Is Nadal the most COMPLETE player?

[byealmeens]

I never thought I would ever ask this question, as I always felt Federer had the most all-around or "complete" game. However, Federer seems to play more passive these days, particularly on big points. Nadal is serving better, returning better, playing aggressive from the back, coming to net more, still playing great defense, and still displaying excellent touch. Is he the most "complete" player now? I've noticed that even on big points, he now looks to be aggressive enough to take control of the point, particularly on faster surfaces. He also seems to adjust better to each surface and makes changes in his game to suit the court conditions. Federer, Djokovic and Murray seem to struggle with adjustments, and often rely on defense in the big moments. Just curious what others think ....

 

[jones101]

I think another Nadal thread is stupid IMHO, he has been playing a complete game since 2008, and he has ALWAYS forced to issue on big points, or played aggressive defense thats why his BP saved rate has always been so high.

 

[TJfederer16]

he is close to it now, but whereas as soon as fed walked onto a court he was the complete player whereas nadal had to find and add those tools.

 

[MixieP]

I think you also have to take into consideration the winning of matches, which, in my view, is the most important thing in competitive tennis. In order to be a complete player you have to win matches. Technical and tactical skill doesn’t mean very much if you are not winning. At this point Rafa is winning more matches than anyone else, so, by my definition, he is the most complete player.

 

[pjonesy]

I never thought I would ever ask this question, as I always felt Federer had the most all-around or "complete" game. However, Federer seems to play more passive these days, particularly on big points. Nadal is serving better, returning better, playing aggressive from the back, coming to net more, still playing great defense, and still displaying excellent touch. Is he the most "complete" player now? I've noticed that even on big points, he now looks to be aggressive enough to take control of the point, particularly on faster surfaces. He also seems to adjust better to each surface and makes changes in his game to suit the court conditions. Federer, Djokovic and Murray seem to struggle with adjustments, and often rely on defense in the big moments. Just curious what others think ....

I don't think Nadal is the most complete player, but he is the most effective player on all surfaces. Nadal uses his strengths and hides his weaknesses better than any player in the world. There are still tons of things that he probably does not do well, but we have not seen them over the last 6 months. In other words, he makes you play his game. And it has been virtually impossible for anyone to beat him at his own game.

 

[AM95]

It all depends on what your basing it on...stats or ability.

hes better than he was in 2005..where he couldn't hit a volley and was afraid to come to net. what makes nadal so good is that he's very consistent, and plays high percentage tennis, where as Federer is consistent, but plays high risk tennis.

that being said, IMO Federer is very complete because he has the volleys and the shots, it feels that now late in his career he has trouble choosing his shots (much like he had when he was a junior), which makes it seem like he has become weaker and less complete.

 

[nereis]

A few decades ago, a man came along who could hit topspin off both sides in an era of sliced backhands and win the point however he wanted. That man was Rod Laver. People called him the most complete player. Time would expose his serve as a liability.

Later on, an even more seemingly talented youngster came along and people called him a complete player. That man was John McEnroe. Only a few short years later his poor ground game was exposed by skinny Czech.

A decade after that, a fresh faced teenager faced McEnroe in the semifinals of the US Open and the commentators remarked that the kid could hit any shot in the game with amazing proficiency. That kid would go on to win that tournament. He was Pete Sampras. Modern eyes would see that Sampras was prone to hitting errors and relied overly on his serve.

A little over a decade later, and it was the summer of 2003. A talented Swiss blew away the competition in a dazzling fashion to win Wimbledon. He was, and still is considered to be the most complete player. Now young players have exposed his backhand and his tendency to give short balls.

Now that Nadal is the king of tennis we talk as if he will be the best of all time. In truth, every single man I talked about today was considered the best of all time in their day.

The fact is that the world of tennis always keep moving forward. What was considered complete two decades ago would be considered a glaring weakness.

Give the tour time, and they will find a way to expose Nadal's game. No man is flawless.

 

[sureshs]

A few decades ago, a man came along who could hit topspin off both sides in an era of sliced backhands and win the point however he wanted. That man was Rod Laver. People called him the most complete player. Time would expose his serve as a liability.

Later on, an even more seemingly talented youngster came along and people called him a complete player. That man was John McEnroe. Only a few short years later his poor ground game was exposed by skinny Czech.

A decade after that, a fresh faced teenager faced McEnroe in the semifinals of the US Open and the commentators remarked that the kid could hit any shot in the game with amazing proficiency. That kid would go on to win that tournament. He was Pete Sampras. Modern eyes would see that Sampras was prone to hitting errors and relied overly on his serve.

A little over a decade later, and it was the summer of 2003. A talented Swiss blew away the competition in a dazzling fashion to win Wimbledon. He was, and still is considered to be the most complete player. Now young players have exposed his backhand and his tendency to give short balls.

