GOAT Players and their performances on different surfaces

[steamie]

Hello there, i've been a casual on and off tennis fan for almost a decade now and there's a pivotal question regarding the game that i'm still pondering about.

In relation to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, i have usually taken the stance that the greatest between them is the one that would do better across a wide variety of legitimate competition on a variety of different surfaces.

So bringing fast and slow hard courts, fast and slow grass courts, carpet, and ?fast? and slow clay courts into account, which of these players has shown to have the most "complete" set of skills as defined by their chances to win across all variables and why?

Also, how would you define a clay court or all these courts for that matter in terms of their variables and materials? For example, are clay courts the ultimate meter of greatness for baseliners or are there other factors that make other hard courts better to define that? What are the factors that affect play? Because of his success on clay is Nadal the best baseline player ever? If Djokovic managed to have memorable success against a fit Nadal in 2011 and 2012 slams, why hasnt Djokovic managed the same success against Nadal at the French ? Do you get my line of questioning here?

As for this definition of greatness that i have posited, would prime Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal be the greatest in that specific order?

What's your opinion?


Thanks.

 

[HuusHould]

The question posed is beyond your average talk tennis user, please ask a simpler question.

 

[timnz]

Hello there, i've been a casual on and off tennis fan for almost a decade now and there's a pivotal question regarding the game that i'm still pondering about.

In relation to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, i have usually taken the stance that the greatest between them is the one that would do better across a wide variety of legitimate competition on a variety of different surfaces.

So bringing fast and slow hard courts, fast and slow grass courts, carpet, and ?fast? and slow clay courts into account, which of these players has shown to have the most "complete" set of skills as defined by their chances to win across all variables and why?

Also, how would you define a clay court or all these courts for that matter in terms of their variables and materials? For example, are clay courts the ultimate meter of greatness for baseliners or are there other factors that make other hard courts better to define that? What are the factors that affect play? Because of his success on clay is Nadal the best baseline player ever? If Djokovic managed to have memorable success against a fit Nadal in 2011 and 2012 slams, why hasnt Djokovic managed the same success against Nadal at the French ? Do you get my line of questioning here?

As for this definition of greatness that i have posited, would prime Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal be the greatest in that specific order?

What's your opinion?


Thanks.

Federer, Agassi and Borg have shown the greatest breath that in handling different surfaces and conditions that I have been in over 40 years of following tennis. Nadal's talent on slow high bouncing courts is incredibly high but his level isn't anywhere comparable if you were to put him in an indoor low bouncing hard court environment Federer is his weakest conditions ie clay was the number 2 guy on that surface for 1/2 a decade

 

[metsman]

Borg has easily demonstrated the best adaptability. Federer too, the two of them clearly stand out in this regard. Agassi to a lesser extent.