[Mr. President]

Who are the Big 4 players who are least adept at adapting to various surfaces? One way to measure this is the difference in a player's results on their strongest vs their weakest surface. By this metrics, the ranking of least versatile players are:

1. Rafael Nadull: GOAT on clay but absolute mug indoors. He also cried incessantly over the Madrid surface. Hence he is the least versatile IMO.

2. Andy Mugray:Great on grass and HC, bad on clay. But IMO difference is not as stark as in the case of Dull, so he gets the ranking of second least versatile Big 4

3.Novak Fakervic: Decent across all surfaces, but he cried over Madrid. :devil:

4. Roger GOATerer: Most versatile player of all time. Multiple titles across surfaces. GOAT

 

[emotion]

In terms of being good across surfaces, Murray.

But just in terms of having a one-dimensional game, Nadal and Djokovic both have less variety than Murray does.

 

[Chokehater]

Murray. He hasn't won a single title on clay. He got 2 FO SF but mostly because of extremely lucky draws. Rafa absolutely destroyed him on both occasions.

 

[Cloren]

Murray more versatile than Nadal? Mr President WOATING.

 

[Mr. President]

I had a hard time deciding who is less versatile amongst them bro

 

[Ady0101]

Murray, he sucks on clay

 

[Cloren]

I had a hard time deciding who is less versatile amongst them bro

Nadal won a title and made two WTF finals in indoors bro, Murray hasn't even made a clay final. and let's also take note that the clay season is a lot longer than the indoors season, and still Nadal did better.

Spot on about the rest though, especially about Federer. he didn't whine about the Madrid surface like the other two mugs, instead he let his tennis do the talking

 

[Thirty All]

Murray - can't play on clay.
Nadal and Djokovic - just pushing, no variety in playing styles.

 

[BankaiKenpachi]

OP first created Nadal FH ownage thread and then creates another thread claiming Nabal being least versatile among big 4. I'm too lazy to even offer my counter-argument but it's quite entertaining, I can give you that. What's going to be the next? Nadal being most one dimensional?

 

[Slade]

Murray sprays too badly on clay, but I think he's underrated on the surface. Wafa though... He does the same thing on every single surface. If it works, it works. If it fails, then he can't do anything about it (grass & indoor hard).

One of those two for sure, with the edge to Wafa.

 

[Mr. President]

OP first created Nadal FH ownage thread and then creates another thread claiming Nabal being least versatile among big 4. I'm too lazy to even offer my counter-argument but it's quite entertaining, I can give you that. What's going to be the next? Nadal being most one dimensional?

You are misunderstanding my intentions. I am trying to deliver objective insights here.

 

[JediFed]

Of the present big four? Nadal.

 

[MarkChan]

Murray and Djokovic only know to push (resulting to the most boring match-up between slam winners in the history of tennis) while Fraud only know to servebot (serving 18 aces to beat Djokovic on CLAY).
I don't consider them as having versatility.

 

[duarte_a]

Dull.

 

[Mountaindewslave]

In terms of being good across surfaces, Murray.

But just in terms of having a one-dimensional game, Nadal and Djokovic both have less variety than Murray does.

you show how little you know. I can't believe you just stated that Murray has more variety than Nadal Nadal who famously adjusted his HC game with more aggressive court positioning and serve to win the US Open, Nadal who in his early 20s vastly improved his net play to win Wimbledon. how did Murray win the Wimbledon and the US Open? I'll clue you in: he played the same game he always plays. consistent baseline consistent baseline consistent baseline with LOTS OF FUCKING RUNNING. Memo: 55 shot rally in that grueling US Open 2012 final

it's sad when you go back and watch the 2012 US Open final compared to the ones Nadal has won there when considering this question; its insanely 'grindy' in comparison

Murray is by far the least versatile of them; fortunately for him with todays courts generally being more or less the same as one another in terms of speed, it doesn't really hurt him much. Djokovic is much more capable of playing an aggressive style of play when necessary than Andy
Federer obviously is the most versatile of them all

Murray. Murray. Murray. that is the easy and honest answer to the OP's question. and it has nothing to do with results. a turtle could answer this question. a turtle with a shell who has never seen a tennis match in their life would still know

 

[Fargif]

Another bash thread for Rafa. Man you waited a whole year to start this on xmas eve? Really only shows how pathetic Fedtarts are. Give it a break. Season starts in a few days.

 

[BodyServe]

Versatility is also the ability to adapt to the opponent so in that respect i would say Nadal with his one dimensional gameplan is the least versatile of all.

 

[ProdigyEng]

you show how little you know. I can't believe you just stated that Murray has more variety than Nadal Nadal who famously adjusted his HC game with more aggressive court positioning and serve to win the US Open, Nadal who in his early 20s vastly improved his net play to win Wimbledon. how did Murray win the Wimbledon and the US Open? I'll clue you in: he played the same game he always plays. consistent baseline consistent baseline consistent baseline with LOTS OF FUCKING RUNNING. Memo: 55 shot rally in that grueling US Open 2012 final

it's sad when you go back and watch the 2012 US Open final compared to the ones Nadal has won there when considering this question; its insanely 'grindy' in comparison

Murray is by far the least versatile of them; fortunately for him with todays courts generally being more or less the same as one another in terms of speed, it doesn't really hurt him much. Djokovic is much more capable of playing an aggressive style of play when necessary than Andy
Federer obviously is the most versatile of them all

Murray. Murray. Murray. that is the easy and honest answer to the OP's question. and it has nothing to do with results. a turtle could answer this question. a turtle with a shell who has never seen a tennis match in their life would still know

Yeah this perfectly explains why Murray has an OG on grass and a Wimbledon title, a surface which even though it is slower than it used to still requires aggressive Tennis to succeed on. Murray also has titles on fast surfaces, making your point about Murray not being that capable of playing an aggressive style of play so much invalid.

 

[Chokehater]

Yeah this perfectly explains why Murray has an OG on grass and a Wimbledon title, a surface which even though it is slower than it used to still requires aggressive Tennis to succeed on. Murray also has titles on fast surfaces, making your point about Murray not being that capable of playing an aggressive style of play so much invalid.

Not really. Counter Punching is a lot more effective on faster courts than on slow courts (especially clay), ask Lleyton Hewitt...
It's true that Murray is capable of playing aggressive tennis but it happens only sporadically.

 

[MarkChan]

Not really. Counter Punching is a lot more effective on faster courts than on slow courts (especially clay), ask Lleyton Hewitt...
It's true that Murray is capable of playing aggressive tennis but it happens only sporadically.

slow grass with slow ball-bouncing is the paradise of counter player.
Short-angled shot and then finish the point at net:angel: