Big 3 - most complete players in history?

[tonylg]

No, I'm not for a moment suggesting that Roger, Novak and Rafa are the most complete players in history. But, who are?

Not the GOATs, not the most slams, but who have been the most complete players in the history of tennis? The ones who possess every stroke:

Great serve, solid off both sides (with some weapons), good net game (not just volleys to finish points), dependable overhead, good mover (defensive and offensive), plus some flair and creativity.

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Borg

Yes, I've left some amazing players out (Sampras is the obvious one) .. as you must if you narrow it down to 3.

 

[skaj]

I am thinking Sampras, but he was not as good on clay so that's why I would perhaps give the edge to Federer.
Henin is another contender. Although her serve was not great, it was a weapon at one point, sort of. Everything else she had - forehand, backhand, net game, both offensive and defensive movement, flair, touch, creativity, mentality..

Borg was primarily a baseliner, and did not have a great serve either, so not him.

Nalbandian should be mentioned(again, his serve was not much).

 

[tonylg]

Borg's second serve was poor. I'd rate his first as similar to Federer in that although not the fastest, he hit his spots over and over.

I'd still rate Laver as number one, but I never saw Hoad play.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Fact is, in the 90s every top player, even no 1s, had some major weakness.

Edberg: crappy forehand.
Becker: slow mover, inconsistent baseline game.
Agassi: average volley, nothing special smash.
Stich: crappy forehand.
Ivanisevic: brainless tactics (OK, not a shot-related weakness).
Chang: weak serve until he got a longer racket.
Sampras: baseline inconsistency.
Courier: no plan B due to a one-dimensional power style.
Rusedski: crappy backhand, awful forehand. (OK, so he's not in the same league as the others here.)

The Big 3 literally have no weaknesses. They can do everything extremely well. You'd need to split hairs to find weaknesses, and they'd be only relatively small weaknesses compared to their very best shots.

Yes, the game has evolved to where more players than ever are more complete.

However, are they better fighters? NextGen has more divas and unprofessional clowns than ever before. Millennials are just not cut out from the same stuff. The right stuff.

 

[tonylg]

The Big 3 literally have no weaknesses. They can do everything extremely well. You'd need to split hairs to find weaknesses, and they'd be only relatively small weaknesses compared to their very best shots.

Yes, the game has evolved to where more players than ever are more complete.

I was agreeing with you, until this point.

The game has devolved to where most players don't really have a net game. I'm not talking about the ability to put away a shoulder high volley at the end of a 30 shot rally, but an Edberg/Becker/Stich/Sampras/Rafter/Cash/McEnroe/etc NET GAME.

As for the current big three, I'd say one has a good net game, one competent and one incompetent (with one of the worst overheads in history).

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I was agreeing with you, until this point.

The game has devolved to where most players don't really have a net game. I'm not talking about the ability to put away a shoulder high volley at the end of a 30 shot rally, but an Edberg/Becker/Stich/Sampras/Rafter/Cash/McEnroe/etc NET GAME.

As for the current big three, I'd say one has a good net game, one competent and one incompetent (with one of the worst overheads in history).

It's much easier to have a great volley when the ball is coming closer to you (because precision is lower with older rackets) and slower. Surely you've heard many experts tell you that the net game is less common because the ball is so damn quick and more precise?

I'd like to see Becker and Stich now. They'd be forced to stay back a lot more.

As for Novak having a weak net game... Disney World fantasy tales.

RF has a sublime net game, one of the best ever, not merely good as you suggest, Rafa's touch is awesome, and Novak is a very good net player too.

 

[The Blond Blur]

I love Borg, but the guy's hard court resume leaves a lot to be desired. For all the flack Nadal gets for his supposed lack of success on hard, Borg has like 7 titles total on the surface.

 

[tonylg]

Borg would have LOVED the current slow, high bouncing hard courts .. let alone modern racquets and strings. He was well known for his dislike of playing under lights though.

As for the idea that the Djokovic net game can even be compared to Edberg, Sampras, Cash, McEnroe and dozens of others .. I can only laugh.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Borg would have LOVED the current slow, high bouncing hard courts .. let alone modern racquets and strings. He was well known for his dislike of playing under lights though.

As for the idea that the Djokovic net game can even be compared to Edberg, Sampras, Cash, McEnroe and dozens of others .. I can only laugh.

