Better backhand: Sampras or Roddick?

[Holmes]

From a purely topspin rally perspective, no inside out, no running forehand, no slice, I think I give it to Roddick. Although technically less sound, it was more consistent than PETE's and would hold up better in a situation where we arbitrarily forced both players to only hit topspin backhands.

In terms of which backhand was better integrated and weaponized into the overall game, Sampras no question. The short balls he'd drop on the backhand tempted the opponent to punish him up the line to his running forehand which he'd then take control of the point with. He could punish short balls and approach with either topspin or slice extremely well (similar to Roger) and his chip return was a weapon at Wimbledon. On top of that, he had a great fast loopy topspin shot he could integrate into rallies to mess up aggressive baseliners, most notably Agassi. Noticed him doing this in their first tiebreaker in the semifinals of the 2000 AO.

So overall, Sampras but the topspin in isolation, Roddick. What say you?

 

[bigbadboaz]

Which version of Sampras are you considering? Early prime, when he actually cared to rally and held considerably better form on the BH, maybe even the topspin holds up.

 

[NicoMK]

Which version of Sampras are you considering? Early prime, when he actually cared to rally and held considerably better form on the BH, maybe even the topspin holds up.

I agree. I've always felt that Pete tried much more on his backhand during his early years, say 1990-1993. I remember him being agressive, targeting it flat, down the line including successful passing shots. After 1993 -- was it Gullckson & Annacone's influence? -- it seems that Pete secured his backhand by hitting it 80% crosscourt, whether neutralizing his opponent, approaching the net or hitting a passing-shot. It worked well overall and he seemed to be happy with it so it was a kind of "that's it", which I think was a bit of a pity because his backhand could have been a much more lethal weapon.

I vote Sampras (sorry Andy! ) because he had a very good to excellent backhand, much more versatile than Andy's. Saw Pete live a few times and his backhand was more impressive in real than on TV. Andy's was just "ok" for me. He sliced it more and more over the years, it was a good slice backhand but we're far from Pete's standards (I mean overall) if you ask me.

 

[ChrisRF]

If he had a chance to really pull the trigger, Sampras' backhand was quite good. Also as a consistent rally shot against flat hitters he could count on it. Especially against Agassi he scored many decisive points with his backhand, for example the famous set point in the 1995 US Open final or generally quite many points in the 2002 final. His weakness were high topspin shots to the backhand. If an opponent could play like that, it was really ONLY about keeping the ball in play for Pete. It's no surprise for example that he had troubles with Corretja on all surfaces, with losses even indoors and on grass.

So overall I give the edge to Sampras, because about Roddick's backhand I can't say any more than being solid at best.

 

[Holmes]

Which version of Sampras are you considering? Early prime, when he actually cared to rally and held considerably better form on the BH, maybe even the topspin holds up.

Overall, so a period by period breakdown is welcome

 

[Winners or Errors]

Pete’s backhand is underrated.

 

[Slicehand]

Pete’s backhand is underrated.

Imagine how underated is federers backhand then

 

[Holmes]

Imagine how underated is federers backhand then

People have worshipped Federer's backhand since 2003. It is the source of the "pretty backhand" meme. The only context in which anyone ever noted its lack of perfection is with relation to Nadal. His backhand is overrated, as even cursory viewings of his old matches will show often his topspin backhand was punished by any determined attacker.

 

[Winners or Errors]

People have worshipped Federer's backhand since 2003. It is the source of the "pretty backhand" meme. The only context in which anyone ever noted its lack of perfection is with relation to Nadal. His backhand is overrated, as even cursory viewings of his old matches will show often his topspin backhand was punished by any determined attacker.

Hmm, to which non-Nadal matches are you referring?

 

[Holmes]

Hmm, to which non-Nadal matches are you referring?

If you want a famous match, the US Open matches against Agassi are a good place to start. Most of the time the backhand is isolated and he has to hit more than 3 topspin in a row he gets pushed back and relies on slice or inside out. The pattern is all over the place though. Aside from, of course, @Third Serve's favorite event, Shanghai 2006, in which his backhand was actually better than his forehand.

 

[WayneBretsky]

Purely topspin, Roddick no question. It was incredibly steady.

