Who are the most complete all-time top players?
- Thread starter KG1965
- Start date
Players of today do not know how to play S&V.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Mark,
It's not that simple nowadays. I spoke about this with Pancho Segura a few years ago and he was of the opinion it could be done if had the powerful serve like a Roddick. Now how many people have serves like an Andy Roddick? Very few.
Mark-Touch
Legend
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I do think Djokovic would have been able to serve and volley in the old days but no one today is a natural at serving and volleying because they rarely do it.
It depends what we mean by "complete player"..
Djokovic is a very complete player with new parameters and based on surfaces, but it's hard to argue that it's complete overall, because in all the net hits and the s & v approaches it's very lacking.
Same for Nadal.
Federer is the most complete overall of the 3 modern greats but has some weakness in the net game, or better in the approach shots.
Rod overhead problem ?
In that 1963 series, Laver developed a back injury, probably muscle trouble, from dealing with all the lobs.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Maybe weak compared to the past but I think it's not bad compared to most today. I do like Nadal, Federer and Murray at the net more. Murray to me has surprisingly good hands for net play. Nadal seems a little more rigid and artificial but he's very good also. Federer's good although I think he has a tendency at times from what I've observed to flub his forehand volley into the net.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Laver had some back problems during the Rosewall tour according to Dan. I am not sure about that.
Laver's overhead in his prime was awesome. It went down about 1972 or 1973 due to back problems. His serve also for the same reason.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Rosewall probably had the best lob in tennis at that point. He used the lob often early in matches just to get the net player to step back a little from the net. This would help Rosewall pass him later.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
If we just look at a big powerful serve, great volley, excellent FORCING CONSISTENT groundstrokes a lot of players would be eliminated.
I do think McEnroe in 1979 to 1984 is one of the few who fits all the prerequisites. He could serve and volley as well as anyone. He had a great effective serve. He had excellent on the rise consistent groundstrokes with varieties of spin. He was an excellent mover with a great overhead. He was excellent on all surfaces especially in 1984.
I think Jack Kramer would fit the bill also but I think Kramer had more overall power than McEnroe.
I do think McEnroe in 1979 to 1984 is one of the few who fits all the prerequisites. He could serve and volley as well as anyone. He had a great effective serve. He had excellent on the rise consistent groundstrokes with varieties of spin. He was an excellent mover with a great overhead. He was excellent on all surfaces especially in 1984.
I think Jack Kramer would fit the bill also but I think Kramer had more overall power than McEnroe.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
KG, I know you're using Kareem Jabbar as an example but I actually thought Kareem could dribble pretty well. See play number four below.
I understand your point. Jabbar couldn't dribble as well as smaller men like Oscar Robertson but I thought he wasn't bad.
Who is the most complete player you've seen KG? That's tough so you can give a lot of answers if you want.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
The thing is we can't compare to how players volleyed back when we had wooden rackets and when the game was significantly slower than the modern game.
For one, game was slower, rackets didn't allow you to hit so hard, so players had much more time when approaching the net but also reacting. Back then you basically had to charge the net to give yourself an upper hand, today it's better to stay on the baseline.
So we shouldn't really compare how modern players are volleying compared to when volleying was an essential part of the game but also slower. That's what they were practicing. You don't practice volleys too much in the modern game. There are other things that are more important to focus on that you need if you want to win matches. So it's obvious that volley skills have regressed.
For one, game was slower, rackets didn't allow you to hit so hard, so players had much more time when approaching the net but also reacting. Back then you basically had to charge the net to give yourself an upper hand, today it's better to stay on the baseline.
So we shouldn't really compare how modern players are volleying compared to when volleying was an essential part of the game but also slower. That's what they were practicing. You don't practice volleys too much in the modern game. There are other things that are more important to focus on that you need if you want to win matches. So it's obvious that volley skills have regressed.
What you write is correct but there is no point, this:
- it must be argued that modern players are >>> old players in the baseline game. End of the speech.
- it can not be argued that modern players are <<< old players in the net-game.
Last edited:
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
What you write is correct but there is no point, this:
- it must be argued that modern players are >>> old players in the baseline game. End of the speech.
- it can not be argued that modern players are <<< old players.
Can you elaborate.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He's saying that you cannot say for example Marin Cilic is a better player than John McEnroe because he played in a different era with different conditions.
It was missing a piece
(I wrote too much in these last days ... now I stop ...).I want to say that it is a bit restrictive to support that
- we can not say that an old champion is more complete than a modern champion because you do not use a net today ... and you do not need / care for the modern,
- but it is claimed that the modern is more complete than the old one because at the baseline it is more complete (maybe even the old one did not need / interested).
It's for this reason that in other posts I have paid attention to three types of completeness.
