bolt's running skills can make him the most successful short distance runner, His name however wont give him an automatic podium in the marathon.

Amritia3ee wrote:Me and Laverfan have been in deep and detailed discussions on PM, on the matter of who is more talented out of Nadal and Karlovic. Try as we did, we couldn't find a definitive answer, so at the end I came up with a 'talent formula' then applied it to Nadal vs Karlovic.

Amri, PMs are PRIVATE messages

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Me and Laverfan have been in deep and detailed discussions on PM, on the matter of who is more talented out of Nadal and Karlovic. Try as we did, we couldn't find a definitive answer, so at the end I came up with a 'talent formula' then applied it to Nadal vs Karlovic.

Amri, PMs are PRIVATE messages

Yes I know

Laverfan told me to post my findings on here, and I agreed with him.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Laverfan told me to post my findings on here, and I agreed with him.

Him? Please tell me it was a lapsus linguae

her* Apologies.

Anyway NITB, did you agree with my conclusion?

Amritia3ee wrote:her* Apologies.

btw, are you a he or a she?

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:her* Apologies.

btw, are you a he or a she?

He.

Amritia3ee wrote:Me and Laverfan have been in deep and detailed discussions on PM, on the matter of who is more talented out of Nadal and Karlovic. Try as we did, we couldn't find a definitive answer, so at the end I came up with a 'talent formula' then applied it to Nadal vs Karlovic.

Here were the results:

I have thought of a fantastic talent formula to discover who is more talented out of two people.
I will use it for Karlovic vs Nadal

-Is he SHBH? SHBH takes much more talent than DHBH. Karlovic is SHBH, so hence more talented.

1-0 to Karlovic

-Does he have good stamina. As this is inversely proportional to talent, we can draw conclusions. Karlovic does not have much stamina.

2-0 to Karlovic

-Does he play aggressive tennis? Aggressive tennis always takes more talent then defensive tennis, irrelevant of how good you are.

3-0 to Karlovic

-Would he play better with wooden rackets? I think Karlovic would play better with a wooden racket. I have absolutely no proof of this though.

4-0 to Karlovic

-(5th category only needed in desperate times)

-Would he have beaten him in the year ****. The year **** was the best year for measuring tennis talent, as the conditions were perfect for the player I'm trying to prop up that year the conditions reflected true talent.

5-0 Karlovic



Game Set Match Dr.Ivo

There you go. You see when you want to take your Nadal's tainted glasses off?

However since tournaments are now essentially won by the last man standing as 10 out of the last 12 slam winners can testify that, Nadal has a much better record than Ivo.

However let's remind ourselves the definition of talent again: "people possessing natural aptitude or skill". Karlo clearly has that natural aptitude to score points easily at tennis. Nadal's points scoring looks anything but easy and innate, in fact he doesn;t even use his "natural" arm, so that prevents him from being ranked in the "talent" scale of players.

And I will leave you to meditate on this saying :

Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius!

Amritia3ee wrote:Anyway NITB, did you agree with my conclusion?

Why does it matter if I or anyone agrees wth your conclusion?

Can't you just be happy with what YOU think....why needing the approval of others?

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Me and Laverfan have been in deep and detailed discussions on PM, on the matter of who is more talented out of Nadal and Karlovic. Try as we did, we couldn't find a definitive answer, so at the end I came up with a 'talent formula' then applied it to Nadal vs Karlovic.

Here were the results:

I have thought of a fantastic talent formula to discover who is more talented out of two people.
I will use it for Karlovic vs Nadal

-Is he SHBH? SHBH takes much more talent than DHBH. Karlovic is SHBH, so hence more talented.

1-0 to Karlovic

-Does he have good stamina. As this is inversely proportional to talent, we can draw conclusions. Karlovic does not have much stamina.

2-0 to Karlovic

-Does he play aggressive tennis? Aggressive tennis always takes more talent then defensive tennis, irrelevant of how good you are.

3-0 to Karlovic

-Would he play better with wooden rackets? I think Karlovic would play better with a wooden racket. I have absolutely no proof of this though.

4-0 to Karlovic

-(5th category only needed in desperate times)

-Would he have beaten him in the year ****. The year **** was the best year for measuring tennis talent, as the conditions were perfect for the player I'm trying to prop up that year the conditions reflected true talent.