Joker is an average to below average at best net player for sure. Any way, Bjorn is often cited as the best adapter to different playing conditions, but he couldn't manage 1 USO title...even when it was played on clay It's true that today's courts are more homogenized, but it's blown way out of proportion. Just look at Thiem, he made back to back RG finals and then goes out in the 1st round at Wimby 2 years in a row. And while Edberg, Sampras, Cash, and JMac are better volleyers, The Big 3's ground games make theirs look equally laughable.

 

[DSH]

Aesthetically, Federer is clearly the one who takes all the applause. There is no point of discussion about it.
But happily, this is sport and so everything is equated.

 

[Azure]

Federer, most complete game. He is good (not great but the best of the last two decades) at the net, great (was greater when younger) at the baseline, great offense to defense and again defense to offense, great touch. Overall the most well rounded player. No glaring weaknesses on any shot. I will have him at the top.

 

[skaj]

Fact is, in the 90s every top player, even no 1s, had some major weakness.

Edberg: crappy forehand.
Becker: slow mover, inconsistent baseline game.
Agassi: average volley, nothing special smash.
Stich: crappy forehand.
Ivanisevic: brainless tactics (OK, not a shot-related weakness).
Chang: weak serve until he got a longer racket.
Sampras: baseline inconsistency.
Courier: no plan B due to a one-dimensional power style.
Rusedski: crappy backhand, awful forehand. (OK, so he's not in the same league as the others here.)

The Big 3 literally have no weaknesses. They can do everything extremely well. You'd need to split hairs to find weaknesses, and they'd be only relatively small weaknesses compared to their very best shots.

Yes, the game has evolved to where more players than ever are more complete.

However, are they better fighters? NextGen has more divas and unprofessional clowns than ever before. Millennials are just not cut out from the same stuff. The right stuff.

Federer - erratic backhand.
Djokovic - weak net game, poor overhead.
Nadal - mediocre backhand, not much of a serve.

 

[skaj]

Federer, most complete game. He is good (not great but the best of the last two decades) at the net, great (was greater when younger) at the baseline, great offense to defense and again defense to offense, great touch. Overall the most well rounded player. No glaring weaknesses on any shot. I will have him at the top.

I too would probably pick him, at least among men, but the best at the net of the last two decades is a bit exaggerated(Llodra, Stepanek, Gasquet...). Also his backhand is an obvious weakness, because of its inconsistency(top spin I mean, the slice is peRFection).

 

[skaj]

Aesthetically, Federer is clearly the one who takes all the applause. There is no point of discussion about it.
But happily, this is sport and so everything is equated.

There are/were plenty of players with the game as pleasing aesthetically(Rosewall, Okker, Mecir, Pioline...)...

 

[Red Rick]

100%

unequivocally

Yes.

 

[PDJ]

Borg's second serve was poor. I'd rate his first as similar to Federer in that although not the fastest, he hit his spots over and over.

I'd still rate Laver as number one, but I never saw Hoad play.

From what I've been told from friends and family of his generation: Lew Hoad.
Funnily enough I'm going to his tennis club in Spain next week and hoping I'll get to play with his widow, Jenny, again. Still an amazing player. And very funny!
@Dan Lobb

 

[Wrecker]

Sad to see no one has mentioned the real complete player - MURYGOAT

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Federer - erratic backhand.
Djokovic - weak net game, poor overhead.
Nadal - mediocre backhand, not much of a serve.

In which parallel world is this?

I'd love to visit that place. So I could teach all three some tennis, since they evidently aren't very good at it there.

 

[skaj]

In which parallel world is this?

I'd love to visit that place. So I could teach all three some tennis, since they evidently aren't very good at it there.

In a parallel world to the one you live in maybe, it's called the real world - I have only reminded of their weaknesses, the weaknesses everyone who follows tennis is well aware of. They have one maximum two each, that means they are not good at tennis? Very strange post you have written...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

In a parallel world to the one you live in maybe, it's called the real world - I have only reminded of their weaknesses, the weaknesses everyone who follows tennis is well aware of. They have one maximum two each, that means they are not good at tennis? Very strange post you have written...

You posted, and I quote:

Novak - WEAK NETGAME
Rafa - MEDIOCRE BACKHAND.

You might wanna delete that before more users read that bizarre stuff.

 

[skaj]

You posted, and I quote:

Novak - WEAK NETGAME
Rafa - MEDIOCRE BACKHAND.

You might wanna delete that before more users read that bizarre stuff.

