The Most Complete Player or Players

[pc1]

I saw a thread on the General Pro Players forum discussing whether Djokovic is the most complete player of all time. Perhaps we have already had a thread on this already but I figured it would be an interesting discussion.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...sidered-the-most-complete-player-ever.577284/

So here is my definition of a complete player. The player must be strong or at least good on all strokes like serve (the most important by far), return, backhand, forehand, volley, overhead, stamina. They must have good to excellent mobility. They must be able to be consistent and not an erratic player who can be super one match and lose to a horrible player the next match.

I am think mainly of the player's prime years and not when they were but a shadow of their former selves.

Here's a few candidates
Tilden
Lacoste
Vines-Huge serve, excellent movement and perhaps the most powerful forehand ever. Arguably the best serve, forehand combination ever.
Budge-Legendary for his super backhand often called the greatest backhand ever.
Riggs (He was terrific in all strokes. He had a surprisingly superb serve.)
Kramer-Huge weapons in his serve, volley, forehand and strong backhand.
Gonzalez
Lew Hoad-He was more consistent in the Pros.
Sedgman
Laver
Nastase-He didn't have stroke weaknesses but a concentration weakness at times. Super talented. Some think he was the most talented of all time.
Connors-I thought of leaving him out because of his serve but I figured his LEFTY serve and high serving percentage combined with an excellent second serve put him in there.
Borg
McEnroe-A great touch serve and volleyers.
Sampras-Yes I know some will complain about his problems later on clay but I felt at his best he was excellent on clay which he proved by winning the Italian Open.
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray-I know some may be surprised but I think he has it all. I suppose we can quibble about his second serve a bit.

I left out some legends because of their weak serves. I figure how can you be a totally complete player with the most important stroke which is the serve a weakness.

A player with greater overall attacking weapons like a Vines over many players has an advantage over a player who may be complete with no stroke weaknesses but no overpowering strength either like for example Federer with his serve and huge forehand.

 

[pc1]

Choices for Women
Suzanne Lenglen
Alice Marble
Connolly
Margaret Court
Chris Evert
Martina Navratilova
Steffi Graf
Serena Williams
Kim Clijsters
Justine Henin

 

[boredone3456]

a few for the women

Lottie Dodd
Lenglen
Wills-Moody
Marble
Betz-Addie
Connolly
Brough
Dupont
Court
Evert
Navratilova (once she got into shape)
Hingis (in her first career, not her 2nd when she became an overly defensive borderline pusher), also she did have her weaknesses, but she knew how to use her strengths to cover them well enough to still be a complete player in my opinion
Graf
Henin
Mauresmo- mentally she could be a major league headcase, however her pure stroke mechanics were amazing.
Serena (when she is motivated)

 

[boredone3456]

I also think we should have a special mental weakness category because players like Mauresmo, Mandlikova, Goolagong and Clijsters all had amazing shots but mentally couldn't always bring it home.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I saw a thread on the General Pro Players forum discussing whether Djokovic is the most complete player of all time. Perhaps we have already had a thread on this already but I figured it would be an interesting discussion.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...sidered-the-most-complete-player-ever.577284/

So here is my definition of a complete player. The player must be strong or at least good on all strokes like serve (the most important by far), return, backhand, forehand, volley, overhead, stamina. They must have good to excellent mobility. They must be able to be consistent and not an erratic player who can be super one match and lose to a horrible player the next match.

I am think mainly of the player's prime years and not when they were but a shadow of their former selves.