5-0 Karlovic



Game Set Match Dr.Ivo

There you go. You see when you want to take your Nadal's tainted glasses off?

btw as I have shown earlier since Nadal played tennis, he played using the left hand has his main hand, using a double handed forehand and backhand. Toni then decided to make it a single-handed forehand, he didn't make Nadal change from RH to LH.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Anyway NITB, did you agree with my conclusion?

Why does it matter if I or anyone agrees wth your conclusion?

Can't you just be happy with what YOU think....why needing the approval of others?

lol

Amri, what was the intention of your OP? Was it to take a subject with the player NITB is a fan of vs. a player Tenez considers really talented but from the wrong tennis time, so that you can somehow stir things up between them? Then you switched to Nadal vs. Dr Ivo as you thought it would show you are open enough to put Nadal in the mix?

I decided not to answer any of those comparison of talent question because of the following reasons:

1- I do not think it is that relevant for professional tennis players as all that matters for them is how many tournaments and hence how much money they make with their job.

2- Players can be talented at various aspects of the tennis game but not all, so it can be quite tough to compare most of the time

3- No matter how you measure it and as he is the only one who managed to combine pure talent on almost all facets of the tennis game while winning most tournaments, especially the really important ones, and making most money amongst all professional tennis players past and present, Federer is the most talented and most successful tennis player. Not only he is the most successful of the most talented one (this one cannot really be argued) but he is also the most talented of the most successful tennis players (could be argued, I guess)

2- Players can be talented at various aspects of the tennis game but not all, so it can be quite tough to compare most of the time

I fully agree with this Sphair.
Things aren't black and white.

sphairistike wrote:Amri, what was the intention of your OP? Was it to take a subject with the player NITB is a fan of vs. a player Tenez considers really talented but from the wrong tennis time, so that you can somehow stir things up between them? Then you switched to Nadal vs. Dr Ivo as you thought it would show you are open enough to put Nadal in the mix?

How on earth did I not realise Amri's trick?

2- Players can be talented at various aspects of the tennis game but not all, so it can be quite tough to compare most of the time

Though I answered Amri's question I can agree with that but tennis remains above all a racquet sport where eye/hand coordination is in my view the most important. And in a way Federer proves that by having the best record thanks to him having the eye/hand coordination of all players I have seen.

However that he was able to deliver that fragile talent in the toughest situation under the biggest pressure only adds to the phenomenon that he is.

lol I would have done a Federer vs Djokovic thread in that case

Amritia3ee wrote:lol I would have done a Federer vs Djokovic thread in that case

Just like Nadal, you just are not gutsy enough Amri

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:lol I would have done a Federer vs Djokovic thread in that case

Just like Nadal, you just are not gutsy enough Amri

I'm more talented than Karlovic though

If a player has talent he/she can be beaten, but if a player has no talent and is just a moonballer especially with legs and lungs, it is much harder to beat such a player.

Tenez wrote:Yes NITB makes a good point but there is also those who are naturally talented at running (pace and stamina), footwork etc...who would prefer contain their opponents weapons untill they lose their edge.

A bit like a mangoose v a Cobra. A cobra's "weapon" is feared by many more species than the mangoose but every animal has weak spot to exploit and the mangoose can absorb the cobra's "talent" and inject some of its own.


Having said that I do not believe we can trust those innate physical talent nowadays cause unless eye/hand coordination and technique, those can really be increase by the pharmaceutical science. Sure science can also increase reflexes and coordination but certainly not to the extend of increase the muscle strength and stamina.

I like this post.

I normally do not get much into the talent debates because I am not particularly bothered whether a player becomes good by natural physical talent or say by perseverance and determination. In fact, everything else being equal, I probably value the former less.

However, this post made a good point. As this post recognizes, talents come in all shapes and various facets of talent have traditionally contributed to make a successful tennis player.

With large amounts of money in many sports, the temptation to win by any means has been greater than ever. We have seen in many sports that many athletes succumb to temptation. As it happens, the endurance and strength aspects appear to be easier to "artificially" enhance than some other aspects. Some sports - like cycling - by their very nature test the aspects that are most prone to "enhancement". While no sport is immune from the risks, tennis is in the relatively luckier position where some of the skills traditionally most important to succeed (e.g., hand-eye coordination) are less prone to artificial enhancements. One would think tennis would be wise to try to focus on testing those skills. Irrespective of what one thinks of the current crop of tennis stars, creating conditions that tend to emphasize physicality seem a dangerous and unnecessary path to follow.

