Who is the most complete player of all time?

[JackGates]

Let's say all great players could have modern training and access to modern fitness and nutrition and technology. Then they compete on all sorts of surfaces. Fast grass, carpet, blue clay, indoor, you name it.

Who would come out on top, who would have the least weaknesses in his game?

 

[Shaolin]

Fedr

 

[Deleted member 756486]

 

[mike danny]

Either Federer or Borg.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Pancho Gonzales

 

[MatsPhilander]

Ivan.

 

[JackGates]

Does Agassi deserve a mention? He won golden calendar slam when surfaces had true diversity, plus I think he won almost all the masters?

 

[NatF]

Pancho Gonzales

I think he might be arguably the best player ever (relative to his era), Jack Kramer is someone who from his contemporaries many people rave about in terms of overall game - Laver and Hoad as well of course. In terms of strokes Kramer is probably up there with anyone but others from his era were better movers.

Seeing as the OP says with modern training etc...I'd definitely consider Pancho a strong candidate, the guy taught himself to play and reached the top of the world so with modern training and technology I imagine he'd be a monster. Likewise I think Borg with modern racquets would be crazy good.

 

[Sysyphus]

peak mury

 

[JackGates]

I think he might be arguably the best player ever (relative to his era), Jack Kramer is someone who from his contemporaries many people rave about in terms of overall game - Laver and Hoad as well of course. In terms of strokes Kramer is probably up there with anyone but others from his era were better movers.

Seeing as the OP says with modern training etc...I'd definitely consider Pancho a strong candidate, the guy taught himself to play and reached the top of the world so with modern training and technology I imagine he'd be a monster. Likewise I think Borg with modern racquets would be crazy good.

That's great. This is turning out to be an interesting discussion.

 

[K-H]

I think in terms of least weaknesses, Djokovic wins hands down as there’s nothing to really exploit in his game. Even though his net game is suspect, you can’t really exploit it. There’s no tactics against him, you just have to outplay him to beat him.

But if we’re saying the most complete player then it’s Federer.

 

[JackGates]

I think in terms of least weaknesses, Djokovic wins hands down as there’s nothing to really exploit in his game. Even though his net game is suspect, you can’t really exploit it. There’s no tactics against him, you just have to outplay him to beat him.

But if we’re saying the most complete player then it’s Federer.

Yes, he is very complete for this baseline era, but would that translate to more diversity, that is the question. If he had to play all sorts of different styles and surfaces.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Djokovic.

 

[JackGates]

Djokovic.

Cool, but could you give your further explanation as to why? I just want some analysis.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Cool, but could you give your further explanation as to why? I just want some analysis.

Because he is a player MADE for modern conditions, therefore he would be better than Borg or Laver. How many people did play tennis in those times? And could they be the best with their mediocre height? Only Federer and Nadal could stand a chance, but since his 22th birthday Djokovic had a positive h2h against them on their favourite surface, so I don't think they have many chances against his top version.

 

[thrust]

Pancho Gonzales

Pancho, Federer, Laver- Not necessarily in that order.

 

[JackGates]

Because he is a player MADE for modern conditions, therefore he would be better than Borg or Laver. How many people play tennis in those times? Only Federer and Nadal could stand a chance, but since his 22th birthday Djokovic had a positive h2h against them on their favourite surface, so I don't think they have many chances against his top version.

I agree, but I think you didn't read my post. My premise was that they would have to play in all conditions, not just modern conditions and also that older guys also had modern equipment and training.

 

[junior74]

Because he is a player MADE for modern conditions, therefore he would be better than Borg, Laver and others, who would be out of place. Only Federer and Nadal could stand a chance, but since his 22th birthday Djokovic had a positive h2h against them on their favourite surface, so I don't think they have many chances against his top version.

Most complete from the baseline in the 2000s? Yeah, probably Djokovic.

Until recently, players had to master net game/ all court game to win on surfaces that were very different and required different skill sets. I have absolutely no hesitation to claim Borg to be more complete than Djokovic. He won RG and Wimbledon when the surfaces were REALLY different.