Here's a few candidates
Tilden
Lacoste
Vines-Huge serve, excellent movement and perhaps the most powerful forehand ever. Arguably the best serve, forehand combination ever.
Budge-Legendary for his super backhand often called the greatest backhand ever.
Riggs (He was terrific in all strokes. He had a surprisingly superb serve.)
Kramer-Huge weapons in his serve, volley, forehand and strong backhand.
Gonzalez
Lew Hoad-He was more consistent in the Pros.
Sedgman
Laver
Nastase-He didn't have stroke weaknesses but a concentration weakness at times. Super talented. Some think he was the most talented of all time.
Connors-I thought of leaving him out because of his serve but I figured his LEFTY serve and high serving percentage combined with an excellent second serve put him in there.
Borg
McEnroe-A great touch serve and volleyers.
Sampras-Yes I know some will complain about his problems later on clay but I felt at his best he was excellent on clay which he proved by winning the Italian Open.
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray-I know some may be surprised but I think he has it all. I suppose we can quibble about his second serve a bit.

I left out some legends because of their weak serves. I figure how can you be a totally complete player with the most important stroke which is the serve a weakness.

A player with greater overall attacking weapons like a Vines over many players has an advantage over a player who may be complete with no stroke weaknesses but no overpowering strength either like for example Federer with his serve and huge forehand.

You make a good point about Sampras winning the Italian...like Gonzales, he was under-rated on clay. Also, Sedgman was twice runner-up at Roland Garros.

 

[pc1]

a few for the women

Lottie Dodd
Lenglen
Wills-Moody
Marble
Betz-Addie
Connolly
Brough
Dupont
Court
Evert
Navratilova (once she got into shape)
Hingis (in her first career, not her 2nd when she became an overly defensive borderline pusher), also she did have her weaknesses, but she knew how to use her strengths to cover them well enough to still be a complete player in my opinion
Graf
Henin
Mauresmo- mentally she could be a major league headcase, however her pure stroke mechanics were amazing.
Serena (when she is motivated)

Nice post and I like your points on Hingis. I thought she would definitely win double digits in majors but it was not to be.

You make a good point about Sampras winning the Italian...like Gonzales, he was under-rated on clay. Also, Sedgman was twice runner-up at Roland Garros.

I figured Sampras might win several French Opens playing a baseline combined with some net rushing type of game. He certainly had the mobility to play well on clay. For one match on red clay he could be amazing.

 

[70sHollywood]

A player with greater overall attacking weapons like a Vines over many players has an advantage over a player who may be complete with no stroke weaknesses but no overpowering strength either like for example Federer with his serve and huge forehand.

Yes I agree with this. I think Djokovic is arguably the most complete player in the last 20 years - for his style of play* - but his style of play is a weakness.

*What I mean by this is when you consider how important a particular attribute is to a players game. Volleys are not as important for a pure baseliner as they are for a S&V player, whilst the opposite is true for groundstrokes. For example: Djokovic/volley or Edberg/forehand. Relatively speaking I would say Federer's backhand is a bigger weakness than Djokovic's volleys.

 

[boredone3456]

Nice post and I like your points on Hingis. I thought she would definitely win double digits in majors but it was not to be.


I figured Sampras might win several French Opens playing a baseline combined with some net rushing type of game. He certainly had the mobility to play well on clay. For one match on red clay he could be amazing.

Sampras never seemed the have the ability to win 7 straight best of 5 matches on clay. He couldn't really grind them out and consistently deliver the level required to win on clay over the 2 weeks. He had maybe 2 or 3 years where he could have maybe snagged the French but it never happened because he just didn't have the game or consistent delivery to do it.

Hingis, based on the way she burst onto the scene in 1997 winning 3 majors she certainly looked poised to hit the double digits. However, as I have said before, 1997 was a blessing and a curse. It was her best year and because of it her ego went through the roof. She developed an it girl attitude and never seemed to change her game or try and mix it up after that, and her comments about her opponents didn't exactly do much to dispell this. When Davenport hit her stride and the Williams emerged and began to challenge her she played essentially the same game hoping they would be the ones to fall apart. Davenport especially seemed to really know how to hammer her and didn't let any of the off the court stuff impose on her ability. Then in the early 2000s the injuries crept in and she really couldn't do much about that. When she came back she wasn't the same player and played more defensively instead of using her old strategic offense to break players down. her loses to Clijsters illustrated this pretty clearly because Kim knew when push came to shove how to put a stop to that.

