abmk
Bionic Poster
You forgot SHANK!
PS: Wait, you didn't say Fed's backhand volley and smash are "the best." Bahahahahaha! OMG! That's just hilarious!
He has a darn good backhand smash ( and overall smash )
You forgot SHANK!
PS: Wait, you didn't say Fed's backhand volley and smash are "the best." Bahahahahaha! OMG! That's just hilarious!
IMO, Connors' BH was better than Feds in every respect.
I don't. It's a great shot. So is his FH. But, neither are all time greats, IMO. His athleticism and court speed is closer to all time great than his shot making. His mental toughness is also up there. He's playing in an era with two of the mentally toughest players of all time, Fed and Ralph. Only Borg was mentally tougher than those two. And Borg was burnt by age 26.
Forget about Federer for a minute here and think about what we should do to evaluate a great stroke. A great stroke should be very consistent and accurate and of course have good enough speed to pass an opponent.
If a stroke is mishit or an error is made one out of twenty times is it better than a stroke that makes an error one of out 50 times in unforced situations.
Federer of course hits the ball on the backhand well a good percentage of the time but to evaluate correctly we have to decide if he makes more errors by percentage than a Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbanian, Gasquet, Davydenko or others. Does he hit as many winners on the backhand as many players? How's his backhand return?
If a person can objectively evaluate this only then can they make a comment on a player's backhand. We can't go by highlights alone because some highlight vids only show winners.
Now if a player has a number of players in his or her time with better backhands than that person, how can that person have an all time great backhand? Can a person who has, to pick a number, the fifth best backhand in his time have one of the top backhands ever? Maybe. Maybe not.
For example if someone evaluates the Connors backhand you would have a consistent powerful deep backhand which is able to hit a lot of winners, off the baseline and off the return? He can lob well off that side and hit changes of pace and most of all, it was generally considered the best backhand in tennis in his time, which was very very long.
Now the question is, who would pick the Federer backhand to have as their own if they had the choice of any backhand in tennis today?
You know, everyone talks about the meetings between Federer and Nadal when discussing how tough they are mentally. But when you said this the first thing that I thought of, for Fed's mental toughness, was the 2009 French, when they didn't meet.He's playing in an era with two of the mentally toughest players of all time, Fed and Ralph.
I don't. It's a great shot. So is his FH. But, neither are all time greats, IMO. His athleticism and court speed is closer to all time great than his shot making. His mental toughness is also up there. He's playing in an era with two of the mentally toughest players of all time, Fed and Ralph. Only Borg was mentally tougher than those two. And Borg was burnt by age 26.
OK! I agree that Fed's backhand is his weakness and that Ralph has been able to exploit it more than he has Djokovic's BH. But, that doesn't make either of their BH's all time greats. They're just not, IMO.
I'd would have loved to see if Ralph would have started winning FO's as early as he did if Kuerten had remained healthy. I'm tempted to say that Kuerten would have won a few more FO's and Ralph a few less. Oh well. No doubt about one thing though, Kuerten's BH was an all time great. Top 10 for sure. Maybe top 5. His FH was pretty close too.
So do you personally rank Novak's BH among the best then? I have only watched 90s and 2000s.
It's relevant in the sense that if Fed had one of the greatest BH of all time he would not lose a final against Nadal primarily because of that shot.Put an inform Guga in front of Nadal and I guarantee he would have not been able to abuse it nearly as much(if at all).
How did you come to be so "certain?" To be clear, I don't completely agree with Hoodjem's list. But, I also don't think of any of Djokovic's shots to be tp 20 all time greats. That's just my opinion based on what I've had the privilege to see with my own eyes. Granted, I didn't get to see Tilden, Kramer, Gonzales and a few other all time greats live. Then again, none of them were considered to have all time great backhands either. You're entitled to your opinion, but, if you are going to say that you are certain about something, you should have some rational basis for your certainty.
