NADAL is the MOST COMPLETE TENNIS PLAYER ever
- Thread starter Pablo1989
- Start date
D
Deleted member 754093
Guest
This should go well
Big Bill Tilden is clearly the MOST COMPLETE
Big Bill Tilden is clearly the MOST COMPLETE
Bukmeikara
Legend
I DISAGREE
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
19, 302, 6, 93, 1119.
Feel free to look up the ones you don't know. Once you do, talk to me about your new definition of "complete."
Feel free to look up the ones you don't know. Once you do, talk to me about your new definition of "complete."
KingKyrgios
Professional
Grass & hard is where its all at.
Clay is a tier 2 surface...
STTYTM
Clay is a tier 2 surface...
STTYTM
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Only for those that lack the skill to play on it I suppose. Maybe even have to avoid playing the whole season on it because it is a glaring hole in their game. I dunno. That doesn't sound too complete.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
The most complete player ever (relative to his physical gifts and body) was a demon free Agassi at his best. I'll never think otherwise.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
This is really all Debatable. If Wimbledon was on Fast grass court like in the past,,,, RAFA wouldn't have won any grass court events.
topspin007
New User
SOrry nadal is goat now
topspin007
New User
NAive post as this year wimbledon was ultra quick
Tennisgods
Hall of Fame
No he isn't. He really isn't. Nice try though.
cluckcluck
Hall of Fame
But what about WTF titles???? Don't those count?
topspin007
New User
He is though as he beat all his rivals over 5 sets in all conditions. Federer yet to do so
TheAssassin
G.O.A.T.
You posted Fed's numbers correctly and you still think Nadal is more complete?
cluckcluck
Hall of Fame
duaneeo
Legend
Not making it past the 4th round at Wimbledon in the last six years doesn't sound complete at all.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Exactly, that is why RAFA crashed out early to nobody
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
I like how 'ever' is in small little letters. That's the best part of the whole thing. Add 3 end of season championships for Borg on carpet courts when that tournament was legit, and a couple of US Open finals on hard courts against one of the greatest attacking players to ever play the game, and he'll top anyone. Go further back to when guys were winning titles on grass, clay, carpet, wood, and hard, and try and pass your argument off as ever.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
As complete as Nadal beating Fed on grass and having a second at Wimby. Fed never beat Nadal at the French and skipped a whole clay season acknowledging Nadal. Right?
topspin007
New User
Doesnt matter. He is a multi wimbledon champion
MS_07
Semi-Pro
You did self goal here
Rafa Fed
1o clay = 10 HC
4 HC < 8 grass
2 grass > 1 clay
Fed's second best surface has 4 more, nada has 1 more than fed's 3rd best
peakin11mugs
Semi-Pro
Yeah but that's because fed is a mug on clay as nadal fans keep point out. Hence don't big up nadals defeats of fed on clay. He is a clay mug. All of nadals FO opponents are 0 or 1 clay slam mugs e.g ferrer, soderling, fed and Djokovic when they had 0 clay slams
No shame in that for fed he's a grass specialist after all who happens to be that good he is hard and indoor GOAT also.
GOAT of three surfaces.
Also fed is the ONLY player to have 10 titles 4 surfaces. Also only player to have 10 titles on 3 surfaces even lol that's how far ahead of the pack he is
And Djokovic is able to beat both fed and nadal in big matches. He's not better than fed by any stretch as his stats fall far too short sure I'll admit that but he can beat him with great consistency and has had an amazing career and pulled off 4 slams in a row which fed and nadal have though fed has been extremely close multiple times
peakin11mugs
Semi-Pro
Weak era clay. Fed is the only player with 10 plus titles on four surfaces. He's even the only player to do that on three surfaces. Anyway he is weak on clay he's a grass specialist so nadals wins against him on clay aren't all that.
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
So complete that he can't take a ball early.
augustobt
Legend
Wrong. It was painfully slow, even Dustin Brown (and lots of other players) came forward to say something about it.
Tennisgods
Hall of Fame
Irrelevant, surely? Listen, Nadal might catch up on Slam count, so just be patient instead of making stuff up to make him sound better than Fed!
Incognito
Legend
Pyrolysis
Rookie
In terms of actual tennis game Nadal is far from complete. He's a baseliner who relies almost exclusively on a heavy topspin forehand.
He uses the exact same clay court strategy on all surfaces and so dominates a single surface while also having that success bleed over onto the others somewhat when he's having a great run of form.