 

[NatF]

Murray doesn't have the forehand, overhead, second serve to be included in this discussion

 

[ChaelAZ]

Niskikori and Ferrer

 

[pat200]

people naming hingis, henin and clijsters in their top 10 women and yet ommitting seles?

 

[70sHollywood]

Murray doesn't have the forehand, overhead, second serve to be included in this discussion

But, but, but...he's a lot more complete than everybody outside Fedalovic, thus Murray is actually on their level, right? I mean, big four?

BIG FOUR!!!

 

[boredone3456]

people naming hingis, henin and clijsters in their top 10 women and yet ommitting seles?

we are talking most complete player in terms of ability. I left out Seles largely because I never loved her volley's, she never seemed totally comfortable when she had to go to net. I also left out King because I never found her the most comfortable when forced to defend from the baseline.

 

[KG1965]

It's a very interesting thread pc1.

The first things that come to mind are these:
1) a player like Rosewall who played almost to the level of Laver and Pancho for so many years can not be considered complete
2) I've seen him play a few players complete as Becker.
3) What exactly to complete? A player who has no weaknesses? For this reason it is not Edberg (poors forehand & smash)
4) Imo the strokes are also:
- net approach (forehand & backhand)
- lob
- passing shots (foehand & backhand)

 

[KG1965]

Other observations:
many are the strokes, but some are not decisive, as smash and lob.

Determinants are:
- serves
- forehand
- backhand
- volleyball
- Passing shot
- return

Determinants are also:
- others skills (physical, mental and strategic).

If these assumptions are valid, then I exclude
- Connors (the serve is a weakness)
- Lendl (the volley is a weakness)
- Djokovic (the volley is a weakness)

 

[timnz]

Other observations:
many are the strokes, but some are not decisive, as smash and lob.

Determinants are:
- serves
- forehand
- backhand
- volleyball
- Passing shot
- return

Determinants are also:
- others skills (physical, mental and strategic).

If these assumptions are valid, then I exclude
- Connors (the serve is a weakness)
- Lendl (the volley is a weakness)
- Djokovic (the volley is a weakness)

Well Lendl's forehand volley was a weakness (due to his grip), his backhand volley was very good.

 

[KG1965]

Among the champions which I have seen those who have no obvious weaknesses I choose:
Gonzalez
Rosewall
Laver
Newcombe
Nastase
Borg
McEnroe
Sampras
Agassi
Federer
Nadal
Murray

Among whom I decide to remove Murray (I seem lower overall) & Newcombe (for less athletic skill).

....and I proceed with my top ten.

 

[pc1]

people naming hingis, henin and clijsters in their top 10 women and yet ommitting seles?

Seles is greater than some of them but the point is that we are discussing the most complete player. You can be a player with no stroke weaknesses but inferior to another player who has great strengths like a super serve. Isner is hardly a complete player but he is superior to many because of his super serve.

 

[pc1]

Other observations:
many are the strokes, but some are not decisive, as smash and lob.

Determinants are:
- serves
- forehand
- backhand
- volleyball
- Passing shot
- return

Determinants are also:
- others skills (physical, mental and strategic).

If these assumptions are valid, then I exclude
- Connors (the serve is a weakness)
- Lendl (the volley is a weakness)
- Djokovic (the volley is a weakness)

I was tempted to overlook Connors also because of that. He barely made the cut for me.

Not sure if you can called Djokovic's volley a weakness relative to today's game.

 

[pc1]

we are talking most complete player in terms of ability. I left out Seles largely because I never loved her volley's, she never seemed totally comfortable when she had to go to net. I also left out King because I never found her the most comfortable when forced to defend from the baseline.

And that's why I left those two out also.

 

[KG1965]

I forgot a heavyweight.
I go out Andre, and I put Boris.

