Is Djokovic the most complete player of all times?

Phoenix1983 said:

That’s no excuse for him though.

It is interesting to me that Borg was near-unbeatable when he played in front of crowds who were respectful and revered him (FO and W), but rather less so in front of raucous New York crowds in the evening.

Click to expand...

Many players complained about the lights in the early years of Flushing Meadow(I remember Navratilova being pretty vocal about how she hated night matches there). I believe they improved them in '85 or '86.

I think its a stretch to say Borg was revered by RG crowds. His style of play was considered pretty boring to the French(they like attacking players or artists). The crowd was on Panatta's side when he beat Borg in '76. There were articles in France after the '78 RG Final(Borg-Vilas) calling that match maybe the low point in the event's history(rallies up to 80 shots in that match!). I think Borotra(or one of the Musketeers) gave Borg the trophy that year and then told the press after that he thought the final was "terrible" tennis.

You should watch the '79 RG Final with Pecci(an attacking player). He was down 2 sets and 5-3 in the third before mounting a comeback to win the set 7-6. The crowd was going nuts for him, chanting his name etc the rest of the match. At some point someone yelled "Allez Borg" and the crowd booed!

Moose Malloy said:

Many players complained about the lights in the early years of Flushing Meadow(I remember Navratilova being pretty vocal about how she hated night matches there). I believe they improved them in '85 or '86.

I think its a stretch to say Borg was revered by RG crowds. His style of play was considered pretty boring to the French(they like attacking players or artists). The crowd was on Panatta's side when he beat Borg in '76. There were articles in France after the '78 RG Final(Borg-Vilas) calling that match maybe the low point in the event's history(rallies up to 80 shots in that match!). I think Borotra(or one of the Musketeers) gave Borg the trophy that year and then told the press after that he thought the final was "terrible" tennis.

You should watch the '79 RG Final with Pecci(an attacking player). He was down 2 sets and 5-3 in the third before mounting a comeback to win the set 7-6. The crowd was going nuts for him, chanting his name etc the rest of the match. At some point someone yelled "Allez Borg" and the crowd booed!

Click to expand...

I appreciate your more detailed knowledge of the history of Roland Garros, and perhaps you have a point about Borg not being revered there throughout his run (although I have watched the 1981 final vs. Lendl and the crowd swarmed onto the court afterwards when Borg won, so I think he was beloved by the end).

My point was more about how Borg couldn't handle the pressure in the 'less civilised' atmosphere of the New York night sessions. The lights issue would have affected everyone equally, I don't think Borg has an excuse there. I just find it a rather odd weakness for a man who was otherwise psychologically impenetrable.

The answer is Borg since he made grand slam finals on all surfaces when surfaces were radically different. While he never won the US Open he made 4 finals and his losses may have been more mental than anything.

Winning 5 Wimbledons and 5 French Opens is a feat I'm not sure we will see ever again even with the court homogenization of the modern era.

Interesting question with no clear answer in my opinion. If you define most complete player by track record of major tournaments won across all surfaces, Federer and Djokovic seem to be the most complete. Nadal’s record is too skewed towards clay and others have not won anywhere close to the same number of major titles.

If you define the most complete player by who has the most flexible playing style and ability to win with all kind of strokes, I would go with Federer in comparison to Djokovic as Roger can grind from the baseline with the best of them, can slice and dice you to death, can servebot on a fast court and is pretty solid at the net. The fact that he was in the Roland Garros semifinal and Wimbledon final at the age of 38 is a testament to his complete game style.

Another way to look at the most complete player is to ask who would I select to play one match to decide If I live or die when the player is at his peak and it will not be known what the surface will be or what the conditions (outdoors, indoors, high-altitude, windy, hot, humid etc.) will be. In that case, I would pick Djokovic over Federer as he has won every big match against him in the last decade including thrice in the Wimbledon final and has beaten him thrice in Grand Slams after being down match points. Djokovic plays his best under pressure and that would be the deciding edge for me. Also, personally I have seen all these GOAT contenders play at Indian Wells for two decades and there is no question in my mind that the highest level of tennis I’ve ever seen was by Djokovic and his wins over Federer in the 2014 and 2015 finals were by playing more offensive tennis from close to the baseline than I‘ve ever seen Federer play. If Federer and Djokovic finished at 20 Slams each, I would pick Djokovic as the GOAT and the BOAT and I would understand that it is a completely subjective opinion, but that’s what I feel from my gut.

