No other player more complete than Federer

[abmk]

I still consider Sampras to be the most complete player I've seen considering everything (serve, baseline game and netplay), though for me there's a clear difference between complete and all-surface player which many people seem to group together. Agassi was one of the best all-surface players I've seen for example but I wouldn't define his game as complete by any stretch.

you could argue sampras was better as an all-courter than federer, but more complete ? definitely not.
especially considering Fed's defense is better by a big distance. he's also played rope-a-dope or junkballing many a times unlike Sampras.

 

[zagor]

you could argue sampras was better as an all-courter than federer, but more complete ? definitely not.
especially considering Fed's defense is better by a big distance. he's also played rope-a-dope or junkballing many a times unlike Sampras.

While not being a defense artist like Fed (who has amazing hands for digging out impossible shots) Sampras could play defense, his speed and passing shots were the main thing separating him from other big servers at Wimbledon. He also had bigger margin on shots from the baseline than people remember when it came to the big points, of course he tanked many of the return games but it was tough to get a ball past him when he was dialled-in.

Of course I can see the argument for Fed but IMO Sampras was better from the baseline (especially younger Sampras) than Fed is at the net.

 

[metsman]

While not being a defense artist like Fed (who has amazing hands for digging out impossible shots) Sampras could play defense, his speed and passing shots were the main thing separating him from other big servers at Wimbledon. He also had bigger margin on shots from the baseline than people remember when it came to the big points, of course he tanked many of the return games but it was tough to get a ball past him when he was dialled-in.

Of course I can see the argument for Fed but IMO Sampras was better from the baseline (especially younger Sampras) than Fed is at the net.

Well with two players who both can play from anywhere, I think more complete comes down to who has more variety and I think that is Federer although Sampras is no slouch as well, Fed's variety from all areas of the court is pretty much unheard of.

 

[Sport]

NO WAY.

Nadal is more complete in outdoor courts than Federer. Nadal has won at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay). Federer has never won more than 1 GS on clay. So Nadal has his GS titles more evenly distributed by surface. Also, Nadal has beaten Federer in GS both in grass and hard courts, while Federer never beated Nadal on clay in GS. Nadal even leads Federer 4-3 outside clay in GS.

To be the "most complete player", Federer would need to be the most complete taking under consideration all surfaces or conditions, not only indoor hard courts. In other words, Federer would need to be the most complete both on indoor and outdoor courts, which is not the case, since Nadal is more complete in outdoor courts.

 

[abmk]

While not being a defense artist like Fed (who has amazing hands for digging out impossible shots) Sampras could play defense, his speed and passing shots were the main thing separating him from other big servers at Wimbledon. He also had bigger margin on shots from the baseline than people remember when it came to the big points, of course he tanked many of the return games but it was tough to get a ball past him when he was dialled-in.

Of course I can see the argument for Fed but IMO Sampras was better from the baseline (especially younger Sampras) than Fed is at the net.

what metsman said.
Fed has played quick strike tennis like Sampras, but Sampras just didn't play grinding tennis anywhere near as well as Federer.
especially visible on clay of course.

 

[abmk]

NO WAY.

Nadal is more complete in outdoor courts than Federer. Nadal has won at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay). Federer has never won more than 1 GS on clay. So Nadal has his GS titles more evenly distributed by surface. Also, Nadal has beaten Federer in GS both in grass and hard courts, while Federer never beated Nadal on clay in GS. Nadal even leads Federer 4-3 outside clay in GS.

To be the "most complete player", Federer would need to be the most complete taking under consideration all surfaces or conditions, not only indoor hard courts. In other words, Federer would need to be the most complete both on indoor and outdoor courts, which is not the case, since Nadal is more complete in outdoor courts.

 

[-NN-]

There has to be proof of completeness in the results and Sampras lacks it compared to some others, and supposing his baseline play was better than Federer's netplay, one is forced to play more of the game from the baseline anyway and so it doesn't follow as a satisfactory argument for greater completeness.

 

[smoledman]

Agreed. Fed's only weakness in the last decade is Nadal on clay. If he simply was 50% better in that department he'd own several French Opens and 23-24 GS titles already, would have destroyed the sport for many fans.