1 Nadal
2 Laver
3 Becker
4 Gonzalez
5 Sampras
6 Borg
7 Federer
8 Rosewall
9 Nastase
10 McEnroe

 

[pc1]

Murray doesn't have the forehand, overhead, second serve to be included in this discussion

Murray is a great baseliner and I do think his forehand has improved under Lendl. Now if he only had a forehand like Lendl and frankly the second serve of Lendl.

 

[pc1]

1 Nadal
2 Laver
3 Gonzalez
4 Sampras
5 Borg
6 Federer
7 Rosewall
8 Nastase
9 McEnroe
10 Agassi

I would definitely put Kramer over Agassi. I think Agassi's volley, while okay isn't exactly a strength. I think Rosewall's serve is too weak to be considered here. It was a below average serve.

 

[KG1965]

I was tempted to overlook Connors also because of that. He barely made the cut for me.

Not sure if you can called Djokovic's volley a weakness relative to today's game.

Two clarifications relating to "changing times":
- Connors had a serve >> Rosewall but Ken played in a world where the serve was not decisive, Jimbo played against Tanner, Mac, Lendl, Denton, Borg, Curren, Becker, Noah ..
- It's true that Djoker plays in modern tennis where no one goes to the net-game .... but if Novak knew go to the net would have won twice, IMO.

 

[KG1965]

I would definitely put Kramer over Agassi. I think Agassi's volley, while okay isn't exactly a strength. I think Rosewall's serve is too weak to be considered here. It was a below average serve.

I did not consider Vines, Tilden, Riggs, Budge, Kramer, and I began to consider Pancho because I saw various film on Gonzalez.

My top ten is not final.
Agassi is not a net-game monster. It's better than Nole.
Rosewall had little serve but to the old times I find hard to attack Ken, even Rod was struggling to break it.

 

[Gizo]

In my opinion Michael Stich was the most technically complete player of the 90s. I remember John Newcombe raving about how he was able to alter and vary his game so much between his semi-final run at RG in 1991, and then his Wimbledon title run (beating Courier, Edberg and Becker) a few weeks later.

He was an excellent serve-volleyer, but was also perfectly comfortable from the baseline, with the ability to hit winners from pretty much anywhere and handle the longer rallies well.

 

[KG1965]

In my opinion Michael Stich was the most technically complete player of the 90s. I remember John Newcombe raving about how he was able to alter and vary his game so much between his semi-final run at RG in 1991, and then his Wimbledon title run (beating Courier, Edberg and Becker) a few weeks later.

His was excellent serve-volleyer but he was also perfectly comfortable from the baseline, as he was able to hit winners from pretty much anywhere in additional to handling the longer rallies well.

Stich is a candidate.

 

[pc1]

Two clarifications relating to "changing times":
- Connors had a serve >> osewall but Ken played in a world where the serve was not decisive, Jimbo played against Tanner, Mac, Lendl, Denton, Borg, Curren, Becker, Noah ..
- It's true that Djoker plays in modern tennis where no one goes to the net-game .... but if Novak knew go to the net would have won twice, IMO.

KG, I understand but Rosewall did play against a number of big servers like Gonzalez, MacKay, Hoad, Newcombe, Trabert. Relative to his times Rosewall's serve was weak. He compensated with his excellent half volley and volley when he was at the net. Rosewall of course couldn't serve to a relative weak point and get away with it against Connors.

Gonzalez himself said in those days the average player won two points on serve per game. Gonzalez wrote that he (Gonzalez) probably won three points a game on serve and that Rosewall won only one point a game on serve. Clearly the consensus was that Rosewall's serve was below par.

Rosewall is obviously one of the greats but I can't say he was complete if his serve was relatively weak.

 

[pc1]

Stich is a candidate.

Yes he is. I forgot about him. Great choice.