TU87 said:

I believe Federer is the most complete player ever. He has every shot in the bag, serve, forehand, backhand, volley. Djokovic is just more consistent from the back of the court than Federer.

Click to expand...

His backhand breaks in longer rallies, but his slice is superb and the rest of his game is excellent so I would always take him over Djoko. Dimitrov also - he serves well, is very solid of both sides, also good at the net, athletic, covers a lot of court, great shot maker, creative, has variety. There were others, for example Sampras, Rios; also Borg and Laver for their era.

Depends on the criteria, of course. Here are the correct picks, limited to the past 45 years or so (read: post-Laver):

Borg - surface versatility
McEnroe - racquet wizardry, which in turn makes him the toughest matchup for the majority
Sampras - all-court genius and peak offense
Federer - shot/skill versatility
Nadal - perhaps the winningest of 'em all (yes, thanks to his huge leg up on clay)
Djokovic - across-the-board reliability

Honorable mention: Connors for being the most dogged, pesky competitor

Having said all that and with the usual caveats about old-timers I think Laver takes the top prize. The most compelling argument I've seen in favor of Rocket, one that on 1st glance might seem like a weakness, is that he doesn't have a single shot/skill that would be a consensus choice as the best in history... and yet he arguably has the most flawless, comprehensive resume ever. That just doesn't happen if the guy fails to clear the all-time top 10-20 in most of the key departments, and he probably checks them off more than any other ATG. In other words, the most complete player ever.

Less likely to have a boogey man but I wouldn't say most complete player in the open era.

Tough ending, but he'll always have the fake Cincinnati and fake Double Golden Masters.

Lew II said:

Won all big events, and 13 of them twice. Beat Federer at Wimbledon, Nadal at Roland Garros.

Is Djokovic the most complete player of all times?

Click to expand...

voted "no" but thinking about yes after DQ . now he has it all .

NonP said:

Depends on the criteria, of course. Here are the correct picks, limited to the past 45 years or so (read: post-Laver):

Borg - surface versatility
McEnroe - racquet wizardry, which in turn makes him the toughest matchup for the majority
Sampras - all-court genius and peak offense
Federer - shot/skill versatility
Nadal - perhaps the winningest of 'em all (yes, thanks to his huge leg up on clay)
Djokovic - across-the-board reliability

Honorable mention: Connors for being the most dogged, pesky competitor

Having said all that and with the usual caveats about old-timers I think Laver takes the top prize. The most compelling argument I've seen in favor of Rocket, one that on 1st glance might seem like a weakness, is that he doesn't have a single shot/skill that would be a consensus choice as the best in history... and yet he arguably has the most flawless, comprehensive resume ever. That just doesn't happen if the guy fails to clear the all-time top 10-20 in most of the key departments, and he probably checks them off more than any other ATG. In other words, the most complete player ever.

Click to expand...

FINALLY someone gets it.

Agree with this list btw

Most complete baseliner, sure. But not the most complete player overall. Fed is a more complete player overall than Djokovic.

None of the Big 3 have a doubles record.

So, no. They're mediocre overall.

The guy can't hit a smash nor play at the net. Next.

Of

MICHELUZZO said:

No player is complete. It's an ongoing process that has no end. And that means not only on court, but off court as well

Click to expand...

I dont think anyone cares about of court...Maybe haters in order to slander Djokovic and his achievements...

Strale said:

Of
I dont think anyone cares about of court...Maybe haters in order to slander Djokovic and his achievements...

Click to expand...

Off court in the context of the sport. Interviews, post match speeches, press releases, etc. I couldn't care less if a player had wheaties for breakfast but I do add their general demeanor onto the scale.