 

[Holmes]

Purely topspin, Roddick no question. It was incredibly steady.

My thought as well.

 

[skaj]

Sampras of course. Very underrated shot, most probably because he had so many other weapons, great ones. Serve, forehand, net game, athleticism, mental toughness...

Roddick's on the other hand was a mediocre shot at best.

 

[TheRed]

I'd have to agree with Skaj here. Roddick was more consistent on the bh but it was consistently mediocre. He rarely hit anything to surprise the opponent on that side and had a very hard time hitting passing shots on the bh because he was never able to manipulate shots on that side with precision. He mostly hit solid shots to a general area which kept him in a neutral position until he could hit a forehand.
Sampras was less consistent but he could unload on the bh and string together a few shots to get a break. In fact, early in his career, Sampras was more aggressive on the bh and was considered a very complete player. It was only as he developed where he focused on staying consistent on his bh and lean more on his strengths of serve and forehand that he simultaneously dominated but got a reputation as having a weak backhand (relative to his other shots like Skaj points out). At the end of his career, yes, his bh was weak compared to the tour but that was more a consequence of his early decision to rely on the forehand/serve/volleys and the development of the tour in general with players capable hitting big on both wings. If one remembers, Agassi was the talk of the circuit because he was one of the first players capable of hitting big consistently on both wings.

 

[TheRed]

People have worshipped Federer's backhand since 2003. It is the source of the "pretty backhand" meme. The only context in which anyone ever noted its lack of perfection is with relation to Nadal. His backhand is overrated, as even cursory viewings of his old matches will show often his topspin backhand was punished by any determined attacker.

"punished" is a bit of an exaggeration. Guys went after the backhand because it sure is better than going after maybe the greatest forehand ever. Fed's record shows his bh held up just fine more often than not.

 

[Holmes]

"punished" is a bit of an exaggeration. Guys went after the backhand because it sure is better than going after maybe the greatest forehand ever. Fed's record shows his bh held up just fine more often than not.

No, it was punished. A lot of short balls, slices, shanks were surrendered by that side. Slower courts, balls, inept competition, poly strings, as well as exceptional slicing and defense are what allowed him to get away with it.

 

[Holmes]

Sampras of course. Very underrated shot, most probably because he had so many other weapons, great ones. Serve, forehand, net game, athleticism, mental toughness...

Roddick's on the other hand was a mediocre shot at best.

Agreed that Roddick's was mediocre, lacked the ability to punish as @TheRed stated, and that PETE's is underrated because of its ability to do more things like approach and punish short balls and pass. I'm not sure those specialty shots make up for weakness in a rally, which is what the essential purpose of a groundstroke is meant to do. I know @NonP had some thoughts on this.

 

[Holmes]

I'd like those bastions of objectivity so quick to keep us honest, my friends @Third Serve and @MeatTornado, to contribute as well. Don't be a stranger either, @Kralingen.

 

[TheRed]

Agreed that Roddick's was mediocre, lacked the ability to punish as @TheRed stated, and that PETE's is underrated because of its ability to do more things like approach and punish short balls and pass. I'm not sure those specialty shots make up for weakness in a rally, which is what the essential purpose of a groundstroke is meant to do. I know @NonP had some thoughts on this.

I agree - the specialty shots don't make up for weakness on the bh side in general. I think you're also right that groundstrokes are generally meant to help you in a rally, but Sampras mostly wasn't interested in rallies, especially w/ baseliners. But it was really a conscious decision for most of his career to sorta neglect the bh. I think it's accepted strategy by the pros, as a means to get to the top, to focus on developing real weapons before trying to shore up your weaknesses so that 1) you develop something to hurt the opponent and 2) when things get tight, you can go right to your strengths w/o much thinking. A guy like Pioline comes to mind - He was so talented and able to hit anything but never had a standout shot and never really dominated.

