based on what (Lendl being the most versatile by surface) ? his magnificent Wimbledon success ?
no way.
Yes - his 'magnificent' Wimbledon success and Queens - in the
pre-homogenized era... where almost everyone had at least one surface on which they
fell flat on -
including ATGs
Lendl reached 2 finals and 5 semis at Wimbledon (with another final and semi on the grass in Australia) and won two Queens titles... that's
excellent
Agassi clearly over Lendl in terms of surface versatility.... And agassi actually won all the 4 slams before homogenization.
No, he is not
Agassi on grass is 50-18, 1 title, win rate 73.5%.... at Wimbledon its 46-13 @ 77.9%
Lendl is 81-27, 2 titles, win rate 75%... at Wimbledon its 48-14 @ 77.4%
We are
NOT talking about achievements so Agassi's greater accomplishment (the Wimbledon title) isn't all that relevant... at the very least, they are comparable and by
no stretch of the (sane
) imagination is Agassi "clearly over" (your words, not mine) on grass alone
Peak Lendl lost three matches to a peak Becker at Wimbledon, also handed him a first class crushing at Queens... Peak Agassi lost to well past his peak Becker, at a time when he could apparently read Boris' serve at will and the only match of the last 11 they played that he did... you figure it out
Furthermore, on 2 of the 3 remaining surfaces, Lendl is
far ahead of Agassi
Further still, if you understand tennis, you'll know that the
key to versatility is clay to non-clay... being proficient on both grass and carpet doesn't make you particularly versatile, the play and skillsets involved are similar. Hard and carpet too. Grass and hard to a lesser extent
Clay and anything else though... is a huge jump
Agassi's base is hard courts... and he plays well on the other surfaces too
What's Lendl's base? Ask 3 well informed judges don't be surprised if you get 3 different answers... I can't think of anyone else of whom that might be said. Jimmy Connors might be closest
Lendl is far more versatile than Agassi - it isn't particularly close
---
Federer sure as hell would've won multiple Wimbledons in any era.
And the French? More specifically, clay?
Do you know what Federer's clay record was prior to his victory Hamburg 2002? (which would be about the time he switched to poly strings)
17-24
Do you know how many matches he lost before picking up a win?
11 (and that includes multiple challenger events - and the run was broken at one)
He wasn't like this on grass or hard courts... not even on carpet... do you think he would have snapped up clay titles right, left and center playing the way he has on clay in "any era" (again, your words, not mine)?
If you know anything about other eras, you'll know that clay has until very recently been a surface where winners are at a premium,
it was all about not making errors
Federer had better than average defence at his peak ... but he was no "human wall" and his actual clay success is
more a product of aggresive shot making than grinding.
What we've seen from him is as out of sorts from previous generations on clay
as Nadal and Djokovic are on grass - a fair point against the latter two I've seen you raise multiple times
Feel free put the above to the posters you actually
respect on the Former Player Forum... see what they tell you
----
You do
Not understand tennis to anything like the extent you seem to think you do.... talk less, listen more, ask questions, not issue challenges... you might even learn something
I think without any question Andre was the greatest natural ball striker in the history of the sport, better than Djokovic by far. But wouldn't you say Pete was the more well rounded player? His FH was as good as Andre's, his movement, serve, net play and speed were all superior. I couldn't stand Pete, but he was the better and more versatile player, no? A well rounded player must have good net skills. It's why I don't ever say Novak is well rounded because he's atrocious at net. 
