Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 103 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Was it Borg? I am sure Borg is till now the only player who could play any style of tennis, and play along any side of the court(inside the baseline, outside, at the net etc).

It's not the big 3 members, as Nadal is too topspin and grinding from the baseline oriented, his net game while has worked at times , he has used it very less to make a judgement, so his net and serve and volley sample size is too small. Plus his style is too clay oriented

Djokovic is more defending from the baseline oriented. While he has a decent serve and great return. His net game is average, his serve and volley is average, his smash game is quite atrocious.

Federer has a very poor return game, and a poor backhand throughout his career, his serve was also quite overrated, nowhere near the praise he deserves, his mental toughness aspect is probably one of the worst all time of top pros. So not many dimensions are checked there.

Who else do you think is a complete tennis player? I.e can play any style, on any surface, on any condition and has every shot in the book checked out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
In today's tennis, with the advances in racket technology and where being a top-level athlete is a requirement, the most complete tennis player is Djokovic. Djokovic is the perfect player for how the game is played today. A style like serve & volley is outdated and is not needed for the success of a modern-day player. Even on grass, that style is dead.

Regarding the smash, Djokovic's opponents cannot make him hit the smash whenever they want, so it is irrelevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
I second Borg. Federer has shanked his backhand too many times into the parking lot, Novak at the net is a recipe for disaster, and Dal on grass (until it becomes green clay) is like a tortoise in quicksand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
I second Borg. Federer has shanked his backhand too many times into the parking lot, Novak at the net is a recipe for disaster, and Dal on grass (until it becomes green clay) is like a tortoise in quicksand.
Djokovic's net game is not bad, but it is not vital for the success of today's players. Djokovic did not win 17 slams and counting, and own his two main rivals, due to having a superior net game.

Djokovic is the perfect player for how the game is played today, and that is what makes him the most complete. No tennis player of today cares how tennis was played fifty years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Borg is honestly a bit overrated, just because he won the channel slam a bunch of times doesn't mean he could do everything. If he was such a complete player, where are all his hard court slams?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
Good point. Borg couldn't even win a hard court slam in the era he was in. Good luck winning anything in today's era, where the preferred surface for the majority of players is hard court and with much stronger competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,913 Posts
Borg was reported as claiming he lost 4 uso finals because he couldn't cope with the lights... so there's one weakness, floodlight failure. Fed of course has no challengers for most complete of modern times, if it wasn't for suspect mentality now and again then the Slam count wouldn't even be funny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
Fed of course has no challengers for most complete of modern times, if it wasn't for suspect mentality now and again then the Slam count wouldn't even be funny.
If Federer is so complete, why was he the second banana since 2008 (at 26 years old) and the third wheel (at 29 years old) since 2011? Don't forget that Nadal dethroned Federer from 2008-2010 as the best player in the world, and then Djokovic dethroned Nadal in 2011 as the best player in the world (and has since been the player of the decade). In fact, Federer has a losing record against his two rivals.

A player like Federer would be better suited for a different era than the one he is in right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Borg was reported as claiming he lost 4 uso finals because he couldn't cope with the lights... so there's one weakness, floodlight failure. Fed of course has no challengers for most complete of modern times, if it wasn't for suspect mentality now and again then the Slam count wouldn't even be funny.
Those days, floodlight were not as common as they are today. If Borg had not retired at 25-26, he would've got used to them and he would've eventually won the uso , maybe even the AO, considering he played it only once in his career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Federer could've been the most complete player ever. But he blew it. His mentality was inconsistent. Some times he could save 7-8 match points, another time waste 7-8. He could be a mental giant one day, and a mental midget another. His serve could've been better like Sampras, but despite having excellent serving techniques and accuracy , his serve let him down the most. With a second serve like Isner or Sampras, he could've been the best server ever. But sadly he's not in the top 10. His backhand has also been weak against Nadal, though it could peak at times against other players back in the day, like Blake 07, etc. His revamped backhand post racquet change certainly fixed that hole and weakness. His ROS is average, not bad but not to the level of Agassi, Borg, Lendl, Djokovic, Murray, and even Nadal. But his ROS was good at neutralizing big servers and keeping points in play, so it wasn't a bad ROS, just not as flashy as Agassi or Nole.

So even in his weakness he could've improved them to become his strengths. He just never did, he was never a hard worker. A decent work ethic, but not jard enough. His natural latent abilities carried him through . A little more hard work and effort on his weakness he could've been the most complete player ever. Even more than Borg. And he could've won 40 slams. But sadly no, which is why I think he's overrated and massively undeserved of his 20 slams. In another era he would've won a lot less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
I'd only really consider the ones who won slams on all surfaces before homogenisation.
If homogenisation is a real thing, why does Nadal dominate clay, but not the grass? In fact, he can be blown off the court on grass with big serving and hard hitting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I'd only really consider the ones who won slams on all surfaces before homogenisation.
Then only Agassi, has done that. Rod Laver did it when 3 slams were on one surface , grass.

Then the ones before open era had weaker draws, lesser competition etc. Though, the likes of Gonzales and Seguera would've done well in any era. Same with Rosewall as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
If homogenisation is a real thing, why does Nadal dominate clay, but not the grass? In fact, he can be blown off the court on grass with big serving and hard hitting.
Without homogenisation the big 3 would've never won more than 10 slams . Djokovic would've never won 5 Wimbledons and Nadal never 12 slams in clay , and 7 off of it. They would've won much less, Federer wouldn't have won 8 Wimbledons either. Especially with Sampras if he was there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Hasn't helped him much with his rivals, unfortunately. In fact, he had been much closer to Murray over the past decade plus than Djokovic and Nadal.
Federer has a better record than any player ever, while playing tennis for the ages.

Djokovic and his boring, conservative tennis will only ever be remembered in connection with Federer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
Without homogenisation the big 3 would've never won more than 10 slams . Djokovic would've never won 5 Wimbledons and Nadal never 12 slams in clay , and 7 off of it. They would've won much less, Federer wouldn't have won 8 Wimbledons either. Especially with Sampras if he was there.
Players are playing real and exciting tennis nowadays. Nobody really cares to watch matches where hitting one hundred aces is key for success, or where net rushing like a wild animal is mandatory. And I disagree with you. Djokovic has an amazing serve and return, great forehand and backhand, and is a many step above anyone athletically in the past. He would be a man among the boys. He'd be a giant in any era, even the ones where they did not play real or exciting tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
Federer has a better record than any player ever, while playing tennis for the ages.

Djokovic and his boring, conservative tennis will only ever be remembered in connection with Federer.
Better record because of 2003-2007, when he did not have any rival because random players made it deep in slams. Let us wait and see how long the records hold, though. Djokovic at 32-33 is already more accomplished than Federer was at that age, despite facing far more difficult competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Players are playing real and exciting tennis nowadays. Nobody really cares to watch matches where hitting one hundred aces is key for success, or where net rushing like a wild animal is mandatory. And I disagree with you. Djokovic has an amazing serve and return, great forehand and backhand, and is a step above anyone athletically in the past. He would be a man among the boys. He'd be a giant in any era, even the ones where they did not play real or exciting tennis.
Even if serve and volleying and servebotting is boring, and to an extent I agree. Djokovic's tennis is not the definition of exciting either. His style is also boring to watch. Playing defensively 99% of the time waiting for mistakes is not pleasing. Similarly retrieving balls endlessly and using topspin to force errors is not exciting either ( Nadal)
 
1 - 20 of 103 Posts
Top