Federer is obviously a more complete player than Nadal. He changes his game to whatever suits and at his peak enjoyed equal proficiency anywhere he played. No Nadal and Federer is just as successful on clay as anywhere else.
Federer has a more well-adjusted clay game than Nadal has for anywhere outside of clay. Nadal literally does not change his game. He has one setting.
Obviously that's brought him a lot of success regardless, but Nadal doesn't belong in a conversation of the most complete player. In terms of achievements he's not either. Federer trounces him outside of their best surface.
He uses the exact same clay court strategy on all surfaces and so dominates a single surface while also having that success bleed over onto the others somewhat when he's having a great run of form.
Federer is obviously a more complete player than Nadal. He changes his game to whatever suits and at his peak enjoyed equal proficiency anywhere he played. No Nadal and Federer is just as successful on clay as anywhere else.
Federer has a more well-adjusted clay game than Nadal has for anywhere outside of clay. Nadal literally does not change his game. He has one setting.
Obviously that's brought him a lot of success regardless, but Nadal doesn't belong in a conversation of the most complete player. In terms of achievements he's not either. Federer trounces him outside of their best surface.
topspin007
New User
HE is better at the moment. 16 majors at 31 a better strike rate than 19 at 36
justballtennis
New User
Totally disagree! If Nadal wasnt the best clay court player to ever exist, Roger would be way beyond 19. Roger has dominated nearly every Slam and for that reason is the most complete player. In terms of skill level, Rafa is way behind when it comes to adaptability. Take away that heavy topspin crosscourt forehand and what are we left with? Take away Federer's forehand and what are we left with? Every other shot!
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Rafa - Legend! [emoji16]
Sent from my E6853 using Tapatalk
Sent from my E6853 using Tapatalk
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
How any Andre be the most complete player when his volley was far below average? I love Andre, but let's get real here. A complete player is a player who volleys well and often. Andre did neither, though I will admit he did improve into his 30's at the net.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
is it too late or in b4 "profited from the homogenization of court surfaces".
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
Relative to everyone else yes. Yeah the volleys weren't good but relative to everyone else I think he was the most well rounded in an era without Lux.
beernutz
Hall of Fame
RAFAELNADALISTHEBEST
New User
He just needs one more W and AO.
He will get 2 more FO. That's 20 and game over!
He will get 2 more FO. That's 20 and game over!
TahoeTennis
Legend
I took your first comment to be referring to 'complete' as in versatile across all surfaces... Agassi is right up there on that score
If you meant 'complete' in terms of his game, I'd have to disagree. It's not just the volleys, the serve wasn't all it could be either... I always felt that (other than mental frailties) cost him the most and if he'd had a serve like say, Safin... he'd have outdone Sampras and been a bona fide GOAT candidate
Oh well... I wouldn't have him any other way
... a great player and a great entertainer---
Among pure Open Era players, Complete by surface versatility, the short list includes Connors, Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic
If I had to choose 1, I think I'd favour Lendl
Complete by Game, short list includes Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Sampras, Federer and Nadal
I'm maybe being generous with Becker and Sampras - they both had relatively poor defensive baseline skills and Sampras' backhands a bit limited - but since they're overall baseline game is definitely a positive, I think they belong
I'd go with Borg - he had everything and was well balanced (as opposed to clearly biased towards a wing, like Federer and Nadal)
Last edited:
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
At 5"10 there's no way his serve was going to be as good as Safin. I can see the points about his net play though. Definitely have no problem with either Lendl or Borg as GOAT.I took your first comment to be referring to 'complete' as in versatile across all surfaces... Agassi is right up there on that score
If you meant 'complete' in terms of his game, I'd have to disagree. It's not just the volleys, the serve wasn't all it could be either... I always felt that (other than mental frailties) cost him the most and if he'd had a serve like say, Safin... he'd have outdone Sampras and been a bona fide GOAT candidate
Oh well... I wouldn't have him any other way
---
Among pure Open Era players, Complete by surface versatility, the short list includes Connors, Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic
If I had to choose 1, I think I'd favour Lendl
Complete by Game, short list includes Laver, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Sampras, Federer and Nadal
I'm maybe being generous with Becker and Sampras - they both had relatively poor defensive baseline skills and Sampras' backhands a bit limited - but since they're overall baseline game is definitely a positive, I think they belong
I'd go with Borg - he had everything and was well balanced (as opposed to clearly biased towards a wing, like Federer and Nadal)
Similar threads