Other users have said the same of Novak's net game, it is well known... and Nadal's backhand was never one of the better backhands, nor a major weapon(except maybe in your world...).

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Other users have said the same of Novak's net game, it is well known... and Nadal's backhand was never one of the better backhands, nor a major weapon(except maybe in your world...).

Nadal's BH is awesome, at least in my universe.

Your universe is very different, I really need to visit it.

It's amazing that you'd actually argue that Rafa won 12 FOs on the baseline with just the forehand.

That is astounding.

 

[skaj]

Nadal's BH is awesome, at least in my universe.

Your universe is very different, I really need to visit it.

It's amazing that you'd actually argue that Rafa won 12 FOs on the baseline with just the forehand.

That is astounding.

You should come visit the real world sometimes, it's not that bad and Rafa is a great player here too. Only in the real world I do not argue that he had won 12 RG titles with just the forehand, but with the backhand too. Not a great backhand, pretty average for a top player but he has it.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You should come visit the real world sometimes, it's not that bad and Rafa is a great player here too. Only in the real world I do not argue that he had won 12 RG titles with just the forehand, but with the backhand too. Not a great backhand, pretty average for a top player but he has it.

So he dominates the most baseline slam for twelve years... with an average/mediocre BH.

That's what you're saying?

 

[skaj]

So he dominates the most baseline slam for twelve years... with an average/mediocre BH.

That's what you're saying?

No, he dominates it with an incredible high bounce forehand, fantastic baseline movement, great stamina and iron will.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

No, he dominates it with an incredible high bounce forehand, fantastic baseline movement, great stamina and iron will.

Yet he somehow manages to circumvent playing his "horrible" BH, a shot which he uses roughly on 50% of all baseline shots. Yet, despite the 50% (or even 30%) of playing BHs, he manages to win 12 FOs in triumphant style.

Simply because of his will, because he wants it.

I want the FO too. Can't win it though.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Other users have said the same of Novak's net game, it is well known... and Nadal's backhand was never one of the better backhands, nor a major weapon(except maybe in your world...).

Novak won FIVE Wimbledons... with a "weak net game".

That's a first.

 

[skaj]

Yet he somehow manages to circumvent playing his "horrible" BH, a shot which he uses roughly on 50% of all baseline shots. Yet, despite the 50% (or even 30%) of playing BHs, he manages to win 12 FOs in triumphant style.

Simply because of his will, because he wants it.

I want the FO too. Can't win it though.

In which parallel world is his backhand horrible, who are you quoting there? I know that in your world it is "awesome".
He is looking for his forehand whenever he can(this should not be new to anyone who follows tennis), because his backhand is - not much of a weapon.

He won 12 RG titles simply because of his will? Who said that?

 

[skaj]

Novak won FIVE Wimbledons... with a "weak net game".

That's a first.

Serena won even more with the same. In modern tennis you don't need to have a great net game to win Wimbledon many times. Even in the past, you did not have to have much of a net game to win it that many times, look at Borg.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Serena won even more with the same. In modern tennis you don't need to have a great net game to win Wimbledon many times. Even in the past, you did not have to have much of a net game to win it that many times, look at Borg.

Comparing women's and men's tennis shows me that you are not yet equipped with enough understanding of tennis to post with such confidence.

Obviously MANY WTA players won in Wimby without a net game. That's normal - on the WTA. The WTA barely had any great volleyers even when s/v was more common.

 

[skaj]

Comparing women's and men's tennis shows me that you are not yet equipped with enough understanding of tennis to post with such confidence.

Obviously MANY WTA players won in Wimby without a net game. That's normal - on the WTA. The WTA barely had any great volleyers even when s/v was more common.

You trying to disqualify my as a poster, shows me that you are running out of (your bad)arguments. Comparing men's and women's tennis is possible, depending on what you are comparing, so thinking that it isn't shows a lack of understanding of tennis actually(and a lack of logic dare I say). Here I wasn't really comparing anything in particular, I was talking about modern tennis in general. What I have said applies on both men and women, I just pointed that out.

And I gave you an example of a man who won exactly the same number of Wimbledon titles, and not even in the modern era, who also did not have much of a net game(especially for that time). And Djokovic certainly did not win Wimbledon thanks to his volleys.

Btw not many WTA players have won in Wimbledon without a net game before Djokovic started winning there. And there were plenty of great WTA volleyers when serve and volley was more common, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Novotna, King...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You trying to disqualify my as a poster, shows me that you are running out of (your bad)arguments. Comparing men's and women's tennis is possible, depending on what you are comparing, so thinking that it isn't shows a lack of understanding of tennis actually(and a lack of logic dare I say). Here I wasn't really comparing anything in particular, I was talking about modern tennis in general. What I have said applies on both men and women, I just pointed that out.

And I gave you an example of a man who won exactly the same number of Wimbledon titles, and not even in the modern era, who also did not have much of a net game(especially for that time). And Djokovic certainly did not win Wimbledon thanks to his volleys.

Btw not many WTA players have won in Wimbledon without a net game before Djokovic started winning there. And there were plenty of great WTA volleyers when serve and volley was more common, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Novotna, King...

It is widely known - as in fact not opinion - that the WTA never had nearly the level or quantity of top-notch volleyers that the men's game has had over the decades. Back in the 80s and 90s the men's game had a number of awesome volleyers whereas the women's game had just a handful. Even during that slower-paced era of tennis there were many more baseline bunnies on the WTA than the ATP. Women had always struggled more to attack the net than men, this is just a fact.

Hence you cannot use the success of a weak net player on the WTA to make a point about the ATP.

Apples and oranges.

 

[skaj]

It is widely known - as in fact not opinion - that the WTA never had nearly the level or quantity of top-notch volleyers that the men's game has had over the decades. Back in the 80s and 90s the men's game had a number of awesome volleyers whereas the women's game had just a handful. Even during that slower-paced era of tennis there were many more baseline bunnies on the WTA than the ATP. Women had always struggled more to attack the net than men, this is just a fact.

Hence you cannot use the success of a weak net player on the WTA to make a point about the ATP.

Apples and oranges.

Nobody said that women had the level(on average)/quantity of the top notch volleyers on the men's side, I don't know why are you commenting on that in the reply to my post.

And again I wasn't making a point about the ATP, I have mentioned the women merely to help you understand what I am talking about. I made the point with the other parts of my posts.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Women had always struggled more to attack the net than men, this is just a fact

These two ladies say hello. Both served and volleyed on nearly every serve and came to net at will.

 

[mental midget]

whoever said becker and stich, good calls. also, height aside, hewitt and rios could do everything quite well.

kolschreiber is a very complete player lower down the rankings. dan evans as well.

 

[Dan Lobb]

From what I've been told from friends and family of his generation: Lew Hoad.
Funnily enough I'm going to his tennis club in Spain next week and hoping I'll get to play with his widow, Jenny, again. Still an amazing player. And very funny!
@Dan Lobb

Enjoy...and tell us what happened.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Novak won FIVE Wimbledons... with a "weak net game".

That's a first.

Yes, a first....despite an inadequate net game (I gave up waiting for him to come to net recently), he wins five W's because of this weak era...

 

[NoleFam]

Other users have said the same of Novak's net game, it is well known... and Nadal's backhand was never one of the better backhands, nor a major weapon(except maybe in your world...).

Just because others have said it, doesn't make it true. Djokovic was exceptional at the net this past Wimbledon, maybe one of his best performances at net in any of his GS titles. He approached the net 230 times and won 170 of those points, or 73%. That is very good and a huge reason why he won Wimbledon, because his ground game was suspect at times. Maybe they used to could say his net game was weak but it is far from it now.

Also, Nadal has a very solid and consistent backhand. It is definitely not a weakness.

 

[droliver]

Not the GOATs, not the most slams, but who have been the most complete players in the history of tennis? The ones who possess every stroke:

That is the wrong way to look at "complete-ness" for tennis. A complete player is one can excel on both offense and defense in the macro sense, rather then some break down of strokes and shots which vary in importance by era and surface. This is really what separates the current Big 3 from almost everyone who's ever played the game. They are such good movers, transition players, and can dictate balls play it's pretty clear they're the most complete players ever.

 

[droliver]

Yes, a first....despite an inadequate net game (I gave up waiting for him to come to net recently), he wins five W's because of this weak era...

He has 5 W's because he's the best defender and returner in the history of the sport. Even average servers hold 8-9 times out of ten on grass. Novak gets more looks to break on grass then pretty much anyone else

 

[captainbryce]

Every player has an obvious weakness:

Federer: Backhand
Nasal: Serve
Djokovic: Net Game/Overhead
Murray: Second Serve
Wawrinka: Return
Safin: Mental
Hewitt: Power
Roddick: Net Game/Backhand
Kuerten: Hard/Grass Game
Sampras: Claycourt Game
Agassi: Volley
Becker: Ground Game
Edberg: Forehand
Rafter: Serve
Ivanisevic: Mental
Courier: Backhand
Chang: Serve
Borg: Hardcourt Game
Conners: Serve
McEnroe: Ground Game

*I never actually watched an Ivan Lendl or Mats Wilander match, so I can’t comment on any weaknesses they might have. But I have never seen a player with no weaknesses. Safin is about the closest I’ve seen, but while he seemed to be technically very good at everything, he wasn’t really spectacular at anything. Backhand maybe?

 

[NoleFam]

That is the wrong way to look at "complete-ness" for tennis. A complete player is one can excel on both offense and defense in the macro sense, rather then some break down of strokes and shots which vary in importance by era and surface. This is really what separates the current Big 3 from almost everyone who's ever played the game. They are such good movers, transition players, and can dictate balls play it's pretty clear they're the most complete players ever.

I would go even further and say the most complete player is one without an exploitable weakness. That's what complete means to me. What does it matter if you have every stroke in the game but you have a shot that breaks down under pressure or you have a stroke that players can exploit to get easy errors and loose shots? That defeats the purpose of being complete in my eyes.

 

[USO19]

I too would probably pick him, at least among men, but the best at the net of the last two decades is a bit exaggerated(Llodra, Stepanek, Gasquet...). Also his backhand is an obvious weakness, because of its inconsistency(top spin I mean, the slice is peRFection).

Gasquet at the net...better than Federer (who himself noted that Gasquet was not a great volleyer after beating him in 2013)...LOLOLOLOL!

Utterly bizarre tennis opinions.

 

[skaj]

Just because others have said it, doesn't make it true. Djokovic was exceptional at the net this past Wimbledon, maybe one of his best performances at net in any of his GS titles. He approached the net 230 times and won 170 of those points, or 73%. That is very good and a huge reason why he won Wimbledon, because his ground game was suspect at times. Maybe they used to could say his net game was weak but it is far from it now.

Also, Nadal has a very solid and consistent backhand. It is definitely not a weakness.

You didn't pay attention what I was replying to. The poster was expressing his shock with my saying that Djokovic doesn't have much of a net game, so I pointed out that in this very forum many people have said the same and that there is nothing uncommon about my opinion. Also in this very forum, if I remember well, some posters have already explained the difference between putting out the volley and having a good net game.

And Nadal's backhand I did not say is a weakness, just not much of a weapon.

 

[skaj]

Gasquet at the net...better than Federer (who himself noted that Gasquet was not a great volleyer after beating him in 2013)...LOLOLOLOL!

Utterly bizarre tennis opinions.

Noting bizarre about it, you've just got my post wrong for some reason. I have never said that Gasquet is better at the net than Federer.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg was primarily a baseliner, and did not have a great serve either, so not him.

Borg had a very good serve especially adjusted for the era he played in. He wasn’t just a baseliner either but also won Wimbledon primarily Serve and Volleying.

 

[DSH]

Borg had a very good serve especially adjusted for the era he played in. He wasn’t just a baseliner either but also won Wimbledon primarily Serve and Volleying.

 

[skaj]

Borg had a very good serve especially adjusted for the era he played in. He wasn’t just a baseliner either but also won Wimbledon primarily Serve and Volleying.

Yes, but I wrote not great serve, and primarily baseliner. Which is true. The fact that he served and volleyed more when playing at Wimbledon doesn't mean he was that great at it. He was just adjusting to the surface, making the most out of it, his regular weapons were still winning him the matches.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Yes, a first....despite an inadequate net game (I gave up waiting for him to come to net recently), he wins five W's because of this weak era...

Hell, Novak barely holds the racket! And his FHs are awful. In fact, he won every single point through sheer chance.

Science says the odds of that happening - winning a billion points through luck in a row - is 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%, but hey, what does science know?

 

[thrust]

In which parallel world is this?

I'd love to visit that place. So I could teach all three some tennis, since they evidently aren't very good at it there.

Talk Tennis World! IMO, the most complete ATG players are or were: Pancho Gonzalez, Laver, Federer and probably Nadal. Novak and Rosewall are close, but Novak could use a better overhead, Ken a better serve.