Who is the most complete player of all time?

JackGates said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wawrinka is not a complete player though.
 
It would be a battle between Nadal and Federer for sure, but I think a peak Ferrer could sneak in the conversation as a complete player. His only weakness was he didn't have a big enough finishing shot, but he does everything so well.
 
rafael-nadal-of-spain-takes-a-forehand-shot-during-a-training-session-picture-id646057006
 
Nadal has his GS titles more evenly distirbuted by surface than Federer, with at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay). Federer only won 1 RG on clay. It means Nadal is more complete in outdoor surfaces.

Federer has won only 5% of his GS (1/20) on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage on any GS surface.

For Federer to be more complete than Nadal he would need to be more complete both in outdoor and indoor courts, not only indoor courts. In other words, Federer needs to win at least 3 French Open to be more complete than Nadal.
 
Sport said:
Nadal has his GS titles more evenly distirbuted by surface than Federer, with at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay). Federer only won 1 RG on clay. It means Nadal is more complete in outdoor surfaces.

Federer has won only 5% of his GS (1/20) on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage on any GS surface.

For Federer to be more complete than Nadal he would need to be more complete both in outdoor and indoor courts, not only indoor courts. In other words, Federer needs to win at least 3 French Open to be more complete than Nadal.
Click to expand...
Laughable.
 
Sport said:
Nadal has his GS titles more evenly distirbuted by surface than Federer, with at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay). Federer only won 1 RG on clay. It means Nadal is more complete in outdoor surfaces.

Federer has won only 5% of his GS (1/20) on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage on any GS surface.

For Federer to be more complete than Nadal he would need to be more complete both in outdoor and indoor courts, not only indoor courts. In other words, Federer needs to win at least 3 French Open to be more complete than Nadal.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Sport said:
Nadal has his GS titles more evenly distirbuted by surface than Federer, with at least 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay). Federer only won 1 RG on clay. It means Nadal is more complete in outdoor surfaces.

Federer has won only 5% of his GS (1/20) on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage on any GS surface.

For Federer to be more complete than Nadal he would need to be more complete both in outdoor and indoor courts, not only indoor courts. In other words, Federer needs to win at least 3 French Open to be more complete than Nadal.
Click to expand...
So a guy who is 20-20-20-1 is less complete than a guy who is 2-2-2-2? This is basically your logic. Even if we adopt your false equivalence of ignoring GS finals, WTF titles and the fact that HC has many different conditions. Not to mention Fed won AO in three different surfaces and he won pre homogenization and post homogenization.
 
JackGates said:
So a guy who is 20-20-20-1 is less complete than a guy who is 2-2-2-2? This is basically your logic. Even if we adopt your false equivalence of ignoring GS finals, WTF titles and the fact that HC has many different conditions. Not to mention Fed won AO in three different surfaces and he won pre homogenization and post homogenization.
Click to expand...
Yeah grouping HC into one surface isn't objective.

That's like saying Miami plays the same as Cincy.
 
The most complete player? I think Borg, Yeah I know he has 0 HC major titles, But 1 Clay major out of 20 GS titles is not that great either , I know Federer was stopped by an ATG & the best on Clay and Borg was stopped by the best hardcourters of his time.If Nadal wins the AO & Wimby again and the WTF I will put him ahead
 
JackGates said:
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?
Click to expand...

Easy

Roger Federer
 
JackGates said:
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?
Click to expand...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd...

Fedr.
 
K-H said:
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.
Click to expand...
Power can destroy Djokovic as shown by Wawrinka and Nadal adding weight to racquet. Fedr had also add weight due to bigger racquet.

I don't think the pushing done by Djokovic can work anymore.
 
Zebrev said:
It has to be Federer. I can't think of someone with more variety and longevity.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's Federer and it's not even close IMO.

RF-18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

BreakableNaturalBlackwidowspider-max-1mb.gif


Dude, give it a rest already. Djokovic is so complete he hasn't been able to win a relevant match past age 29 thus far and has been abysmal at adapting at the back end of his career. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Federer, Borg, Laver, Djokovic, early-mid 90’s Sampras, Lendl, Becker, Gonzales, Kramer, Budge.

Out of the lot, I think Fed, Borg and Laver are the most well-rounded/compete.

Djokovic is indeed a complete player. There’s little impetus for a 2000s player in today’s conditions to develop an elite net game. That Djokovic got as far as he did without one speaks to its relative obsolescence and makes it hard for me to hold it against him. I think he’d be a very good net player if he focused on it more.
 