You forgot how very many balls he hits clean in relation to the shanks.. The fact is that he hits tons of backhands for the feeds are to that side normally . So if one has a seriuos look at the nuimbers of shots hit as shanks compared to made shots you get an idea.
and yes his volley and smash of the backhand side are sublime.
i maintain that Feds backhand holds its own. Its on clay and against an onslaught by the like of Nadal or Djoko that it can missfire but overall its a fantastic shot. If one has the objectivity to weigh in what he does with it on grass , hard court and indoors , well... enough said.
Who on tour today has better slice that he does for example?
i'm not so sure about the volleys, but his bh smash is arguably the best that i've seen -- even better than rafters.
The surface is extremely important as well when discussing the effectiveness of backhands.
There is too much bias given to backhands that traditionally fare well on clay courts.
you overrate Kuerten's BH. A ball over the shoulder is something no one hander can handle.
in that case, me thinks it's time for new glasses for you. And watching something live is not basis for absolute truth. you could be watching todays tennis with a pre-judged opinion that today's -------- (fill in the blanks) is not as good as the laver era; in which case, no amount of watching anything live is going to change your opinion. so please stop citing live tennis as corroborating evidence for every claim that you make.
Well there's no way he has the best backhand volley ever. He looks pretty doing it, but it's only good, better than most on tour at the moment, nothing more.
Agreed on the backhand smash. As good as Rafter. Maybe better.
Federer's BH volley, like his BH slice, is a hard chop. Both are low percentage shots with a low margin for error. And it shows. He also lacks the depth control that the great BH volleyers and slicers had because of his hard chop technique. I don't know what Nalbandian is doing these days, but, IMO, he probably had the best volleys, and the best overall net game, over the past 6-7 years. I can't think of anyone else who's volleys and ability to play net I think was better in that time frame.
But, the best BH smash I've ever seen was Stan Smith's. In my mind, that's not very debatable to anyone who's seen it. In the 72' Wimbledon final, Nastase tried many times to lob over Smith's backhand with his great topspin BH lob, and Smith smashed it away with a flick of the wrist, over and over again, leading Nastase to refer to Smith as Godzilla. I never thought much of the rest of Smith's game. I thought he was a major overachiever. But, his BH smash was great.
Good call on Nalbandian. While I'm not sure his volleys are the best from that time frame (although I can't say he'd have all that many rivals in this area) his net game probably is. He was lightning at the net.
Never seen any of Smith's matches.
But, the best BH smash I've ever seen was Stan Smith's. In my mind, that's not very debatable to anyone who's seen it. In the 72' Wimbledon final, Nastase tried many times to lob over Smith's backhand with his great topspin BH lob, and Smith smashed it away with a flick of the wrist, over and over again, leading Nastase to refer to Smith as Godzilla. I never thought much of the rest of Smith's game. I thought he was a major overachiever. But, his BH smash was great.
Hahahahaha! Classic use of strawmen when you have no other basis to argue from. But, I won't hold your lack of critical thinking skills against you. OK, I will. Let's count the strawmen shall we:
(1) I need new glasses.
Except, I don't wear glasses.
(2) Seeing something live is not a basis for absolute truth.
Oh, but not seeing something live is a better basis for truth? That's what you are implying. Don't you feel silly now? And, I never said "absolute truth," I said in my opinion, which I have a rational basis to have since I've actually had the privilege to see many of the all time greats live. I'm sorry if it hurts your tender feelings to have your hero dujour put in perspective of the all time greats. But, it works like this - all time great means "all time." Not merely in your limited experience.
(3) I could be watching todays tennis with a pre-judged opinion that todays era is not as good as the Lave era.
I never said that either. In fact, you have no idea how many times my opinion has changed from watching live tennis.
Next time, try arguing from facts instead of strawmen and unsupportable implications.
Sorry, wrong again. Your only claim to "rational" basis is watching matches live. I never implied that "not watching live" is basis for anything. you're forming a corollary that wasn't there to begin with.
If watching matches live is the primary criterion for one to give opinions, then TV commentators are best suited to give one -- and guess what, there are many that think Djoker's BH and return of serve is among the best ever, which flies contrary to your claim of "no shot" of Djoker can be in the top 10 or 20.