 

[Shaolin]

That's great. This is turning out to be an interesting discussion.

The winner is in post #2 and 3.

How is he NOT the most complete player ever?

20 slams spread across all surfaces. 302 weeks #1. 5 RG finals/1 RG title plus 6 masters on his WORST surface. Also it took the best player on clay to ever live to beat him there. Won Wimbledon on fast and slow grass. Played and destroyed 3 generations of players and still going. The list can go on forever.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I agree, but I think you didn't read my post. My premise was that they would have to play in all conditions, not just modern conditions and also that older guys also had modern equipment and training.

Connors or Federer then, for their longevity. Connors especially, went through deep changes in the game.

But I wouldn't exclude Nadal and Djokovic, who are amazingly talented and could be a surprise. Even Murray could be one of the best with his flat shots.

 

[thrust]

Most complete from the baseline in the 2000s? Yeah, probably Djokovic.

Until recently, players had to master net game/ all court gme to win on surfaces that was very different and required a different skill set. I have absolutely no hesitation to claim Borg to be more complete than Djokovic. He won RG and Wimbledon when the surfaces were REALLY different.

Most complete player is one who has either a great or outstanding: Serve, ground game, net game, overhead, forehand and backhand, as well as great court coverage. Novak lacks a great or outstanding net game or overhead. Federer, Gonzalez and Laver had it all.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

I think he might be arguably the best player ever (relative to his era), Jack Kramer is someone who from his contemporaries many people rave about in terms of overall game - Laver and Hoad as well of course. In terms of strokes Kramer is probably up there with anyone but others from his era were better movers.

Seeing as the OP says with modern training etc...I'd definitely consider Pancho a strong candidate, the guy taught himself to play and reached the top of the world so with modern training and technology I imagine he'd be a monster. Likewise I think Borg with modern racquets would be crazy good.

Could any further achievement by Fed sway your opinion? (I asked you before but you didn't )

 

[RF-18]

Cool, but could you give your further explanation as to why? I just want some analysis.

His ability to adjust and transfer his game to other conditions and surfaces, and become a true champion and ruler in all of them.

On HC - he was a dominant champion, not just title wise but against his rivals aswell.

On grass, he was a champion there and made Wimbledon his own winning it two years in a row, and did that by finding a way to best the greatest grass courter ever.

On clay - he has had dominant periods there aswell, both title wise but against his rivals aswell - 2011, he dominated by far the best clay courter ever. 2015-16, the period wich Djokovic was the best clay court player in world.

Indoor HC - again, bested his true rival Federer, and between 2012-2015 he won four YECs and three paris masters in a row. Dominant.

No matter where Djokovic has played, no matter where you have put him, he has been a dominant champion and made the conditions his own. No matter who you put up against him, even when he has been in disadvantage cause of the conditions, he has found a way to be the best and be #1 on all conditions and surfaces for longer periods.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It is impossible to know, but right now Federer is a strong candidate.

Mury is another possibility.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Most complete from the baseline in the 2000s? Yeah, probably Djokovic.

Until recently, players had to master net game/ all court gme to win on surfaces that was very different and required a different skill set. I have absolutely no hesitation to claim Borg to be more complete than Djokovic. He won RG and Wimbledon when the surfaces were REALLY different.

It was not much about the surfaces, it was about what the rackets and the athleticism allowed the players to do.

You may be right, Borg may be more complete than Djokovic. But don't underestimate the big4, they tried everything to beat each other.

 

[NatF]

Could any further achievement by Fed sway your opinion? (I asked you before but you didn't )

Well Federer needs to wind up as the best of this era at least. I flip flop between them generally, another YE #1 and/or a couple more majors would seal it for me probably.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

His ability to adjust and transfer his game to other conditions and surfaces, and become a true champion and ruler in all of them.

On HC - he was a dominant champion, not just title wise but against his rivals aswell.

On grass, he was a champion there and made Wimbledon his own winning it two years in a row, and did that by finding a way to best the greatest grass courter ever.