Last edited:
Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver, Nastase, Becker, Sampras, Federer, Nadal.
Most complete player of all time? I choose Laver

Rosewall, Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Edberg, Djokovic have at least one obvious weakness.
 
Part of me wants to say Borg but the answer is of course Rog Fred. Next.

No one besides those 2 won slams both playing solely from the back and serving and volleying on at least firsts, so it's fairly easy to narrow it down to them.
 
NatF said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pancho is in my pantheon of great players, undoubtedly top 3-4 achievements-wise...but doesn’t him being relatively ordinary on clay for an ATG diminish his standing? I struggle to rank him over Fed and Laver for that very reason.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Pancho is in my pantheon of great players, undoubtedly top 3-4 achievements-wise...but doesn’t him being relatively ordinary on clay for an ATG diminish his standing? I struggle to rank him over Fed and Laver for that very reason.
Click to expand...

Pancho is probably one of the worst top flight ATG's on clay - though clearly better than say Sampras, but he didn't really have the luxury of competing at a clay major every year during his prime. I do think he would have been good enough to get a win there in a normal era e.g. one without something like Borg or Nadal in the way.
 
NatF said:
Pancho is probably one of the worst top flight ATG's on clay - though clearly better than say Sampras, but he didn't really have the luxury of competing at a clay major every year during his prime. I do think he would have been good enough to get a win there in a normal era e.g. one without something like Borg or Nadal in the way.
Click to expand...

Definitely better than Sampras on the dirt, who I think falls short of Fed and Rod for that very reason.

And fair enough, I would agree with that, but I still think that his (again, relative) deficiency on the surface is hard to overlook. I think if the primes of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzo overlapped perfectly, he’d trail the Rocket ever so slightly.
 
Federer (originality), Nadal (originality) and Djokovic (you cant rule him out because all his strokes were badass when he was on fire - you cant rule him out on any surface in every competition)

And the real successors of Federer are Thiem and Shapovalov. They already have a badass game.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Definitely better than Sampras on the dirt, who I think falls short of Fed and Rod for that very reason.

And fair enough, I would agree with that, but I still think that his (again, relative) deficiency on the surface is hard to overlook. I think if the primes of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzo overlapped perfectly, he’d trail the Rocket ever so slightly.
Click to expand...

IMO Gonzalez was the best player of that era overall, I also think he'd do the best in later era's as well considering his height. Hard to compare though, Pancho's era had a less defined tournament circuit even compared to when Rod was a pro.
 
S, FH, BH, NG (net-game), NA (net-approach.. S&V or FH, BH), DEF (passing-shots or lob), R (return)

FEDERER
62 (S 10 ; FH 10 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 8,5 ; NA 7 ; DEF 8 ; R 9)

NADAL
59,5 (S 7 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9 ; NG 9 ; NA 9 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 6,5)

DJOKOVIC
56,5 ( S 8,5 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 5 ; NA 5 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 9,5)
 
Last edited:
KG1965 said:
S, FH, BH, NG (net-game), NA (net-approach.. S&V or FH, BH), DEF (passing-shots or lob), R (return)

FEDERER
61,5 (S 10 ; FH 10 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 8 ; NA 7 ; DEF 8 ; R 9)

NADAL
59,5 (S 7 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9 ; NG 9 ; NA 9 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 6,5)

DJOKOVIC
56,5 ( S 8,5 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 5 ; NA 5 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 9,5)
Click to expand...

AGASSI
56 (S 6 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 5 ; NA 6 ; DEF 10 ; R 10)

SAMPRAS
61,5 (S 10 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9 ; NG 9,5 ; NA 8 ; DEF 7 ; R 8,5)
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
IMO Gonzalez was the best player of that era overall, I also think he'd do the best in later era's as well considering his height. Hard to compare though, Pancho's era had a less defined tournament circuit even compared to when Rod was a pro.
Click to expand...

IMO the clay disparity would swing things. Despite playing second fiddle to Muscles, Laver was capable of being the best player on clay in a given year..wood/indoors I’d favour Pancho by a hair, and grass would be a pick ‘em.

Maybe PG’s longevity would win out in the end, I don’t know.
 
KG1965 said:
S, FH, BH, NG (net-game), NA (net-approach.. S&V or FH, BH), DEF (passing-shots or lob), R (return)

FEDERER
61,5 (S 10 ; FH 10 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 8 ; NA 7 ; DEF 8 ; R 9)

NADAL
59,5 (S 7 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9 ; NG 9 ; NA 9 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 6,5)

DJOKOVIC
56,5 ( S 8,5 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 5 ; NA 5 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 9,5)
Click to expand...


