The Tennis Frontier

Full Version: Most Complete Player
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Ok, let's get this out of the way.
We heard that old mug Bolletieri say Djokovic is the most complete player, and after a similar remark that Kyrgios gave in Acapulco, people on other forums have been going crazy about it.

First off Novak, like it or not, is a COUNTER PUNCHER. Textbook counterpuncher. He was a bit more aggressive in his ground game when he was younger, but after the racquet change in 2009 (?) , he solidified himself as one.
He is clearly the best counterpuncher that the sport has ever seen judging by his accomplishments, but he clearly isn't the most complete player.
My arguments:
He has probably the worst net game in the top 10, generally not very good at the net, and has botched a million volleys and 4 million overheads. This only feeds his unwillingness to come in and finish points off.
Next, his forehand. Godawful at times. It's fantastic for his playstyle, but in isolation, it's not the best shot in the world to be fair. Same goes for his serve basically, both first and second. Good for his playstyle, but not fantastic.

Even if we only consider the baseline game, Rafa is a better pure baseliner in that regard and there were perhaps some, even better in the past.

In conclusion, this is of course in no way an attack, there are only 2 guys that I would argue that are more complete:
(You guessed it) Fed and Nadal.

Your opinions?
(14-Mar-2017 12:26 PM)Puppet Master Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, let's get this out of the way.
We heard that old mug Bolletieri say Djokovic is the most complete player, and after a similar remark that Kyrgios gave in Acapulco, people on other forums have been going crazy about it.

First off Novak, like it or not, is a COUNTER PUNCHER. Textbook counterpuncher. He was a bit more aggressive in his ground game when he was younger, but after the racquet change in 2009 (?) , he solidified himself as one.
He is clearly the best counterpuncher that the sport has ever seen judging by his accomplishments, but he clearly isn't the most complete player.
My arguments:
He has probably the worst net game in the top 10, generally not very good at the net, and has botched a million volleys and 4 million overheads. This only feeds his unwillingness to come in and finish points off.
Next, his forehand. Godawful at times. It's fantastic for his playstyle, but in isolation, it's not the best shot in the world to be fair. Same goes for his serve basically, both first and second. Good for his playstyle, but not fantastic.

Even if we only consider the baseline game, Rafa is a better pure baseliner in that regard and there were perhaps some, even better in the past.

In conclusion, this is of course in no way an attack, there are only 2 guys that I would argue that are more complete:
(You guessed it) Fed and Nadal.

Your opinions?

It's Roger..Roger has all the strokes in his arsenal, his game transcends to every surface and he really isn't trouble by one particular type of player..This was an easy one. Thanks PMClap
Andy Murray @ no 1.
John Isner.
OK, seriously, it is Roger. Is there really a question? He has no real weakness in terms of skills. Is he anything less than very good at anything? Rafa has been a merely average to above server for most of his career, except for a year or two where he ramped it up. Also, not sure I agree that Rafa is more complete than Novak.

Anyhow, comparing Roger and Rafa reminds me of the Mountain vs. Oberyn in Game of Thrones. Oberyn was the more skilled duellist, but his mental flaw led to him blowing it tragically and catastrophically. The point being, having the better skills doesn't make you the better competitor. Rafa is the greatest competitor the sport has ever seen, with the possible exception of Pete Sampras (I still feel that peak Pete vs. peak Rafa would be the best cross-era matchup...but that's another topic).
depends a little how u define things. Someone like Tommy Haas is pretty complete across the board, ditto for Marat Safin. Their level is maybe less high, but they are fundamentally sound in multiple different ways.

Of course Novak, Federer, Agassi, Nadal and Sampras are all really balanced, with not many glaring weaknesses (maybe one each)

Kyrgios, Dimitrov etc etc.
Federer and Novak are sorta the obvious picks, but then if you look carefully Feds backhand return of second serve is pretty terrible. Bad even for a top 50 player. PArt of Novaks netgame and his overheads are historically poor as well.
Before we spend pages debating, I suggest a working definition of "complete". Someone who has all the fundamentals as at least "good level". Fundamentals IMO would be:

Forehand
backhand
serve
return of serve
volley (including overhead)
running forehand (attack & defense)
running bachand (attack & defense)

In that sense, even taking into account Haelfix´s comment above, I would choose Federer, but it is a very close race among the big three. Funny because if you look at the rest of the field, you will quickly spot the weaknesses. Maybe that´s why they are the big three.
Heck ..he way DYJr is playing today..I would like to add his name..he is about to bagel your beloved Pouille..WowClap
(14-Mar-2017 01:41 PM)mrzz Wrote: [ -> ]Before we spend pages debating, I suggest a working definition of "complete". Someone who has all the fundamentals as at least "good level". Fundamentals IMO would be:

Forehand
backhand
serve
return of serve
volley (including overhead)
running forehand (attack & defense)
running bachand (attack & defense)

In that sense, even taking into account Haelfix´s comment above, I would choose Federer, but it is a very close race among the big three. Funny because if you look at the rest of the field, you will quickly spot the weaknesses. Maybe that´s why they are the big three.

Missing overhead which is definitely fundamental. How about lob, SABR, tweener? Smile
He included overhead with volley. What about dropshot?
(14-Mar-2017 03:29 PM)GameSetAndMath Wrote: [ -> ]How about lob, SABR, tweener? Smile

Lob? No way, Murray is to good at it. I want to be unfair to him.

In seriousness, I would get down to basics. Too many little categories and we will never get anywhere.
Murray and Safin, maybe Nalby when he was in (only when he was in...)
(15-Mar-2017 04:35 AM)isabelle Wrote: [ -> ]Murray and Safin, maybe Nalby when he was in (only when he was in...)

As much as I liked Nalbandian, his serve was crap. Tons of double faults and no power. Murray's second serve is also very poor. It's a bit better lately but still poor. Both obvious weaknesses.
Reference URL's