Your idol (Nole) is a monster of completeness between the various surfaces and for the current tennis, but IMHO is not "overall complete".
I would give it 10 as completeness of surface and 10 as completeness for the current tennis but only 8 or 9 as "overall complete", I could not attribute 10 just because in 2018 it is no longer used to reach the net.
Tennis is a sport with lots of shots, if few shots are used in 2018, even if one is the GOAT he is not "overall complete". IMHO.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
It was missing a piece
I want to say that it is a bit restrictive to support that
- we can not say that an old champion is more complete than a modern champion because you do not use a net today ... and you do not need / care for the modern,
- but it is claimed that the modern is more complete than the old one because at the baseline it is more complete (maybe even the old one did not need / interested).
It's for this reason that in other posts I have paid attention to three types of completeness.
Your idol (Nole) is a monster of completeness between the various surfaces and for the current tennis, but IMHO is not "overall complete".
I would give it 10 as completeness of surface and 10 as completeness for the current tennis but only 8 or 9 as "overall complete", I could not attribute 10 just because in 2018 it is no longer used to reach the net.
Tennis is a sport with lots of shots, if few shots are used in 2018, even if one is the GOAT he is not "overall complete". IMHO.
I agree. But it's hard to be overall complete when the eras are so different. Back then you put a lot of emphasises on volleying, but in the modern game it's the opposite.
Djokovic is not some God at the net, but he is effective up there. He often finishes the job, sometimes he makes some blunders, but they are rare. And definitely not something that decides matches for him.
To me, Djokovic is very fascinating. When you look at all the players, there is always something you can pick on and exploit, but with Djokovic you can't. And that is what makes him so dangerous.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
There have been some players like that with no discernible weakness in tennis but they are often all time greats like Djokovic. Laver, Tilden and Kramer are among them I would think. They used to say Laver’s greatest strength was his lack of a weakness.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
We were basically discussing why people cannot or will not serve and volley nowadays. I thought perhaps it was the equipment or that players aren't trained to do it from a young age. I got the impression from the discussion he thought it was mainly the equipment that has stopped the serve and volley game. He thought that it was still possible but only if you had a serve like a Roddick. By that I took it to mean a consistently excellent serve. Perhaps he felt a Pete Sampras for example could still do it.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Easy setup volleys
Mark-Touch
Legend
Sure, he's one of my faves. But if you are going to mention him, why not Mecir? Sure they didn't have great serves, but...
skaj
Legend
Sure, he's one of my faves. But if you are going to mention him, why not Mecir? Sure they didn't have great serves, but...
why not. both great baseliners as well as excellent volleyers; no huge serves, but the returners were superb; they moved very well(especially Mecir, of course), had amazing touch... wonderful tacticians also.
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
The general standard of strokeplay and how the game developed over the years has always interested me. Just how good were the top players in each era? It is very difficult to tell. Before World war 1 there was hardly any moving footage of players. In the inter-war years there wasn't much footage. I often get the impression reading tennis histories that before Tilden's time, the standard wasn't that great, then Tilden moved the game on, Cochet and Lacoste also, though still the game was in a transitional phase. For me it has always seemed Budge was the first great player with a recognisably "modern" style (with players such as Perry and Vines in a sort of interim phase between the 20s and Budge). Then in the 50s there were lots of great players with a "modern" style (Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall etc.) As I said, it is hard to tell from so little footage available and I could be wrong.
The other day I came across an article written by Sir Gordon Lowe (Australasian champion in 1915) written in 1936. Both Lowe and Sir Norman Brookes witnessed the development from the early days of the sport right through to the open era (Lowe died in 1972). This article was written by Lowe in 1936 and compares players of the pre-world war 1 era with the players of the 1930s. Interesting to read his thoughts.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/184507420
The other day I came across an article written by Sir Gordon Lowe (Australasian champion in 1915) written in 1936. Both Lowe and Sir Norman Brookes witnessed the development from the early days of the sport right through to the open era (Lowe died in 1972). This article was written by Lowe in 1936 and compares players of the pre-world war 1 era with the players of the 1930s. Interesting to read his thoughts.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/184507420
Very interesting article, and it's such a cliche but the more things change ...
This particularly got my attention:
The evolution of the racket during the past 10 years from a clumsy weapon into the delicate instrument of to-day has been truly remarkable. The improvement, too, in gut manufacture has been most marked, and one would hardly recognise the stitchless uniform ball of 1935 besides the old irregular one with the seams of a decade ago.
I had heard there was some evolution of the racquet, but that much change? in only a decade's time?
And this sounds like it could be written today:
In pre-war days we saw the same smattering of all-court players, the volleying specialists and even the inevitable baseliners as we see now .... the tendency is for all singles to be fought out chiefly from the baseline to-day.
And there was talk back then of how serves had become stronger overall:
SOME say the service has improved, and this may be true in a sense, but really McCloughlin's cannon balls in 1913 were just as devastating as those of
Tilden, Vines and David Jones of today.
This is somewhat like today when service hold numbers are higher than ever but we still say that Sampras' serve was every bit as good, if not better, than anything we see today.
Very interesting article, thanks for posting.
Mark-Touch
Legend
And it's not just strokeplay that needs to be considered.
Something as simple as clothing makes a huge difference in how the game is played!
Can you imagine Djokovic, or Nadal, or Federer playing their game today in long pants and a belt?
I can't.
skaj
Legend
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
Yes there was development in racket technology at that time (for example Crawford played with a flat-topped racket, which by then was becoming obsolete). For me the key line in the article was "Even if the skill of those at the top has not materially altered, the general standard of play all over the world is ten times higher than it was, and the number of players have multiplied. For every good man one used to see in the old days at Wimbledon there is now a dozen". This confirms most of what I have read over the years, although it is a surprise to read that certain individual players from the pre-world war 1 period were (in Lowe's view) as good as those of the 20s and 30s.
Lowe is one of the few players that played at least one of the Dohertys (who were the greats from 1897-1906) and lived to see the open era. Others were Norman Brookes and Max Decugis (Fred Alexander played in that era also). Lowe was a known authority on the sport, author of Lowe's Lawn Tennis annuals. His article is fair and thorough. I would have loved to hear his thoughts just before he died on the open era, comparing Laver to the Dohertys. I wonder if he still wrote on the sport in his 80s.
Back in the Dohertys era, the sport was little altered since the Renshaws era of the 1880s (William Renshaw won his first Wimbledon in 1881 and was the sport's first pioneer, establishing a definate tennis style as opposed to style that was an adaptation of rackets or real tennis, which is how the champions of 1877-1880 played. Also Renshaw was one of the first to use the overarm service). It was in the years between the Dohertys and the start of world war 1 that the sport began to grow substantially. Wimbledon became increasingly packed and a new venue was sought. In 1922 Wimbledon moved from Worple Road to Church Road. By then Tilden had arrived on the scene and he popularised the sport hugely in the 1920s.
Last edited:
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
I can't imagine Federer playing with Jack Crawford's flat top racket though! In fact I can't imagine any of the players of today using a wooden racket. They may be able to cope with wearing trousers, but I doubt they would easily master a wooden racket with a small sweetspot.Federer I can
Last edited:
skaj
Legend
I meant I can imagine Federer in that outfit, he actually wore something similar at Wimbledon one year, with a matching white-gold purse
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
Yes I know what you were referring to. But regarding rackets, Fed used to have a lot of miss-hits off the frame area of his old racket before switching to a larger model, imagine what he would have been like with a wooden racket. And Nadal launching into one of his banana forehands with a wooden racket, I don't think so!I meant I can imagine Federer in that outfit, he actually wore something similar at Wimbledon one year, with a matching white-gold purse
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Wouldn't say he mishit a lot, both Nadal and Federer hit with vicious racquet head speed against fast paced and heavy shots, with slower incoming balls and less explosive swings they'd be fine...
They would have trouble. And tough opposition, unlike today.
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
With that old racket of his, Federer was often mis-hitting (some of these mis-hits landed in the court). One thing I do know having tried to use a wood racket of my dad's a couple of times when I was a kid is it is a lot harder to play with a wooden racket than a graphite one (even my first graphite racket, which was a cheap £1 no brand one from Woolworths was a lot easier to use than my dad's wooden racket). When the players switched to graphite, they had few problems adapting, but it would be a lot harder for the current generation to switch to wood. They might eventually develop a good standard of play with wood, but it would be a different style than they play with a graphite racket.
Pheasant
Legend
When looking at complete, I would look at the following:
Serve and volley
fitness
power and accuracy from both wings
serving
ability to play on all types of court speeds
able to use any racket.
Based on results, I think Borg wins this. This guy was a monster on clay and that super-fast grass. He was probably a better clay player than grass player, even though he reeled off 5 straight Wimbledon titles. That is absurd.
Based on what I have seen, I'd put Lendl up there. This guy was extremely fast, had legendary endurance, pulverized the ball from both wins, mixed in a great slice backhand, had an awesome topspin lob, and he served quite well. And he eventually could serve and volley too.
Serve and volley
fitness
power and accuracy from both wings
serving
ability to play on all types of court speeds
able to use any racket.
Based on results, I think Borg wins this. This guy was a monster on clay and that super-fast grass. He was probably a better clay player than grass player, even though he reeled off 5 straight Wimbledon titles. That is absurd.