 

[KG1965]

KG, I understand but Rosewall did play against a number of big servers like Gonzalez, MacKay, Hoad, Newcombe, Trabert. Relative to his times Rosewall's serve was weak. He compensated with his excellent half volley and volley when he was at the net. Rosewall of course couldn't serve to a relative weak point and get away with it against Connors.

Gonzalez himself said in those days the average player won two points on serve per game. Gonzalez wrote that he (Gonzalez) probably won three points a game on serve and that Rosewall won only one point a game on serve. Clearly the consensus was that Rosewall's serve was below par.

Rosewall is obviously one of the greats but I can't say he was complete if his serve was relatively weak.

pc1, I understand your version, definitely you know a lot more events than me (especially in the period 1950-60) and I have no way to doubt.
I trust of Pancho.

I ask only because Laver damn struggled against Ken?
Rosewall was phenomenal in the net rallies and strikes in defense, then.

Otherwise they would explain his victories.

 

[KG1965]

pc1, I still like this thread, but compared to Djokovic, maybe the problem is this:
- Up to 2000 the tennis was made up of so many strokes (volley, smash, etc. ...)
- Since 2001 the strokes are 4 (serving, backhand, forehand, return).

In this second case, the top ten is another and Djokovic enters of arrogance. And very high up.

Tennis post 2000

My top ten
1 Djokovic
2 Nadal
3 Borg
4 Lendl
5 Agassi
6 Federer
7 Murray
8 Kuerten
9 Wilander
10 Courier

 

[pc1]

pc1, I understand your version, definitely you know a lot more events than me (especially in the period 1950-60) and I have no way to doubt.
I trust of Pancho.

I ask only because Laver damn struggled against Ken?
Rosewall was phenomenal in the net rallies and strikes in defense, then.

Otherwise they would explain his victories.

Laver used to say he had to break Rosewall twice a set to win. Considering that Laver won the majority of the matches, if we take Laver at his word, he probably broke Rosewall often.

 

[pc1]

pc1, I still like this thread, but compared to Djokovic, maybe the problem is this:
- Up to 2000 the tennis was made up of so many strokes (volley, smash, etc. ...)
- Since 2001 the strokes are 4 (serving, backhand, forehand, return).

In this second case, the top ten is another and Djokovic enters of arrogance. And very high up.

Tennis post 2000

My top ten
1 Djokovic
2 Nadal
3 Borg
4 Lendl
5 Agassi
6 Federer
7 Murray
8 Kuerten
9 Wilander
10 Courier

I understand.

 

[Gizo]

Stich is a candidate.

I would basically classify Stich as a significantly upgraded version of Tommy Haas (better in almost all technical areas), and Haas himself has been one of the main examples of a versatile, all-court player during the 00s.

 

[pc1]

In my opinion Michael Stich was the most technically complete player of the 90s. I remember John Newcombe raving about how he was able to alter and vary his game so much between his semi-final run at RG in 1991, and then his Wimbledon title run (beating Courier, Edberg and Becker) a few weeks later.

He was an excellent serve-volleyer, but was also perfectly comfortable from the baseline, with the ability to hit winners from pretty much anywhere and handle the longer rallies well.

I thought he was going to have a brilliant career. Never could understand why he isn't up there with the all time greats.

 

[BTURNER]

The most complete woman player by the definition set forth in the OP, that I saw play has to be Martina Navratilova. There is no shot in the book she could not hit, and no place on the court she did not look comfortable. Henin was also a very complete player, but she never seemed comfortable with the serve/volley combination. Mandlikova and Goolagong may have had even more shots than Navratiilova, and were plenty able to stay back or play foreward, but that mental fragility was always there. I would have added Court and Bueno, but they had no topspin backhand.

Nope its Navratilova.

 

[Shaolin]

Safin. No weaknesses except his brain.

 

[NatF]

Murray is a great baseliner and I do think his forehand has improved under Lendl. Now if he only had a forehand like Lendl and frankly the second serve of Lendl.