On clay - he has had dominant periods there aswell, both title wise but against his rivals aswell - 2011, he dominated by far the best clay courter ever. 2015-16, the period wich Djokovic was the best clay court player in world.

Indoor HC - again, bested his true rival Federer, and between 2012-2015 he won four YECs and three paris masters in a row. Dominant.

No matter where Djokovic has played, no matter where you have put him, he has been a dominant champion and made the conditions his own. No matter who you put up against him, even when he has been in disadvantage cause of the conditions, he has found a way to be the best and be #1 on all conditions and surfaces for longer periods.

His achievements speak of lesser candidate than others.

He has time, though.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

His ability to adjust and transfer his game to other conditions and surfaces, and become a true champion and ruler in all of them.

On HC - he was a dominant champion, not just title wise but against his rivals aswell.

On grass, he was a champion there and made Wimbledon his own winning it two years in a row, and did that by finding a way to best the greatest grass courter ever.

On clay - he has had dominant periods there aswell, both title wise but against his rivals aswell - 2011, he dominated by far the best clay courter ever. 2015-16, the period wich Djokovic was the best clay court player in world.

Indoor HC - again, bested his true rival Federer, and between 2012-2015 he won four YECs and three paris masters in a row. Dominant.

No matter where Djokovic has played, no matter where you have put him, he has been a dominant champion and made the conditions his own. No matter who you put up against him, even when he has been in disadvantage cause of the conditions, he has found a way to be the best and be #1 on all conditions and surfaces for longer periods.

Djokovic has less USO titles than Nadal and only one more than Mury GOAT.

Djokovic is one of the greatest if not the greatest HC player of all time but do you not think that’s a rather large dent on his resume?

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Well Federer needs to wind up as the best of this era at least. I flip flop between them generally, another YE #1 and/or a couple more majors would seal it for me probably.

Is 20 slams and 5 YE#1 not enough for you?

 

[NatF]

Is 20 slams and 5 YE#1 not enough for you?

Pancho was number one in his era for basically a decade...

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Pancho was number one in his era for basically a decade...

I don’t really bother to compare pre open era players to open era players, far too different to compare imo.

 

[RF-18]

Djokovic has less USO titles than Nadal and only one more than Mury GOAT.

Djokovic is one of the greatest if not the greatest HC player of all time but do you not think that’s a rather large dent on his resume?

If you put it like this: If Djokovic had 3 USOs, and Nadal 2, would that make any ounce of difference in Djokovic's HC ability and career compared to Nadal and in general? No.

Besides, it doesn't have alot to do with the thread. OP asked the most complete player, I said Djokovic, and I've always said that. His ability to transition and adjust to other conditions and surfaces and become a champion, and also beat the best on their terms, is out of this world.

If there is anyone who made the claim of being the most complete player, it is Djokovic.

If we take a look, before, the career slam was a sign of completeness, but Djokovic wasn't satisfied with that and set a new standard. He took it even further.

 

[NatF]

I don’t really bother to compare pre open era players to open era players, far too different to compare imo.

Well I do - to a degree.

 

[KINGROGER]

Federer overall.

Djokovic is a complete baseliner but he has benefited from the homogenised surfaces.

 

[JackGates]

Connors or Federer then, for their longevity. Connors especially, went through deep changes in the game.

But I wouldn't exclude Nadal and Djokovic, who are amazingly talented and could be a surprise. Even Murray could be one of the best with his flat shots.

Interesting, I forgot about Connors. He actually has most titles in the open era. Yes, his longevity is incredible.

 

[FiReFTW]

Federer most complete in terms of having all the shots and even some that other players dont hit, and most complete in terms of adapting to different surfaces and conditions and being the overall best on all different surfaces and most complete all around player (serve, groundstrokes, volleys..)

Djokovic most complete in terms of having the least holes in his game and all his shots being very stable in all situations, no weaknesses to exploit in his game, everything is very stable

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Well I do - to a degree.