Based on what I have seen, I'd put Lendl up there. This guy was extremely fast, had legendary endurance, pulverized the ball from both wins, mixed in a great slice backhand, had an awesome topspin lob, and he served quite well. And he eventually could serve and volley too.
I agree with Borg and Lendl.... but see it as a bit of a moot point
Lets compare Lendl with Pete Sampras
Lendl.... serve, return, forehand, backhand and (contrary to popular opinion) volley all top notch.... that's pretty much everything
Sampras.... the return and the backhand at least not of top drawer
So can we conclude Lendl > Sampras?
Of course not!
The whole is not the sum of its parts
-----
Re: intergenerational comparisons.... I'm of the opinion "ability" in one era would likely translate to another
The moderns don't come to net much its true.... but I reckon if they'd been from an earlier period, they would have
Likewise, if the likes of Laver and Rosewall had grown up on graphite and poly strings, they'd probably play in the style of today's players; baseline stuff.... why come to net against the blistering passing shots todays racquets allow all and sundry to play?
They say Nadal would have failed on grass in the old era.... maybe he would, but I'm absolutely certain that if Bjorn Borg played today, he'd be an out and out baseliner, and they'd all say the same thing, he couldn't have cut it on old grass. and we all know what he actually did on 70s grass
Lets try to judge players in the time they played in
Hard to imagine John McEnroe playing as a baseliner, or Novak Djokovic serve-volleying all the time at Wimbledon, isn't it?
----
Anyway, most complete players I know of.... Borg (volleys not so great), Lendl (all there, maybe missing attacking instincts some), Jimmy Connors (serve is a handicap) and Roger Federer (not sure how he'd do grinding on clay with a wood racquet)
Of the lot, I'd name Lendl as the top guy
I agree with Borg and Lendl.... but see it as a bit of a moot point
Lets compare Lendl with Pete Sampras
Lendl.... serve, return, forehand, backhand and (contrary to popular opinion) volley all top notch.... that's pretty much everything
Sampras.... the return and the backhand at least not of top drawer
So can we conclude Lendl > Sampras?
Of course not!
The whole is not the sum of its parts
-----
Re: intergenerational comparisons.... I'm of the opinion "ability" in one era would likely translate to another
The moderns don't come to net much its true.... but I reckon if they'd been from an earlier period, they would have
Likewise, if the likes of Laver and Rosewall had grown up on graphite and poly strings, they'd probably play in the style of today's players; baseline stuff.... why come to net against the blistering passing shots todays racquets allow all and sundry to play?
They say Nadal would have failed on grass in the old era.... maybe he would, but I'm absolutely certain that if Bjorn Borg played today, he'd be an out and out baseliner, and they'd all say the same thing, he couldn't have cut it on old grass. and we all know what he actually did on 70s grass
Lets try to judge players in the time they played in
Hard to imagine John McEnroe playing as a baseliner, or Novak Djokovic serve-volleying all the time at Wimbledon, isn't it?
----
Anyway, most complete players I know of.... Borg (volleys not so great), Lendl (all there, maybe missing attacking instincts some), Jimmy Connors (serve is a handicap) and Roger Federer (not sure how he'd do grinding on clay with a wood racquet)
Of the lot, I'd name Lendl as the top guy
I might add Mac to your list....he certainly could do some of everything rather well....against 3 of the guys you included....in the modern day, I do think Djokovic is pretty well rounded. Can't blame him for the lack of serve and volley.
Mac is difficult to place in terms of completeness. We all know about his marvellous net play, so to mark him complete, we'd have to give his groundgame the thumbs up.
I think he has a decent ground game.... I've seen him hold even with Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl …. but with Mac, even baseline rallying seems to me to be largely shaped by the threat of his taking the net at all times
so I just can't separate Mac from his net play.... its always there, even if he's slugging it out from the back. He has a strong FH, but the BH looks flimsy at times. Being a lefty, this is particularly crucial if he were forced to stay back all the time.... that BH would be in the firing line of all right handers FHs
----
I would describe Djokovic as "balanced" more than "complete" ("well rounded" is a good way of putting it too)
Federer and Nadal are not balanced.... they're both FH heavy and run around the BH quite a lot. But that doesn't mean they don't have good BHs, its just that -
a) their FHs are better still
b) they prefer to use the FH
Djokovic by contrast is equally strong of both wings and doesn't seem to go out of his way to play from one wing or the other. And obviously, as KG said earlier, in todays game not being gung-ho to get to net isn't a drawback
----
Boris Becker is another complete player
Awesome serve, excellent return, decent net game, excellent FH, dangerous BH.... I imagine if he were active today, he'd play like Stan Wawrinka