 

[Holmes]

I agree - the specialty shots don't make up for weakness on the bh side in general. I think you're also right that groundstrokes are generally meant to help you in a rally, but Sampras mostly wasn't interested in rallies, especially w/ baseliners. But it was really a conscious decision for most of his career to sorta neglect the bh. I think it's accepted strategy by the pros, as a means to get to the top, to focus on developing real weapons before trying to shore up your weaknesses so that 1) you develop something to hurt the opponent and 2) when things get tight, you can go right to your strengths w/o much thinking. A guy like Pioline comes to mind - He was so talented and able to hit anything but never had a standout shot and never really dominated.

I'm not sure PETE would ever have had a "solid" backhand, the way that someone like Schalken for example, did, even if he focused on it. He had a number of technical deficiencies on that side such as not stabilizing with his shoulder, imprecise footwork, and opening his shoulders up too soon, for it to ever be a steady shot in my opinion. Although it was outstanding on approaches and returns, his slice also left much to be desired from a rallying perspective. These weaknesses were exacerbated, not created, over time.

 

[TheRed]

I'm not sure PETE would ever have had a "solid" backhand, the way that someone like Schalken for example, did, even if he focused on it. He had a number of technical deficiencies on that side such as not stabilizing with his shoulder, imprecise footwork, and opening his shoulders up too soon, for it to ever be a steady shot in my opinion. Although it was outstanding on approaches and returns, his slice also left much to be desired from a rallying perspective. These weaknesses were exacerbated, not created, over time.

All true about the technical issues with his backhand. As a former coach, it's quite obvious to me Sampras started as a 2 hander. His slices also weren't anything to write home about. they just kinda floated deep and in his youth, if you hit to his forehand after a slice, he'd be able to hit his running forehand.

 

[Third Serve]

Pete’s backhand was nothing special. Quite inconsistent as a rally shot and there were plenty of technical weaknesses that explain this—the one that sticks out the most to me is the footwork. His slice was middling, as well, so it doesn’t provide anything particularly helpful if we open things up to the backhand as a whole, not just topspin. If we want to go as far as to include volleys in this (and I would personally argue that’s a bridge too far), then Pete’s backhand volley might elevate the shot as a whole, but not enough to propel it into ATG territory.

All that being said, of course it’s still a clearly better shot than Roddick’s backhand. Roddick wins out in the consistency department but he loses basically everywhere else. Technically, it had more holes than Swiss cheese and while I suppose it “held up” better than Pete’s backhand in extended rallies, most of the time it provided the opponent with a very clear advantage in said rally. Slice was not very good, and neither was return on that wing most of the time. And although Roddick is a better volleyer than he gets credit for, his volley on the backhand wing is not even in the same universe as Pete’s, so he can’t hope to gain ground there.

I will say it wasn’t bad on passing shots though.

 

[Holmes]

Pete’s backhand was nothing special. Quite inconsistent as a rally shot and there were plenty of technical weaknesses that explain this—the one that sticks out the most to me is the footwork. His slice was middling, as well, so it doesn’t provide anything particularly helpful if we open things up to the backhand as a whole, not just topspin. If we want to go as far as to include volleys in this (and I would personally argue that’s a bridge too far), then Pete’s backhand volley might elevate the shot as a whole, but not enough to propel it into ATG territory.

All that being said, of course it’s still a clearly better shot than Roddick’s backhand. Roddick wins out in the consistency department but he loses basically everywhere else. Technically, it had more holes than Swiss cheese and while I suppose it “held up” better than Pete’s backhand in extended rallies, most of the time it provided the opponent with a very clear advantage in said rally. Slice was not very good, and neither was return on that wing most of the time. And although Roddick is a better volleyer than he gets credit for, his volley on the backhand wing is not even in the same universe as Pete’s, so he can’t hope to gain ground there.

I will say it wasn’t bad on passing shots though.

In my opinion, PETE's backhand was mostly an exercise in containment with tennis with those exceptional specialty shots that most/all ATGs seem to possess in some measure, e.g. the passing shots, flicks etc. It was excellent at attacking short balls, which I would say is more of a core skill than specialty shot, and his slice was very good at knifing back uncomfortable returns to volley off of and facilitating approaches which are not quite as universal, but still fundamental to success in the 90s. These are what allowed him to be a 14 time slam champ, rather than a 6 or 7 timer who played second fiddle to 'Dre. Having said all this, at its core, his backhand, both slice and topspin was unreliable in extended rallies and was usually something he was trying to get out of rather than settle into. If you forced him to stand and die on that hill for an entire match without slicing or twisting inside out, he'd only eek it out by non-stop serve and volley and chip and charge.