It’s fun to do but for me there’s far too much speculation to compare Laver and Federer for example.

I think the 80s is as far as I’ll go when comparing past players to modern players, even that might be a stretch.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Federer most complete in terms of having all the shots and even some that other players dont hit, and most complete in terms of adapting to different surfaces and conditions and being the overall best on all different surfaces and most complete all around player (serve, groundstrokes, volleys..)

Djokovic most complete in terms of having the least holes in his game and all his shots being very stable in all situations, no weaknesses to exploit in his game, everything is very stable

That sounds like an overhead smash poast to me.

 

[JackGates]

If you put it like this: If Djokovic had 3 USOs, and Nadal 2, would that make any ounce of difference in Djokovic's HC ability and career compared to Nadal and in general? No.

Besides, it doesn't have alot to do with the thread. OP asked the most complete player, I said Djokovic, and I've always said that. His ability to transition and adjust to other conditions and surfaces and become a champion, and also beat the best on their terms, is out of this world.

If there is anyone who made the claim of being the most complete player, it is Djokovic.

If we take a look, before, the career slam was a sign of completeness, but Djokovic wasn't satisfied with that and set a new standard. He took it even further.

Could be, but I'm not here to give my opinion, so I won't. I'm just listening to what other people are saying. We will see if majority agrees.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

That sounds like an overhead smash poast to me.

The sunglasses are off!

 

[clareyont]

Because he is a player MADE for modern conditions, therefore he would be better than Borg or Laver. How many people did play tennis in those times? And could they be the best with their mediocre height? Only Federer and Nadal could stand a chance, but since his 22th birthday Djokovic had a positive h2h against them on their favourite surface, so I don't think they have many chances against his top version.

Except your theory completely falls apart when we realise peak djokovic in 2017 and 2018 can barely get past the 1st round of any tournament.In his 30's Novak has won multiple slams now, he is mentally much tougher, more experienced, he is stronger... he is also losing to every mug you can name since he just cant compete with the modern game. Istomin Edmund etc are just too much

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The sunglasses are off!

Uhhh.

I don’t understand what is the fascination with that.

Basically, it is like an avatar, which I change only when I want to convey some context with the post.

In itself it is just like a signature and conveys no specific message. I think that the misinterpretation stems from people being used to it meaning "cool" which is not why I am using it.

I hope this helps.

 

[clareyont]

If you put it like this: If Djokovic had 3 USOs, and Nadal 2, would that make any ounce of difference in Djokovic's HC ability and career compared to Nadal and in general? No.

Besides, it doesn't have alot to do with the thread. OP asked the most complete player, I said Djokovic, and I've always said that. His ability to transition and adjust to other conditions and surfaces and become a champion, and also beat the best on their terms, is out of this world.

If there is anyone who made the claim of being the most complete player, it is Djokovic.

If we take a look, before, the career slam was a sign of completeness, but Djokovic wasn't satisfied with that and set a new standard. He took it even further.

Djokovic doesn't have longevity though does he? Hole in completeness? Also he isn't great on fast courts. Not that he is not a complete player, he is. We are nitt picking here

 

[clareyont]

Uhhh.

I don’t understand what is the fascination with that.

Basically, it is like an avatar, which I change only when I want to convey some context with the post.

In itself it is just like a signature and conveys no specific message. I think that the misinterpretation stems from people being used to it meaning "cool" which is not why I am using it.

I hope this helps.

Your signature. Did @clayqueen really say that? Like WTF dude/dudette calls themselves clayqueen and knows jack s@@t about clay

 

[JackGates]

Djokovic doesn't have longevity though does he? Hole in completeness? Also he isn't great on fast courts. Not that he is not a complete player, he is. We are nitt picking here

He is complete player for homogenization era, but would that translate to fast grass, carpet and versus greater variety of styles? Considering he struggles with big servers and other complete players like Wawrinka and he is not good on ultra fast Cincy and Dubai courts, I have my doubts about him.

