Who is the most complete player of all time?

[N01E]

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)

I like how you try to make it seem objective by rating "each" aspect of the game. Not only is it useless (you can add anything you want for example: fh, bh slice, smashes and more things you didn't include, going with much less specific stuff like defence nd net game instead), but makes you look like a guy who tries to push his opinion on others way too hard. Let's add some extremely specific stuff like responding to a lob with an explosive forehand (Lopez) or hitting extremely powerful flat backhand while being thrown off the court (Nadal) and let's see how it looks. You can say that you included those aspects but then the weight you put on each one of them is simply random. Some may even say that you play tennis with your legs and just hit the ball with your arms and while it's a simplification it is true in a way. Also, using numbers to describe things that were clearly not meant to be described using them is childish as it simply throws all the analyzing through the window. Why not just write:

Fedr: 10
Bull: 9
Ultron: 8.5

? Everyone wants to be a critic and using numbers is the easiest way to "do it".

Edit: A moment of silence for Fed 9.5 BH

 

[Deleted member 757377]

4-12 at Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open...

What a shame. 19 slam titles' weakness exposed.

 

[KG1965]

EDBERG
57,5 (S 8 ; FH 5,5 ; BH 10 ; NG 10 ; NA 10 ; DEF 7 ; R 7)

MAC
57,5 (S 10 ; FH 8,5 ; BH 8 ; NG 10 ; NA 9,5 ; DEF 5 ; R 6,5)

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

WILANDER
57 (S 6 ; FH 8 ; BH 9 ; NG 7 ; NA 10 ; DEF 10 ; R 7)

 

[TheFifthSet]

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.

I meant career-wise/against the field, Rosewall was a tad better. The match-up itself was extremely competitive. In any event I’m mostly splitting hairs; Pancho is a Tier 1 great regardless of his fast court-heavy resume.

I know this isn’t a novel thought but man, I wish we had a better gauge of just how good Kramer was in relation to those guys. Everything I’ve ever read about him suggested that he was about as close as you can get to a perfect player.

 

[KG1965]

I like how you try to make it seem objective by rating "each" aspect of the game. Not only is it useless (you can add anything you want for example: fh, bh slice, smashes and more things you didn't include, going with much less specific stuff like defence nd net game instead), but makes you look like a guy who tries to push his opinion on others way too hard. Let's add some extremely specific stuff like responding to a lob with an explosive forehand (Lopez) or hitting extremely powerful flat backhand while being thrown off the court (Nadal) and let's see how it looks. You can say that you included those aspects but then the weight you put on each one of them is simply random. Some may even say that you play tennis with your legs and just hit the ball with your arms and while it's a simplification it is true in a way. Also, using numbers to describe things that were clearly not meant to be described using them is childish as it simply throws all the analyzing through the window.

1) the numbers I entered are not objective, they are subjective because they are mine, of course
2) many are used to thinking that a player is complete if he plays divinely 3 hits (S + BH + FH) but it is not so .. and this is objective.

Fedr: 10
Bull: 9
Ultron: 8.5

No..
Fedr: 8,86
Bull: 8,5
Ultron: 8.07

 

[Deleted member 757377]

EDBERG
57,5 (S 8 ; FH 5,5 ; BH 10 ; NG 10 ; NA 10 ; DEF 7 ; R 7)

MAC
57,5 (S 10 ; FH 8,5 ; BH 8 ; NG 10 ; NA 9,5 ; DEF 5 ; R 6,5)

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

WILANDER
57 (S 6 ; FH 8 ; BH 9 ; NG 7 ; NA 10 ; DEF 10 ; R 7)

Please stop.

 

[TheFifthSet]

4-12 at Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open...

What a shame. 19 slam titles' weakness exposed.

20 slams, try to keep up.

 

[KG1965]

Please stop.

No, I have not finished. I'm sorry for you.
It's still very long... Laver, Rosewall, Jimbo, Borg, Lendl.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

20 slams, try to keep up.

He won 19 slams at those three tournaments.

 

[TheFifthSet]

He won 19 slams at those three tournaments.

O dam

Fedr exposd

 

[NatF]

I meant career-wise/against the field, Rosewall was a tad better. The match-up itself was extremely competitive. In any event I’m mostly splitting hairs; Pancho is a Tier 1 great regardless of his fast court-heavy resume.

I know this isn’t a novel thought but man, I wish we had a better gauge of just how good Kramer was in relation to those guys. Everything I’ve ever read about him suggested that he was about as close as you can get to a perfect player.

Everyone raves about Kramer, not sure if that's partly to do with his own propaganda or not though The guy had no stroke weakness though, he had early onset arthritis but even before that I don't think his movement was as good as Pancho/Laver/Rosewall's nor the elite movers of the OE.

 

[N01E]

1) the numbers I entered are not objective, they are subjective because they are mine, of course
2) many are used to thinking that a player is complete if he plays divinely 3 hits (S + BH + FH) but it is not so .. and this is objective.

No..
Fedr: 8,86
Bull: 8,5
Ultron: 8.07

Those numbers I've given were an example of stat that could by made by someone who could just throw everything into one category named "tennis". And being the most complete is not about scoring the highest score in each aspect you choose. If you are able to completely avoid your weakness then it is no more. Let's imagine a player who could theoritcally round around his every backhand. Even on the returns. Absurd? Obviously, but in that scenario he wouldn't have to worry about that shot. Is Nadal the most complete clay courter of all time because he's one of the best s&v on the surface? If there is no weakness for your opponent to exploit then I can say you are a complete player. And I wouldn't call the guy who has trouble dealing with high backhands, a common shot he has to play against his rival the most complete ever.