PETE's backhand volley was outstanding, after all it is the shot that he hit the final winner of his career with. Nevertheless I agree that it shouldn't be factored in when talking about the backhand as its not hit from the ground.

 

[NonP]

I'd have to agree with Skaj here. Roddick was more consistent on the bh but it was consistently mediocre. He rarely hit anything to surprise the opponent on that side and had a very hard time hitting passing shots on the bh because he was never able to manipulate shots on that side with precision. He mostly hit solid shots to a general area which kept him in a neutral position until he could hit a forehand.
Sampras was less consistent but he could unload on the bh and string together a few shots to get a break. In fact, early in his career, Sampras was more aggressive on the bh and was considered a very complete player. It was only as he developed where he focused on staying consistent on his bh and lean more on his strengths of serve and forehand that he simultaneously dominated but got a reputation as having a weak backhand (relative to his other shots like Skaj points out). At the end of his career, yes, his bh was weak compared to the tour but that was more a consequence of his early decision to rely on the forehand/serve/volleys and the development of the tour in general with players capable hitting big on both wings. If one remembers, Agassi was the talk of the circuit because he was one of the first players capable of hitting big consistently on both wings.

Yes, most people today have this image of those loopy topspin BHs Pete relied on in his later career to set up his running FH. Back in '92 his fellow pros knew better:

1992 Players Poll: Best Backhand.

As voted by ATP pros in 1992. Source: Germany's Tennis Magazin. 84 pros were given a sheet to fill out, for 12 different categories (all of which get their own separate threads here). Each pro could name one or two players per category: 3 points were awarded for the first picks, 2 points for...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

That said:

From a purely topspin rally perspective, no inside out, no running forehand, no slice, I think I give it to Roddick. Although technically less sound, it was more consistent than PETE's and would hold up better in a situation where we arbitrarily forced both players to only hit topspin backhands.

In terms of which backhand was better integrated and weaponized into the overall game, Sampras no question. The short balls he'd drop on the backhand tempted the opponent to punish him up the line to his running forehand which he'd then take control of the point with. He could punish short balls and approach with either topspin or slice extremely well (similar to Roger) and his chip return was a weapon at Wimbledon. On top of that, he had a great fast loopy topspin shot he could integrate into rallies to mess up aggressive baseliners, most notably Agassi. Noticed him doing this in their first tiebreaker in the semifinals of the 2000 AO.

So overall, Sampras but the topspin in isolation, Roddick. What say you?

Pete’s backhand was nothing special. Quite inconsistent as a rally shot and there were plenty of technical weaknesses that explain this—the one that sticks out the most to me is the footwork. His slice was middling, as well, so it doesn’t provide anything particularly helpful if we open things up to the backhand as a whole, not just topspin. If we want to go as far as to include volleys in this (and I would personally argue that’s a bridge too far), then Pete’s backhand volley might elevate the shot as a whole, but not enough to propel it into ATG territory.

All that being said, of course it’s still a clearly better shot than Roddick’s backhand. Roddick wins out in the consistency department but he loses basically everywhere else. Technically, it had more holes than Swiss cheese and while I suppose it “held up” better than Pete’s backhand in extended rallies, most of the time it provided the opponent with a very clear advantage in said rally. Slice was not very good, and neither was return on that wing most of the time. And although Roddick is a better volleyer than he gets credit for, his volley on the backhand wing is not even in the same universe as Pete’s, so he can’t hope to gain ground there.

I will say it wasn’t bad on passing shots though.

I'm not sure where this "inconsistent" jab is coming from. Au contraire Pete's BH was more consistent than his FH in terms of UFEs, unless you've got a different notion of consistency in mind. Our former guru @slice serve ace was insistent on this very point and he's probably studied key Sampras matches more closely than any of us. I mean if that weren't true you wouldn't see an ATG dirtballer like Bruguera making the surprising remark that he actually preferred to hit to Pete's FH cuz the heavy topspin off his BHs meant dealing with pesky high balls.