Now that Nadal is the king of tennis we talk as if he will be the best of all time. In truth, every single man I talked about today was considered the best of all time in their day.

The fact is that the world of tennis always keep moving forward. What was considered complete two decades ago would be considered a glaring weakness.

Give the tour time, and they will find a way to expose Nadal's game. No man is flawless.

None of the people you mentioned have won the Golden Career Slam showing their versatility.

This time we have the real GOAT.

 

[Big Dave]

I think Rafa is the most complete player playing today, while Fed in his absolute prime was the most complete player ever. Nadal still has some holes in his game.

The main one that comes to mind is his inability to handle the big hitters on fast surfaces. go hard to the forehand, get the short ball eventually and kill it. I think he's gotten better and handling it, but still not there.

We'll see if his bigger serve continues to be utilized.... i wonder.

 

[jackson vile]

I wan't to see 1) him a the net more 2) some S&V now that he can put pace on his serve.

 

[byealmeens]

A few decades ago, a man came along who could hit topspin off both sides in an era of sliced backhands and win the point however he wanted. That man was Rod Laver. People called him the most complete player. Time would expose his serve as a liability.

Later on, an even more seemingly talented youngster came along and people called him a complete player. That man was John McEnroe. Only a few short years later his poor ground game was exposed by skinny Czech.

A decade after that, a fresh faced teenager faced McEnroe in the semifinals of the US Open and the commentators remarked that the kid could hit any shot in the game with amazing proficiency. That kid would go on to win that tournament. He was Pete Sampras. Modern eyes would see that Sampras was prone to hitting errors and relied overly on his serve.

A little over a decade later, and it was the summer of 2003. A talented Swiss blew away the competition in a dazzling fashion to win Wimbledon. He was, and still is considered to be the most complete player. Now young players have exposed his backhand and his tendency to give short balls.

Now that Nadal is the king of tennis we talk as if he will be the best of all time. In truth, every single man I talked about today was considered the best of all time in their day.

The fact is that the world of tennis always keep moving forward. What was considered complete two decades ago would be considered a glaring weakness.

Give the tour time, and they will find a way to expose Nadal's game. No man is flawless.

Unlike the players you've mentioned, Nadal has always had "flaws" in his game. At first he had a weak backhand and suspect second serve. Then he developed more power off the backhand wing and later added a slice. But still his second serve was weaker than other top players, so he improved his second serve placement and variety. Even then, he was still defensive, and could be pushed around by taller, bigger hitters. So he improved his aggressiveness off the ground and came to net more to take points before his opponents were able to. But even then, as recent as a few months ago, he was still considered weak on a fast surface (didn't get enough cheap points on his first serve, didn't return big serves well enough, etc.). And now, he has increased his average serve speed almost 15 mph and hits top speeds of around 135. He also uses more compact swings to return big serves and attacks second serves on a regular basis, more so than Federer or Murray (who are often considered better returners). You see, Nadal was NEVER considered complete. I never did, and I certainly would never have predicted he ever would be. Nevertheless he has BECOME complete, through hard work and determination. And in my mind, this achievement and sets him apart from all the others.

 

[bolo]

I never thought I would ever ask this question, as I always felt Federer had the most all-around or "complete" game. However, Federer seems to play more passive these days, particularly on big points. Nadal is serving better, returning better, playing aggressive from the back, coming to net more, still playing great defense, and still displaying excellent touch. Is he the most "complete" player now? I've noticed that even on big points, he now looks to be aggressive enough to take control of the point, particularly on faster surfaces. He also seems to adjust better to each surface and makes changes in his game to suit the court conditions. Federer, Djokovic and Murray seem to struggle with adjustments, and often rely on defense in the big moments. Just curious what others think ....

By far right now. In 2008, it was up in the air, mostly because nadal's backhand was better than fed's-notice the schooling fed. received at the 2008 FO, 2008 wimbledon and 2009 AOs from nadal's backhand-but fed's serve was better than nadal's. He almost beat nadal because of that serve in the 08 final.

But right now as federer slowly falls out of prime, nadal IS THE MOST COMPLETE PLAYER ON THE TOUR.

Bamos!

 

[Talker]

I would say Nadal is the most complete meaning he can put a game together better than anyone else and be successful with it at this point in time.
He isn't even close to what Fed was years ago but Fed has dropped off, someone has to take his place.

 

[bolo]

I would say Nadal is the most complete meaning he can put a game together better than anyone else and be successful with it at this point in time.
He isn't even close to what Fed was years ago but Fed has dropped off, someone has to take his place.

oh really?