I like the exercise, but Nadal being ranked higher than Fed in net game? Only one of the two has won a slam s + v’ing on 50% of their serves...wasn’t just eked out either, I might add, as Fed only lost one set the entire tournament.

Also the stuff he showed in the forecourt in the Wimby ‘12/US Open ‘04 finals overshadow any of Nadal’s highlights at net.
 
cc0509 said:
Yep. It's Federer and it's not even close IMO.



BreakableNaturalBlackwidowspider-max-1mb.gif


Dude, give it a rest already. Djokovic is so complete he hasn't been able to win a relevant match past age 29 thus far and has been abysmal at adapting at the back end of his career. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am beginning to think he's a bot. It's the same argument for everything.
 
TheFifthSet said:
IMO the clay disparity would swing things. Despite playing second fiddle to Muscles, Laver was capable of being the best player on clay in a given year..wood I’d favour Pancho by a hair, and grass would be a pick ‘em.

Maybe PG’s longevity would win out in the end, I don’t know.
Click to expand...

Not sure if Laver even played second fiddle to Rosewall on clay - he leads the h2h there IIRC. Your points are fair, I just expect that Pancho would be #1 more often then not if he overlapped with Laver completely.
 
TheFifthSet said:
I like the exercise, but Nadal being ranked higher than Fed in net game? Only one of the two has won a slam s + v’ing on 50% of their serves...wasn’t just eked out either, I might add, as Fed only lost one set the entire tournament.

Also the stuff he showed in the forecourt in the Wimby ‘12/US Open ‘04 finals overshadow any of Nadal’s highlights at net.
Click to expand...
It's just an exercise, in fact. It has no pretensions.

I will certainly have given incorrect marks / points.

But observing Nadal over the years, I think that he has high quality in net-game. His weakness is that he prefers to be holed up in the baseline.
Great fh & volley, great smash for me.
 
KG1965 said:
S, FH, BH, NG (net-game), NA (net-approach.. S&V or FH, BH), DEF (passing-shots or lob), R (return)

FEDERER
61,5 (S 10 ; FH 10 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 8 ; NA 7 ; DEF 8 ; R 9)

NADAL
59,5 (S 7 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9 ; NG 9 ; NA 9 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 6,5)

DJOKOVIC
56,5 ( S 8,5 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 5 ; NA 5 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 9,5)
Click to expand...

KG1965 said:
AGASSI
56 (S 6 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 5 ; NA 6 ; DEF 10 ; R 10)

SAMPRAS
60,5 (S 10 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9 ; NG 8 ; NA 7 ; DEF 8 ; R 9)
Click to expand...

Nadal with the better net game than Federer AND Sampras? o_O
 
NatF said:
Federer is clearly better at net than Nadal - who does still have good hands.
Click to expand...
I'm honest, Fedr is one of the most complete top 2 or 3 players I've seen but I never found a net impressive, Rog have perfect movements but something in the mechanism of approach to net does not excite me.
I like Nadal more, he is more aggressive, impetuous, it seems to me to cover the net better.
I understand that almost everyone agrees with you.
 
KG1965 said:
S, FH, BH, NG (net-game), NA (net-approach.. S&V or FH, BH), DEF (passing-shots or lob), R (return)

FEDERER
61,5 (S 10 ; FH 10 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 8 ; NA 7 ; DEF 8 ; R 9)

NADAL
59,5 (S 7 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9 ; NG 9 ; NA 9 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 6,5)

DJOKOVIC
56,5 ( S 8,5 ; FH 9,5 ; BH 9,5 ; NG 5 ; NA 5 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 9,5)
Click to expand...

Reality: since 2008, when they turned 21-22 years old, the inferior players gave Federer a 15-5 beatdown in slams. 12-4 excluding the RG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

samprasvsfederer123
the most asked question of all time.....
Replies
15
Views
1K
OTMPut
OTMPut
C
  • Poll Poll
Who is the better player on all 5 surfaces? Prime Borg vs Prime Lendl?
Replies
29
Views
2K
Gilgamesh
G
RF-18
Is Djokovic developing to the most complete player of all time, or is he already?
2 3
Replies
100
Views
6K
Tiger8
Tiger8
Guru Apu
If all Slams used all surfaces, who is the Greaterestest??
Replies
35
Views
1K
Eren
Eren
F
If the Grand Slam surfaces were changed dramatically who would win?
Replies
3
Views
673
souledge
S
Back
Top