Most versatile player Ever?

Most versatile player?

  • Lendl

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Djokovic

    Votes: 33 25.4%
  • Borg

    Votes: 22 16.9%
  • Federer

    Votes: 52 40.0%
  • Nadal

    Votes: 21 16.2%
  • McEnroe

    Votes: 2 1.5%

  • Total voters
    130

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Davis Cup was held indoors clay - technically we may count it? Definitely Rafa was the most valuable player for Spain.

I suppose. :) He needs all the indoors help he can get. :p

Anyway, it's pretty clear that not all indoor surfaces are the same. Nadal's weakness is indoor HC, it's not indoor clay. He would still utterly dominate RG if it was indoors.
 

ravenousRublev

New User
Let me repeat it again WTF is a big tournament 2nd biggest but isnt close a HC slam is any way. WTF is a secondary comparison when the HC Slam count is equal then other factors are included.
There's no slam on indoor HC so your comparison is a bad one, lol. Or I could just say Federer has 7 slams on clay+indoors while Nadal has 7 on HC and grass so they're equal.

On the other hand, Nadal with 0 WTF wins isn't going to get many votes here.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Rafa overachieved at the USO and Underachieved at the AO. Should of won atleast 3 AO titles. ( AO2012 AO2017) were both close should of won 1 of them and AO2014 he was clearly injured against stan.

USO2017 was underserved. Very easy Draw. Rafa really should of had 3 USO and 3 AO.

I think this is a reasonable take.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Most versatile does not mean, necessarily, the greatest or most successful. Yes, success across surfaces helps, but I think it also has to do with being able to succeed at all aspects of the game.

I'd probably put Roger #1, and I would not put Mac (though a tennis genius) or Lendl (kind of underrated in hindsight) quite with the other three.

Borg is interesting, as he was dominant at RG and Wimby, and I think he had three channel slams. (He, essentially, didn't play AO and came close a handful of times at the US Open.) I'm not quite sure how to rank Borg, Rafa and Novak versatility-wise, though they'd be 2-4.

Write-in Vote for Top 5-7: He was flaky as hell, but had all the shots: Ilie Nastase.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Let me repeat it again WTF is a big tournament 2nd biggest but isnt close a HC slam is any way. WTF is a secondary comparison when the HC Slam count is equal then other factors are included.

Sure, but isn't this thread about versatility? To many people versatility means the ability to win on all surfaces (and in all conditions). So Nadal's lack of a WTF (as you say it's a big tournament) shows an inability to win the biggest tournament that's held every year on an indoor HC.

I would even go as far as to say that that fact disqualifies Nadal from this conversation altogether. For me and many others here. And I don't think I'm even going that far tbh.
 

acintya

Legend
If I take prime Rafa skills combined with his speed from 15 years ago I can put him against any opponent in their prime on any surface.

but if we go with what we have we need to pick Djokovic - following by Nadal. Third is Federer and lets please not talk about the oldies - we cant really compare them to the new world.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal on hard/grass is better than Federer on clay even if you include his indoor resume. Rafa has won 5 slams on hard including 4 USO and 1 AO with 2 Wimbledon titles. Federer also has holes on his clay resume with no rome or monte carlo titles. 14-2 record against rafa isnt a good record.

Djokovic has won all 3 Clay masters twice has atleast 7 wins against rafa. 80% win percentage on clay.
4 of them in 2014-2016. Big whoop. Fed could have won 3 more clay matches against that Nadal too.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
What I find interesting in the 70’s to 90’s is that grass courts at that time were playing very different and it was extremely difficult to win both Wimbledon and RG. You may say it was the same in the 60’s but before the raise of topsin in the Borg era, you did not have such specialized playstyles.
2000’s have witnessed a big change in grass courts properties and at the same time the evolution of technique, strings, and playstyles. The number of players doing well on both clay and grass has never been so high and I’m not talking only about the Big 3. Most players are now « all court » which is totally different from what we had in the past.
Do you remember that Becker never won a tournament on clay? That Sampras never reached RG final?
All this makes Borg performance in terms of versatility really outstanding.
Borg is the debate he has a lot of poll votes anyway. No doubt the 90s had more variety but it’s so overstated.

Don’t really have a direct pick.
 

NonP

Legend
Just so you teenyboppers know Borg dominated RG more than anyone before or since (in the OE), yes including Rafa. Here's what the carnage looked like in terms of games won:

1974 - 61.7%
1975 - 68.8% (10th highest of OE, though Rafa might have topped it this year)
1978 - 79.9% (#1, at any major)
1979 - 64.7%
1980 - 76.8% (2nd highest, again at all majors)
1981 - 71.1% (6th at RG, 8th overall)
Average - 69.7%

Suffice it to say no combo of Fedalovic's best six runs anywhere comes even close to 69.7%. Something for you jokers to think about when you comically crow that Borg would be lucky to steal one FO from Rafa.

Ah but the guy never reached anywhere near that peak elsewhere, you say? That's technically true as the margin for error on hard and grass is lower and thus not so conducive to such dominance, but this isn't quite the slam dunk in favor of your hero you think it is.

Here's Borg in his Wimbledon runs (I'm adding his '81 % to my earlier list for a more comprehensive overview):

1976 - 65.5% (3rd highest at SW19)
1977 - 58.5%
1978 - 61.3%
1979 - 59.8%
1980 - 61.4%
1981 - 58.8%
Average - 60.7%
Years won - 61.1%

So he actually won a higher % than Pistol, and just barely less than Fed (61.6% in all runs to the final, 62.3% in title runs). This despite S&Ving on almost all 1st serves which is another low(er)-margin tactic that most likely brought down his %s. And as a refresher Wimbledon was his second best major. I've yet to look closely at Pete's or Fed's USO/AO runs but given that '04 Fed barely makes the AO top 10 in OE GW% I'm pretty sure neither bested Borg's %s by much, if at all.

Now we come to the USO, Borg's "worst" major though as you'll see that term is quite relative in his case. Before I start, though, the guy had all of four chances to win a Slam on HC. Give Fedalovic four years to win a Slam on their weakest surface against a Connors or McEnroe and chances are they come up short as well.

But we still have to go by what actually happened, right? Here's what Borg actually did on USO HCs:

1978 - 61.6%
1979 - 61.9% (lost to Tanner in QF but included due to small sample)
1980 - 58.8%
1981 - 59.5%
Career - 60.1%

So Borg's career Slam average on his worst surface equals Sampras' on his strongest in his title runs. And I can tell you even Novak managed no more than 61.5% in his five RG finals. That's from his very best results; take out his win in '16 and you get 60.7%.

And take all of Borg's runs to Slam finals (so his '79 USO #s are excluded while '75 #s are in) and you get a stupendous career 63.2%. Which one of you wants to bet Fed, Rafa or Novak comes within a passing distance of this milestone even if you take only their best 6, 6 and 4 runs from their 1st, 2nd and 3rd best majors respectively? I thought not, which means, at least when it comes to surface versatility, Borg is the king of the OE, quite possibly ever.

Of course versatility can mean many things, so I'll save y'all the trouble and give each of the answers:

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.

You're welcome.
 

RiverRat

Professional
I never said he was the most versatile, I just said how many better options than him are there in the last 50 years? If you go down the list:
- Mac, Connors, Becker, and Edberg never won RG
The OP mentioned surface in the majors. Connors won two majors on clay, '74 & '76 U.S. Open.
 

oldmanfan

Legend
When one can win all 4 slams (everything really) playing the same style, that's not versatility. Homogenized surfaces for the last decade or so makes versatility moot. Aren't all the cookie-cutter baseline bashers of the the last 2 generations of players (going on 3 gens now) not proof enough? :unsure:
 
90's courts were certainly a lot quicker at Wimbledon, which is why players like Sampras were practically unbeatable. However, the ones saying Rafa and Novak will never sniff a Wimby title back then are also greatly exaggerating. Speeding up the courts a bit are not gonna suddenly cause two multi-time Wimbledon champs to go home empty.

Plus this is Djokodal we're talking about, put them on a mountain and they'd eventually find a way to win lol
The point is, they’re not going to win much on fast grass with Federer around. Maybe 1-2 for Djokovic and 0-1 for Nadal if they can avoid him.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
How has no one mentioned Stefanos Tsitsipas yet:

- Top 6 tennis player in the world
- Insta famous
- YouTube influencer (two things everyone in his age group is obsessed in becoming)
- Modern day Greek Philosopher

All by the age of 22...big 3 have nothing on that type of versatility!!
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
How has no one mentioned Stefanos yet.

- Top 6 tennis player in the world
- Insta famous
- YouTube influencer (two things everyone in his age group is obsessed with)
- Modern day Greek Philosopher

All by the age of 22...big 3 have nothing on that
The guy is a clown.
 
Most versatile player is the one who has won the most Major Titles at Roland Garros and at Wimbledon.

That would be Borg.

And that is even before you consider that during Borg's era ...

1/ Wimbledon Centre Court was much faster, the grass was cut shorter so the balls skidded through the court, and white tennis balls were used.

2/ Wimbledon was frequented by mainly Grass Court specialists who never bothered to enter Roland Garros as they were not competitive on Red Clay Courts.

2/ Roland Garros was frequented by mainly Red Clay Court specialists who never bothered to enter Wimbledon because they were not competitive on Grass courts.