 

[West Coast Ace]

Rafa has one great serving tourney (at a place that historically has superlight, fast balls) and you guys are anointing him. Let's see how this new serve holds up under stress. He broke early in the 3rd after Joker made things interesting by taking the 2nd. And his volleys are solid - but he's very good about picking his spots. I don't think his return of serve is nearly what Fed's was in his prime - Rafa is more about getting the points started - Fed would torture weak 2nd serves and hit outright winners or immediately take control of points.

Then we have to see how long he can keep it up. Fed completely dominated for 4 straight yrs, then co-dominated 2. This is Rafa's first real 'above all others' year. Wake me up after he's won 3 out of 4 majors 3 times...

 

[kishnabe]

He will never be complete in the face of the purists and *******s!

 

[Murrayfan31]

Nadal still has problems taking the ball early and attacking serves. Definitely not the complete player that Murray is.

 

[cyrilcanada]

Then we have to see how long he can keep it up. Fed completely dominated for 4 straight yrs, then co-dominated 2. This is Rafa's first real 'above all others' year. Wake me up after he's won 3 out of 4 majors 3 times...

I second this. A year ago the guy had 8 month drought , hardly beating a single top 10 player. His YEC in London was disastrous. As usual in March he got his momentum and rolled both RG and Wimby. Hardly surprise here. Toronto and Cincy were just as bad as Aus Open. However, just as RG09 for Fed, his consistency made him into US Final, passing any top 10 players(besides pathetic Verdo). Pity , Andy got burnout at Cincy and Toronto ( 9 straight matches at daytime at scorching sun). Same to DelPo ( Remember 2,2,2 ?). Then in final he played a winner of mutually annihilating match of Djoko and Fed.

Bottom line: End of Year Championship of best 8 players with Round Robin system would be perfect test for Nadal's completeness. So far he failed this every time miserably : NEVER made in SINGLE final.

 

[nereis]

None of the people you mentioned have won the Golden Career Slam showing their versatility.

This time we have the real GOAT.

I don't really know if you know what you're saying. The holy grail in tennis is THE GRAND SLAM. Not the gold medal. GRAND SLAM. Laver got the grand slam... twice. But that's besides the topic, this is about "completeness" not achievements.

Also, people who say that the past greats didn't develop their games to the extent that Nadal has are myopic. Federer had a famously weak backhand as a junior, and McEnroe can be heard commenting on his improvement in the finals of Wimbledon in 2003.

 

[ashitaka2010]

Rafa has one great serving tourney (at a place that historically has superlight, fast balls) and you guys are anointing him. Let's see how this new serve holds up under stress. He broke early in the 3rd after Joker made things interesting by taking the 2nd. And his volleys are solid - but he's very good about picking his spots. I don't think his return of serve is nearly what Fed's was in his prime - Rafa is more about getting the points started - Fed would torture weak 2nd serves and hit outright winners or immediately take control of points.

Then we have to see how long he can keep it up. Fed completely dominated for 4 straight yrs, then co-dominated 2. This is Rafa's first real 'above all others' year. Wake me up after he's won 3 out of 4 majors 3 times...

Always the insatiable wish to compare them. News flash: not the same game, not the same domination, not the same records.

The bold part is priceless.

 

[byealmeens]

Also, people who say that the past greats didn't develop their games to the extent that Nadal has are myopic. Federer had a famously weak backhand as a junior, and McEnroe can be heard commenting on his improvement in the finals of Wimbledon in 2003.

I agree that many pros have shown improvement throughout their careers - they've had to to be competitive and/or stay at the top of the game. Nadal, however, has made fairly drastic changes in mechanics, technique, and style of play. Roger's backhand certainly improved during his career, but his mechanics and playing style have shown very little change (and the same for McEnroe). Rafa has made changes to his style that go against his instincts and natural ability in order to be less one-dimensional. The players you refer to were never one-dimensional to begin with, so I don't think the comparison is very valid. Furthermore, Nadal has made changes during his prime, something pros rarely do. Federer was stubborn about making adjustments at the height of his career, which is why he lost to Nadal so often even in his prime. Nadal has made the necessary changes to play on all surfaces, when he could have easily relied on his strengths and focused on the slower-court majors. Right now, Nadal is far better than anyone in the world from almost anywhere on the court, and this achievement is a lot more surprising in an Era where Federer, Murray and others (who were deemed more talented) are still playing very competitive tennis

 

[Aggro]

Nadal has made the necessary changes to play on all surfaces, when he could have easily relied on his strengths and focused on the slower-court majors. Right now, Nadal is far better than anyone in the world from almost anywhere on the court, and this achievement is a lot more surprising in an Era where Federer, Murray and others (who were deemed more talented) are still playing very competitive tennis

Sums it up nicely