Also, your own point, lack of longevity. The answer was who would come on top if all played, then longevity surely is important a lot obviously.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Your signature. Did @clayqueen really say that? Like WTF dude/dudette calls themselves clayqueen and knows jack s@@t about clay

Yes, the quotes in my signature are authentic.

I wish I could put more such quotes on display, so that people lose less time, when in doubt about their opponents.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Uhhh.

I don’t understand what is the fascination with that.

Basically, it is like an avatar, which I change only when I want to convey some context with the post.

In itself it is just like a signature and conveys no specific message. I think that the misinterpretation stems from people being used to it meaning "cool" which is not why I am using it.

I hope this helps.

No hard feelings about it, it’s pretty cool and unique, separates you from everyone else.

I find it difficult to remember all the usernames but when I see the sunglasses emoji I know who it is.

 

[clareyont]

He is complete player for homogenization era, but would that translate to fast grass, carpet and versus greater variety of styles? Considering he struggles with big servers and other complete players like Wawrinka and he is not good on ultra fast Cincy and Dubai courts, I have my doubts about him.

Also, your own point, lack of longevity. The answer was who would come on top if all played, then longevity surely is important a lot obviously.

Yeah I agree, but I would say with players as talented as Fedalovic they would adapt their games to whatever conditions. Nadal is not going to adapt to fast courts as he is better off winning clay and having some success everywhere. Fed is not going to adapt to clay as he is better off doing what he is doing. Novak is fine the way he is. However, if they went 20 years ago they would all HAVE to adapt and they are talented enough to do so plus never would have ended up how they are now.... Nadal would not be a topspin hitter etc hed be serving and volleying

But thats not what we are talking about, forced adapatations, we are on about the lesser adaptations players need to win on all surfaces, ages etc.

For this we all know, and it is not even close, fed is the most adaptable and complete player it is not even a contest. He has played in nearly four eras now, genuinely switched up from s+v to baseline to his current style which NO ONE ON TOUR plays. He has survived string changes, surface changes, multiple GOAT canididates who are 5 years younger, won on blue clay lol. He has won young, peak and old. He has survived surgeries, back troubles and 4 kids and marriage, who knows if rumours are true but other players have struggled with that side of things. So no contest - Fed. If tennis was played on ice and in skates I'd trust Fed to adapt and excel a heck of a lot more than I would trust Novak or Nadal.

 

[JackGates]

Yeah I agree, but I would say with players as talented as Fedalovic they would adapt their games to whatever conditions. Nadal is not going to adapt to fast courts as he is better off winning clay and having some success everywhere. Fed is not going to adapt to clay as he is better off doing what he is doing. Novak is fine the way he is. However, if they went 20 years ago they would all HAVE to adapt and they are talented enough to do so plus never would have ended up how they are now.... Nadal would not be a topspin hitter etc hed be serving and volleying

But thats not what we are talking about, forced adapatations, we are on about the lesser adaptations players need to win on all surfaces, ages etc.

For this we all know, and it is not even close, fed is the most adaptable and complete player it is not even a contest. He has played in nearly four eras now, genuinely switched up from s+v to baseline to his current style which NO ONE ON TOUR plays. He has survived string changes, surface changes, multiple GOAT canididates who are 5 years younger, won on blue clay lol. He has won young, peak and old. He has survived surgeries, back troubles and 4 kids and marriage, who knows if rumours are true but other players have struggled with that side of things. So no contest - Fed. If tennis was played on ice and in skates I'd trust Fed to adapt and excel a heck of a lot more than I would trust Novak or Nadal.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that in this era Fed is the most adaptable, that's why my thread was about all time, because I think there are other players that were also like that, that had the creativity, technique, talent and anticipation to adapt. I think Mac is one of them. I think Mac with proper training and nutrition would be amazing. Borg too, since he won on ultra fast and ultra slow conditions 5 grass and 6 clay. And he even dominated indoor and almost won USO too.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I would mention Lendl too. He was nearly 10 years top-2 in the most revolutionary period in terms of rackets. Look at what happened to his coetaneous McEnroe in the mid '80s.