He's a great baseliner of course but for most of his career his forehand has been a liability compared to the very best. Even in big matches this year (since Lendl) it's struggled. He's certainly not in the same league as the other top players of this era.

 

[KG1965]

Safin. No weaknesses except his brain.

Too many women, too much champagne, too many discos, little training.
It reminds me of the Romanian.

 

[KG1965]

Two clarifications:
- The rankings "top complete players alltime"is not necessarily a "Ranking GOAT alltime ".
A players may very well have a weak shot and being stronger and have won more than one complete.
- I am increasingly convinced that the ranking should be two because after 2000 the tennis has undergone a mutation, there is tennis and combo-tennis (which I will appoint half-court because they played with few strokes).

I'll try to bring the greatest differences.

 

[Gizo]

I thought he was going to have a brilliant career. Never could understand why he isn't up there with the all time greats.

Unfortunately he just didn't have the relentless hunger, burning desire and tunnel vision required to forge out a truly great career. Achieving greatness in tennis is mentally draining and taxing and he wasn't up to scratch in the department. It was a big shame.

He was also a fantastic athlete that moved very well on all surfaces as well. He had a good return of serve as his backhand return was one of his favourite shots (and that is generally a weakness for many players with one handers), as was his backhand overhead smash (which for me and my limited tennis skills is the most difficult shot in the sport).

 

[pc1]

He's a great baseliner of course but for most of his career his forehand has been a liability compared to the very best. Even in big matches this year (since Lendl) it's struggled. He's certainly not in the same league as the other top players of this era.

Agreed but I do think that his forehand isn't really a weakness NOW, perhaps in the past but not now overall. His forehand certainly isn't as good as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's forehands. I do think his return is one of the greatest of all time and that would include of course his forehand. I will never forget how easily he handled the big serves of Taylor Dent a few years ago who tried to serve and volley against him. He just tore Dent apart at the net.

Unfortunately he just didn't have the relentless hunger, burning desire and tunnel vision required to forge out a truly great career. Achieving greatness in tennis is mentally draining and taxing and he wasn't up to scratch in the department. It was a big shame.

He was also a fantastic athlete that moved very well on all surfaces as well. He had a good return of serve as his backhand return was one of his favourite shots (and that is generally a weakness for many players with one handers), as was his backhand overhead smash (which for me and my limited tennis skills is the most difficult shot in the sport).

Well the backhand smash is tough for anyone so don't beat yourself up on it.

Yes Stich had it all.

Another player I could have put on this list but didn't because of his relatively weak serve was Miloslav Mecir who had everything else. I do think Mecir could have improved his serve especially considering how tall he was at I believe 6'4" or so. Mecir had everything else. So gifted.

 

[NatF]

Agreed but I do think that his forehand isn't really a weakness NOW, perhaps in the past but not now overall. His forehand certainly isn't as good as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's forehands. I do think his return is one of the greatest of all time and that would include of course his forehand. I will never forget how easily he handled the big serves of Taylor Dent a few years ago who tried to serve and volley against him. He just tore Dent apart at the net.

I think a guy like Hewitt was a better returner against a serve and volleyer, even young Federer going off his early exploits would be right up there with Murray. Andy does have an insane return though, I love the way he steps inside the baseline to return second serves.

I would say up until recently Murray had maybe the weakest forehand in the top 10, it's looking better now but we'll see how it does beyond this hot streak. Regardless someone with such an attackable second serve, a weak overhead has some glaring weaknesses IMO. His forehand gets hot for matches but it's rarely hot and dictating play for entire tournament against elite players IMO.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on Murray

 

[pc1]

I think a guy like Hewitt was a better returner against a serve and volleyer, even young Federer going off his early exploits would be right up there with Murray. Andy does have an insane return though, I love the way he steps inside the baseline to return second serves.

I would say up until recently Murray had maybe the weakest forehand in the top 10, it's looking better now but we'll see how it does beyond this hot streak. Regardless someone with such an attackable second serve, a weak overhead has some glaring weaknesses IMO. His forehand gets hot for matches but it's rarely hot and dictating play for entire tournament against elite players IMO.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on Murray

I don't think we're that far off. His second serve is definitely something to improve. He only gets away with it because of his great defensive skills. I'm just impressed by Murray's overall talent when imo is greater than many all time greats.

 

[NatF]

I don't think we're that far off. His second serve is definitely something to improve. He only gets away with it because of his great defensive skills. I'm just impressed by Murray's overall talent when imo is greater than many all time greats.

Talent is such a hard thing to pin down. What ATG's do you think Murray is more talented then?

 

[KG1965]

My Top ten tennis v My Top ten half-tennis

1 Nadal - Djokovic
2 Laver - Nadal
3 Becker - Borg
4 Gonzalez - Lendl
5 Sampras - Agassi
6 Borg - Federer
7 Federer - Murray
8 Rosewall - Kuerten
9 Nastase - Wilander
10 McEnroe - Courier

I think that:
1) Nadal is the player who has fewer weaknesses
2) Kuerten, Wilander, Courier, Djokovic and Lendl, if we exclude the old strokes (volley, smash, net rally, passings) are very complete (Djokovic....a real serve, not what post RG 2016!)
3) Laver, Becker, Rosewall, Gonzalez, McEnroe, Sampras are not complete in the half-tennis
4) Borg, Agassi, Federer, Murray are complete enough both for the tennis and for the half-tennis
5) If we exclude a decisive stroke (not lob or smash, but the forehand, backhand, serve, return, or even volleyball) Rosewall and Connors arrive in the top 5.

 

[KG1965]

IMHO the net-game (volley & Smash) Djokovic is tremendously less effective than that of Nadal and Murray.
TENNIS COMPLETE Nadal >> Murray >> Djokovic
MODERN TENNIS (HALF-TENNIS) DJOKOVIC = NADAL >> MURRAY

 

[NatF]

IMHO the net-game (volley & Smash) Djokovic is tremendously less effective than that of Nadal and Murray.
TENNIS COMPLETE Nadal >> Murray >> Djokovic
MODERN TENNIS (HALF-TENNIS) DJOKOVIC = NADAL >> MURRAY

Can't agree with Nadal being more complete than Federer and maybe Djokovic. Nadal has the better net game (much better overhead) than Djokovic, better slice as well - but Djokovic is clearly better off the return and serve.

Federer has the better net game, more touch, a significantly better serve than Nadal. Not really sure Nadal any aspect of his game that is clearly a lot better than Federer's to make up for it. He moves better, passes better etc...but in those aspects Federer is elite anyway. Where as Nadal's serve is not elite and the difference in their touch/hand skills is wider than the gap in movement IMO.

 

[pc1]

Can't agree with Nadal being more complete than Federer and maybe Djokovic. Nadal has the better net game (much better overhead) than Djokovic, better slice as well - but Djokovic is clearly better off the return and serve.

Federer has the better net game, more touch, a significantly better serve than Nadal. Not really sure Nadal any aspect of his game that is clearly a lot better than Federer's to make up for it. He moves better, passes better etc...but in those aspects Federer is elite anyway. Where as Nadal's serve is not elite and the difference in their touch/hand skills is wider than the gap in movement IMO.

They're all great players and the differences between them are very small. Yes one of the keys is that Federer has the bigger serve than Nadal. Nadal has rarely gotten a lot of free points off the serve while Federer consistently does.

 

[NatF]

They're all great players and the differences between them are very small. Yes one of the keys is that Federer has the bigger serve than Nadal. Nadal has rarely gotten a lot of free points off the serve while Federer consistently does.

Yes there's not a great difference in their returns to mitigate the serve difference either, I think young Federer returned even better on faster courts in fact.