So thank Rafa for dominating Roger on clay, saved tennis.

 

[smoledman]

Now with his neo-backhand there isn't even a debate.

Even before, it was tough to argue. You don't make 18 out of 19 consecutive GS finals unless you have the most complete game.

I doubt Fed in good form ever gets blown of the court by Murray or Wawrinka. They just exposed Nole's weaknesses. Nole also does poorly on faster courts like Cincy and Nole can have problems with big servers.

Sure, Nole doesn't have obvious weaknesses, but he also doesn't have obvious strengths either. That is also a weakness. Fed has goat slice, goat footwork, anticipation, almost goat serve for his height, his goat slice and goat forehand.

Why can't Djokovic win with less effort if he is more complete? Having those 50 second service games. Or hitting more winners?

There isn't a surface where Fed isn't good.

But, Djokovic is very complete, don't get me wrong, just not as Federer.

I am so salivating the prospect of Federer with his neo-backhand against Djokovic on a hardcourt. Hopefully AO semis! Meow, I know Djoko isn't hoping for that matchup right now.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Well with two players who both can play from anywhere, I think more complete comes down to who has more variety and I think that is Federer although Sampras is no slouch as well, Fed's variety from all areas of the court is pretty much unheard of.

I know stats aren't everything, but having tracked stats on many matches involving those 2(as well as many other great players), I've noticed how sampras' winners were pretty evenly distributed from ground strokes and volleys, more than any other player I've tracked(except maybe Connors)
While Fed's winner counts are almost always heavily dominated by ground stroke winners, with a low amount of volley winners. If i didn't watch the match or know who the player was and just looked at the stats, I would think power baseliner when looking at Fed's winner counts, not all courter.

 

[-NN-]

Balance isn't the same as completeness. I equate completeness to how it enables a player to then achieve in the chosen profession for which their completeness is being judged; so a practical completeness rather than a distorted and suppositional completeness... or something. In other words, the player must win and in the greatest variety of conditions and as long as various abilities have been demonstrated beyond doubt, it doesn't matter if they aren't used in a more even balance with others as to render that player not an all-court player (such as Federer to Sampras, Laver and even Borg).

 

[metsman]

I know stats aren't everything, but having tracked stats on many matches involving those 2(as well as many other great players), I've noticed how sampras' winners were pretty evenly distributed from ground strokes and volleys, more than any other player I've tracked(except maybe Connors)
While Fed's winner counts are almost always heavily dominated by ground stroke winners, with a low amount of volley winners. If i didn't watch the match or know who the player was and just looked at the stats, I would think power baseliner when looking at Fed's winner counts, not all courter.

Well that is because Federer is a power baseliner and has been since around mid 05 besides that stretch in 2014. But I don't think it's any incompleteness in his net game, which while not as technically sound as the greats of the past, is still as well as anyone has played the net in the poly era. Just that power baselining is what pays the bills with today's conditions.

Sampras was an all court player for quite a bit longer than Federer was but since Federer still managed to produce some great all court tennis in his early prime before the surfaces kept slowing down I won't hold that against him.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

That makes Federer even greater than I thought. I guess years ago I was mislead by a few people on some forum. I was sure it was slow grass. Guess they were Fed haters.

I'm 37, didn't see it live though only highlights. Yeah, that legendary final. I don't know why the highlights were in Croatian language. I do understand Croatian, and that commentator is legendary. Because he was rooting for Goran his countryman. That commentator was a huge fan.

Well, the grass WAS changed before the 2001 tournament and in earlier threads, I posted articles written before the tournament speculating on what the effect of it might be. If people still prefer the infallible eye test, so be it. I think the rain that year just made the grass slick. Plus, they went through a few configurations just like US Open. 2002 was much slower and had the infamous Hewitt Nalbandian final. They sped it back in 2003/04 but from 2005 it slowed down again. 2005 was also the first year of the blue courts at USO which seem to have more friction than before. Probably also the last or penultimate year of carpet. In other words, the final nails in the coffin for diversity were hammered in this period. Only Australian Open has benefited from all these changes and RG has remained pretty much the same with periodical tinkering with the balls (which still can't speed up clay beyond a point).

 

[Zebrev]

Roger is the feirciest competitor I seen from any sport.