 

[JackGates]

He won 19 slams at those three tournaments.

Ok, but does winning 19 majors at 3 slams work against Federer? Not to mention as a bonus 5 FO finals + 6 WTF wins. And he won Australian open on basically 3 different surfaces.

 

[KG1965]

Those numbers I've given were an example of stat that could by made by someone who could just throw everything into one category named "tennis". And being the most complete is not about scoring the highest score in each aspect you choose. If you are able to completely avoid your weakness then it is no more. Let's imagine a player who could theoritcally round around his every backhand. Even on the returns. Absurd? Obviously, but in that scenario he wouldn't have to worry about that shot. Is Nadal the most complete clay courter of all time because he's one of the best s&v on the surface? If there is no weakness for your opponent to exploit then I can say you are a complete player. And I wouldn't call the guy who has trouble dealing with high backhands, a common shot he has to play against his rival the most complete ever.

I agree that there may be various definitions of completeness.

A player that plays well on grass, clay and hc can be complete. Or indoor and open courts.

Whoever owns all the shots can be complete.

Can a player who hides his weakness be also complete? (like Djoker on the net?).
A weakness is also a hidden weakness. Nole's smash is a weak point even if he plays it once every match.

 

[clareyont]

Those numbers I've given were an example of stat that could by made by someone who could just throw everything into one category named "tennis". And being the most complete is not about scoring the highest score in each aspect you choose. If you are able to completely avoid your weakness then it is no more. Let's imagine a player who could theoritcally round around his every backhand. Even on the returns. Absurd? Obviously, but in that scenario he wouldn't have to worry about that shot. Is Nadal the most complete clay courter of all time because he's one of the best s&v on the surface? If there is no weakness for your opponent to exploit then I can say you are a complete player. And I wouldn't call the guy who has trouble dealing with high backhands, a common shot he has to play against his rival the most complete ever.

Agree with most of it bar the last. Djokovic aint a good returner then if he losing h2h Karlovic, Roddick, Nick even struggled with cilic. Nah brah. Nah cant be having that brah

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Ok, but does winning 19 majors at 3 slams work against Federer? Not to mention as a bonus 5 FO finals + 6 WTF wins. And he won Australian open on basically 3 different surfaces.

No, but he was exposed as a fraud at those venues by RAFA and Nole.

 

[JackGates]

No, but he was exposed as a fraud at those venues by RAFA and Nole.

He, clearly wasn't, since they couldn't stop him from winning all those events.

 

[KG1965]

LAVER
63,5 (S 9 ; FH 8,5 ; BH 8,5 ; NG 10 ; NA 10 ; DEF 8,5 ; R 9)

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

CONNORS
59,5 (S 4 ; FH 8,5 ; BH 10 ; NG 8,5 ; NA 9 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 10)

BORG
60,5 (S 9,5 ; FH 10 ; BH 9 ; NG 6 ; NA 8,5 ; DEF 10 ; R 7,5)

LENDL
58,5 (S 9,5; FH 10 ; BH 9 ; NG 5 ; NA 6 ; DEF 9,5 ; R 9,5)

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

He, clearly wasn't, since they couldn't stop him from winning all those events.

They stopped him 75% of the time.

 

[JackGates]

They stopped him 75% of the time.

No, they didn't, if they stopped him he would have 75% less majors.

 

[KG1965]

Considering: Serve, FH, BH, net-game, net-approach (S&V or FH, BH), passing-shots (or lob) and return.

63,5 LAVER
62 FEDERER
61,5 SAMPRAS
61 ROSEWALL
60,5 BORG
59,5 CONNORS
59,5 NADAL
58,5 LENDL
58 BECKER
57,5 EDBERG
57,5 MAC
57 WILANDER
56,5 DJOKOVIC
56 AGASSI

Duty specification: completeness is not synonymous with size (Djokovic >> Becker, but Boris is most complete).
Top player A can be> complete B, but B is larger than A.

 

[JackGates]

Considering: Serve, FH, BH, net-game, net-approach (S&V or FH, BH), passing-shots (or lob) and return.


62 FEDERER
61,5 SAMPRAS
59,5 NADAL
56,5 DJOKOVIC
56 AGASSI
58BECKER
57,5 EDBERG
57,5MAC


57 WILANDER

Any reason Borg is not close? He won the most majors under extreme polarised conditions.

 

[merwy]

Fedr.

And I feel like Becker is a bit underrated but that just my humble opinion

 

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Your namesake wasn't bad......

 

[abmk]

Of course he is, what weaknesses does he have in his game? He was the only one who could stop peak Djokovic who is considered the most complete.

RoS, movement compared to the top guys, can be rushed, can be troubled by variety.

and no, Djokovic isn't the most complete. From the baseline, maybe, but not overall.

 

[King No1e]

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?

Look at my avatar

 

[King No1e]

Nadal is one of the most complete players result-wise with his 2 GS on all surfaces and Golden Slam, but one of the most one-dimensional players game-wise. Guy would win Wimbledon from a kilometer behind the baseline.