Post 2000, Novak Djokovic is the closest to being the most versatile. One more Roland Garros Title will seal the deal. His superior H2H against Federer at Wimbldon eliminates Federer from te conversation. It only leaves Nadal in the mix with him.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
In this era at least, Fed is easily the most versatile. Top 2 on 2 different surfaces, 5 consecutive titles at 2 slams played on 2 different surfaces. Very good at RG too and only missed out on multiple titles because of the clay GOAT.
 

Yugram

Legend
Why Nadal even mentioned here? 66% Slams and titles come on one surface. He is far far behind in versatility department compared to other Big 2s.
You can’t see the bigger picture. It’s Federer and Djokovic whose resumes are badly skewed towards fast courts.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic and Fed tie.
To me it's Fed first and Djokovic second.

On clay, Djokovic is better overall, but not on a completely different plane of existence. At the FO in particular there is little separating them.

Outside of clay though, Fed's 5x3 at 3/4 slams and complete dominance of 2 slams on 2 different surface puts him ahead in my book.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Just so you teenyboppers know Borg dominated RG more than anyone before or since (in the OE), yes including Rafa. Here's what the carnage looked like in terms of games won:

1974 - 61.7%
1975 - 68.8% (10th highest of OE, though Rafa might have topped it this year)
1978 - 79.9% (#1, at any major)
1979 - 64.7%
1980 - 76.8% (2nd highest, again at all majors)
1981 - 71.1% (6th at RG, 8th overall)
Average - 69.7%

Suffice it to say no combo of Fedalovic's best six runs anywhere comes even close to 69.7%. Something for you jokers to think about when you comically crow that Borg would be lucky to steal one FO from Rafa.

Ah but the guy never reached anywhere near that peak elsewhere, you say? That's technically true as the margin for error on hard and grass is lower and thus not so conducive to such dominance, but this isn't quite the slam dunk in favor of your hero you think it is.

Here's Borg in his Wimbledon runs (I'm adding his '81 % to my earlier list for a more comprehensive overview):

1976 - 65.5% (3rd highest at SW19)
1977 - 58.5%
1978 - 61.3%
1979 - 59.8%
1980 - 61.4%
1981 - 58.8%
Average - 60.7%
Years won - 61.1%

So he actually won a higher % than Pistol, and just barely less than Fed (61.6% in all runs to the final, 62.3% in title runs). This despite S&Ving on almost all 1st serves which is another low(er)-margin tactic that most likely brought down his %s. And as a refresher Wimbledon was his second best major. I've yet to look closely at Pete's or Fed's USO/AO runs but given that '04 Fed barely makes the AO top 10 in OE GW% I'm pretty sure neither bested Borg's %s by much, if at all.

Now we come to the USO, Borg's "worst" major though as you'll see that term is quite relative in his case. Before I start, though, the guy had all of four chances to win a Slam on HC. Give Fedalovic four years to win a Slam on their weakest surface against a Connors or McEnroe and chances are they come up short as well.

But we still have to go by what actually happened, right? Here's what Borg actually did on USO HCs:

1978 - 61.6%
1979 - 61.9% (lost to Tanner in QF but included due to small sample)
1980 - 58.8%
1981 - 59.5%
Career - 60.1%

So Borg's career Slam average on his worst surface equals Sampras' on his strongest in his title runs. And I can tell you even Novak managed no more than 61.5% in his five RG finals. That's from his very best results; take out his win in '16 and you get 60.7%.

And take all of Borg's runs to Slam finals (so his '79 USO #s are excluded while '75 #s are in) and you get a stupendous career 63.2%. Which one of you wants to bet Fed, Rafa or Novak comes within a passing distance of this milestone even if you take only their best 6, 6 and 4 runs from their 1st, 2nd and 3rd best majors respectively? I thought not, which means, at least when it comes to surface versatility, Borg is the king of the OE, quite possibly ever.

Of course versatility can mean many things, so I'll save y'all the trouble and give each of the answers:



You're welcome.
If not for his early and bizarre retirement, I would have him as GOAT.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Borg is the debate he has a lot of poll votes anyway. No doubt the 90s had more variety but it’s so overstated.

Don’t really have a direct pick.
Don't think so man. Courts now are all super slow.
 

Shaolin

Talk Tennis Guru
To me it's Fed first and Djokovic second.

On clay, Djokovic is better overall, but not on a completely different plane of existence. At the FO in particular there is little separating them.

Outside of clay though, Fed's 5x3 at 3/4 slams and complete dominance of 2 slams on 2 different surface puts him ahead in my book.

I'm good with Fed ahead slightly right now. I think Novak is going to add a few more slams (thinking 3) though and sadly I think Fed is done, or 1 more at most.
 
If you look at extreme surfaces only .... Grass and Clay ... it would be Borg and Laver.

If you look at all different court surfaces ... it would be Laver, Connors and Djokovic (must include Laver's Pro Career results!)

If you include Female players ... Evert and Serena.
 
Top