This is tricky. What does complete mean? Having all parts of the game the same? Or having all parts of the game top notch?
I mean one guy can be complete in terms, that he equally sucks in all aspects of the game.
I mean Djokovic is jack of all trades, master of none, compared to other greats. If that is the definition of most complete.
Let's say on a scale from one to ten, Djokovic's forehand, serve,backhand, net game, volleys, foowork is 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8
Fed for example is 10, 9, 7, 9, 7, 10.
Does that really make player Djokovic more complete?
I guess it's how we define things.
Is Rafa not an all-surface player just because he has too many RG titles? This is absurd. So, if Rafa returns a few RG titles, he will be more complete?
So, Fed has to worsen his forehand, footwork and serve a bit to be considered complete?
So, in my definition, Federer is much more complete player than Djokovic. And Djokovic more complete than Murray.