Take a gander at this, particularly TA's BHP/100 or "potency" per 100 BHs:

Better Running Forehand: Sampras or Nadal

Plenty of clips out there, and it's pretty well known that if Delpo has to stretch or run to make a forehand, the point is about to be over. My point still stands, that's not a running forehand.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

So Pistol's BH (0.1) is virtually a "neutral" shot whereas A-Rod's -1.1 tells us he actually made more errors than winners/half-winners. Then how can you say Andy's BH was more "consistent" in rallies? The usual comeback that he had to play more off the ground doesn't fly here cuz this stat looks at regular groundies only, excluding net points and slices. Surely that means something, no?

Now TA's potency measure can be particularly questionable with respect to BHs, as our new member @Angrybirdstar noted (in a PM) in response to yours truly:

I didn't realize Alcaraz's potency numbers were so good, but to a certain extent I think that's an indictment of the BHP stat, because I don't rate his backhand all that highly. I think it's quite odd to make a backhand stat where winners are twice as valuable (in absolute terms) as allowing a winning shot on the next ball, when a backhand's strategic priorities tend to be the opposite. Within BHP there's a shadow of neutral backhands that is ignored in favor of immediate fails or induced errors, which really undervalues Djokovic's backhand just because he doesn't hit as many winners as an Agassi, while overvaluing Dan Evans because he'll slice without making an error all day and go for winners on low risk balls to accommodate his relatively weak topspin backhand. At the same time, Guga is also even lower than Djokovic, which makes me wonder about the match charting sample and about the merits of using a single stat to compare one handers and two handers. The FHP weighting makes more sense to me and from an eye test the leaderboard looks better, but seeing Ruud, Rune, and Rublev that high makes me wonder if there's still some weird effect (match charting bias or otherwise) not being accounted for.

But this reservation isn't really germane to our own discussion cuz we're comparing these BHs in terms of consistency only. If Roddick's BH was that much more reliable as a neutral rally shot his own BHP should be closer to zero. The fact that Pistol's own number meets that minimum requirement strongly suggest that, at the very least, the consistency of his BH is underrated.

 

[MeatTornado]

Slice was not very good,

That I would disagree with. His main slice problem was not using it more often, imo.

 

[Holmes]

Yes, most people today have this image of those loopy topspin BHs Pete relied on in his later career to set up his running FH. Back in '92 his fellow pros knew better:

1992 Players Poll: Best Backhand.

As voted by ATP pros in 1992. Source: Germany's Tennis Magazin. 84 pros were given a sheet to fill out, for 12 different categories (all of which get their own separate threads here). Each pro could name one or two players per category: 3 points were awarded for the first picks, 2 points for...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

That said:



I'm not sure where this "inconsistent" jab is coming from. Au contraire Pete's BH was more consistent than his FH in terms of UFEs, unless you've got a different notion of consistency in mind. Our former guru @slice serve ace was insistent on this very point and he's probably studied key Sampras matches more closely than any of us. I mean if that weren't true you wouldn't see an ATG dirtballer like Bruguera making the surprising remark that he actually preferred to hit to Pete's FH cuz the heavy topspin off his BHs meant dealing with pesky high balls.

Take a gander at this, particularly TA's BHP/100 or "potency" per 100 BHs:

Better Running Forehand: Sampras or Nadal

Plenty of clips out there, and it's pretty well known that if Delpo has to stretch or run to make a forehand, the point is about to be over. My point still stands, that's not a running forehand.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

So Pistol's BH (0.1) is virtually a "neutral" shot whereas A-Rod's -1.1 tells us he actually made more errors than winners/half-winners. Then how can you say Andy's BH was more "consistent" in rallies? The usual comeback that he had to play more off the ground doesn't fly here cuz this stat looks at regular groundies only, excluding net points and slices. Surely that means something, no?

Now TA's potency measure can be particularly questionable with respect to BHs, as our new member @Angrybirdstar noted (in a PM) in response to yours truly:


But this reservation isn't really germane to our own discussion cuz we're comparing these BHs in terms of consistency only. If Roddick's BH was that much more reliable as a neutral rally shot his own BHP should be closer to zero. The fact that Pistol's own number meets that minimum requirement strongly suggest that, at the very least, the consistency of his BH is underrated.