Hand-eye co-ordination can be helped by enhancing drugs:
http://voices.yahoo.com/steroids-improve-hand-eye-coordination-ability-to-5271453.html

Amritia3ee wrote:Hand-eye co-ordination can be helped by enhancing drugs:
http://voices.yahoo.com/steroids-improve-hand-eye-coordination-ability-to-5271453.html

I am not going to get too deep into this debate because in the end I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable to go into the detail but:

1. While I am certainly willing to accept that hand-eye coordination can be helped, I would still be inclined to believe that other aspects can be helped more and more easily.

2. The article you quote talks about hand-eye coordination but baseball is both about strength and hand-eye coordination, and it is actually not clear from the article that it was the hand-eye coordination that was helped most.

Amritia3ee wrote:Hand-eye co-ordination can be helped by enhancing drugs:
http://voices.yahoo.com/steroids-improve-hand-eye-coordination-ability-to-5271453.html

Now I must have definitely heard it all !
Amri, see if you can find drugs for me to improve my service speed and my forehand variation, I'd really be grateful .

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Hand-eye co-ordination can be helped by enhancing drugs:
http://voices.yahoo.com/steroids-improve-hand-eye-coordination-ability-to-5271453.html

Now I must have definitely heard it all !
Amri, see if you can find drugs for me to improve my service speed and my forehand variation, I'd really be grateful .

Service Speed? Yes.
Forehand variation? No, you get a coach for that.

Amritia3ee wrote:
Service Speed? Yes.
Forehand variation? No, you get a coach for that.

I'm glad you agree that drugs can't give you talent. Only brute force.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
Service Speed? Yes.
Forehand variation? No, you get a coach for that.

I'm glad you agree that drugs can't give you talent. Only brute force.

When did I say that?
Did I just not show you a link showing how it can affect hand-eye co-ordination?

Funny, when Nadal get's injured you think it's because he's got a silent ban as he was caught on steroids. This is despite the fact that his style of tennis will cause stress on his knees, so knee injuries are somewhat inevitable.
But when Djokovic suddenly goes from someone who retires mid-matches (AO 2009 etc.) very often, to someone who can play 11 hours in three days- AO 2012- it is because of 'egg chambers' 'no gluten' 'allergy medication' etc.

summerblues wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Hand-eye co-ordination can be helped by enhancing drugs:
http://voices.yahoo.com/steroids-improve-hand-eye-coordination-ability-to-5271453.html

I am not going to get too deep into this debate because in the end I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable to go into the detail but:

1. While I am certainly willing to accept that hand-eye coordination can be helped, I would still be inclined to believe that other aspects can be helped more and more easily.

2. The article you quote talks about hand-eye coordination but baseball is both about strength and hand-eye coordination, and it is actually not clear from the article that it was the hand-eye coordination that was helped most.

Well it was clear that both could be helped- and you can see the title of the article as well.

Amritia3ee wrote:Well it was clear that both could be helped- and you can see the title of the article as well.

I said I was willing to accept that both could be helped (though doubt that in equal measure). However, it was not at all clear to me this was the case from the article you posted. The title of the article claimed so but the data itself? Not so sure.

Do you actually think they can be helped in equal measure? To me it seems fairly clear that say endurance can be helped more easily than hand-eye coordination. Do you have a different view?

summerblues wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Well it was clear that both could be helped- and you can see the title of the article as well.

I said I was willing to accept that both could be helped (though doubt that in equal measure). However, it was not at all clear to me this was the case from the article you posted. The title of the article claimed so but the data itself? Not so sure.

Do you actually think they can be helped in equal measure? To me it seems fairly clear that say endurance can be helped more easily than hand-eye coordination. Do you have a different view?

Well with the resources available, and if the ATP really are so PED-friendly as people claim, I think anything's possible.

Amritia3ee wrote:Well with the resources available, and if the ATP really are so PED-friendly as people claim, I think anything's possible.

Amri, I was asking an honest question. It was not about any "conspiracy", in fact it was not even restricted to tennis only. Surely I deserve a better response than this?