Isn't Bruguera's comment referencing those high, loopy topspin backhands you mentioned at the start of your comment?
Regarding Roddick v Sampras in consistency, I'd say that Pete's stat is helped by the fact that even when we rule out his net points and slices, he's still at the back of the court far less than Andy since he's coming in off all/most of his own serves. If you forced him to stay back and hit as many topspin backhands as Andy, I'd wager that number would be much worse.

 

[Holmes]

That I would disagree with. His main slice problem was not using it more often, imo.

It was paradoxically great when he used it aggressively. His use of it to produce return winners on the full stretch in the deuce court, as well as to knife approaches were devastating. As a defensive or rally shot, it was "merely" above average. If it was 80% of Fed's in this area, he would have won a RG.

 

[Holmes]

Pete’s backhand was nothing special. Quite inconsistent as a rally shot and there were plenty of technical weaknesses that explain this—the one that sticks out the most to me is the footwork. His slice was middling, as well, so it doesn’t provide anything particularly helpful if we open things up to the backhand as a whole, not just topspin. If we want to go as far as to include volleys in this (and I would personally argue that’s a bridge too far), then Pete’s backhand volley might elevate the shot as a whole, but not enough to propel it into ATG territory.

All that being said, of course it’s still a clearly better shot than Roddick’s backhand. Roddick wins out in the consistency department but he loses basically everywhere else. Technically, it had more holes than Swiss cheese and while I suppose it “held up” better than Pete’s backhand in extended rallies, most of the time it provided the opponent with a very clear advantage in said rally. Slice was not very good, and neither was return on that wing most of the time. And although Roddick is a better volleyer than he gets credit for, his volley on the backhand wing is not even in the same universe as Pete’s, so he can’t hope to gain ground there.

I will say it wasn’t bad on passing shots though.

All true, but he was the prototype of many of the specialty backhand shots that Fed later mastered. This example, the shot here would have been just as jaw-dropping as the many that Fed hit if not for the fact that it was Rafter, and not Roddick at the net to volley it. There are many others.

 

[NonP]

Isn't Bruguera's comment referencing those high, loopy topspin backhands you mentioned at the start of your comment?
Regarding Roddick v Sampras in consistency, I'd say that Pete's stat is helped by the fact that even when we rule out his net points and slices, he's still at the back of the court far less than Andy since he's coming in off all/most of his own serves. If you forced him to stay back and hit as many topspin backhands as Andy, I'd wager that number would be much worse.

Figured I'd finally get to this reply of yours before I close my TA tabs. I don't have the link but yeah Sergi was almost certainly referring to Pete's topspin loopers, which again weren't as attackable as they seem due to that running FH. And we know from that '92 player poll what he was actually capable of when he actually relied on it to open up the court.

As to your next point about consistency, A-Rod does have the edge in how often he stayed back but not near as big as you make it out to be. Take another look at this:

Tennis Abstract: Match Charting Project: Men's Rally Leaders: Career

An average 3.9 rallies for Roddick vs. 3.0 for Pistol, so we know for a fact that when he didn't follow his serves in Pete played only one fewer rally before winning/losing the point. And he crushes A-Rod in 4-6 W% and 10+ W%, 53.8% vs. 46.8% and 53.1% vs. 44.9% respectively. Even if we chalk much of the former up to Pete's prowess at the net - which I did touch upon in that running FH thread, as you might have noticed - the latter combined with Pistol's superior BHP should put to rest any doubts about who indeed wielded the better topspin/drive BH. A-Rod might have made fewer errors off that wing but Pistol more than made up for it with more winners/half-winners. You really don't win 14 majors with such a vulnerable topspin BH, no matter how great the rest of your game is.

It was paradoxically great when he used it aggressively. His use of it to produce return winners on the full stretch in the deuce court, as well as to knife approaches were devastating. As a defensive or rally shot, it was "merely" above average. If it was 80% of Fed's in this area, he would have won a RG.

Pretty sure he was talking about A-Rod's slice, not Pete's.