So you've watched a lot of live matches? i envy you, and you're surely among the privileged few in the world to have done it. good for you. But it ends there. Please don't claim that your opinions are more "rational" than those of others. They're just opinions. Actually, your opinions are only as "rational" as you claim of Rosewall's 80 mph slice.
I've seen Stan Smith's backhand overhead many times and I agree with you, it's the best I've seen. It was almost always a putaway.
Did you ever hear or read about Nastase's "Godzilla" comment?
The comment is pretty well known so yes I have hear about the comment but I've never seen Nastase play Smith in person. I have seen both play numerous times but not against each other.
Smith's overhead in general was fantastic in my opinion. I was watching Smith play one time at Forest Hills and he easily put away every lob. Many in the Grandstand were saying why even try to lob Smith? The reasoning was that if you lob him he'll just smash it away and the opponent will lose the point.
It's funny in retrospect but in 1973 when Smith won the WCT Championship many were saying Smith was the heir to Laver. I think at the end of the year Smith was tied with Jimmy Connors for co-United States number one.
I'd would have loved to see if Ralph would have started winning FO's as early as he did if Kuerten had remained healthy. I'm tempted to say that Kuerten would have won a few more FO's and Ralph a few less. Oh well. No doubt about one thing though, Kuerten's BH was an all time great. Top 10 for sure. Maybe top 5. His FH was pretty close too.
Only because of Tony Roche's TE problems. To my recollection, Smith was one of the few who had a winning record against Laver. Of course, it was during Laver's decline. But, Laver did seem to struggle with Smith more than anyone else.
PS: Sadly, there's very little of Stan Smith video to find online as far as I can find. But, here are 2 short videos of Smith playing at the FO. You can get a feel for his heavy, ponderous movement and strokes, and his poetic service motion. You can also see how big Smith was compared to others of his day.
Singles against George Goven:
http://www.ina.fr/video/CAF95051528/tennis-goven-smith.fr.html
Doubles - Stan Smith/Tom Gorman vs. Arther Ashe/Marty Riessen:
http://www.ina.fr/sport/tennis/vide...oland-garros-victoire-ashe-et-riessen.fr.html
According to the ITF website Laver and Smith are tied at 7. Laver had some injury problems during the 1973 WCT season which explains some of his problems with Smith at that time. To be fair to Smith, he was playing the best tennis of his career. I think Laver had back problems which affected him on serve and overhead.
I really like Nalbandian's volleying technique. He looks more comfortable and competent at net than anyone else today. And his ground game is one of the best I've ever seen. If he had a bigger serve, and better health, he'd be an all timer, IMO. In fact, if he only had better health he might have been an all timer.
Smith's game was actually quite disappointing to me. He was slow footed and seemed almost lethargic compared to the intensity of other greats like Laver, Nastase, etc. What he did well was serve and blanket the net. And, of course, he had a great smash on either side.
My recollection is that Korda was in trouble for use of a banned steroid. Something his doc gave him to help a foot injury heal faster. Don't think he knowingly took a banned substance.
Korda was the skinniest guy on tour so it was laughable if he got gigged for steroid use.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/tennis-korda-failed-wimbledon-drug-test-1193969.html
http://www.tennis-ontheline.com/99/99korda.htm
http://www.3dchem.com/molecules.asp?ID=2
As best I can tell, Korda escaped a suspension but had to repay his 1998 Wimby winnings and points.
This was the same substance (nandrolone) that was involved in a 2003? ATP scandal where many players tested positive and the subsequent investigation led the ATP to conclude that an electrolyte supplement given to players by ATP trainers was the source.
^^^^^
Korda did have a wonderful backhand.
I wonder what Korda's backhand would be like with modern rackets.
choke . . . cough . . . I'm speechless!
To me Justine Henin had the best backhand. It was both beautiful and powerful. It was like poetry in motion.
speechless because his backhand would be that much more lethal?
Henin had a wonderful backhand. It was fluid with tons of pop and very reliable. She had a fine slice and topspin. But there certainly are other candidates. Evert for one. There was no situation that backhand could not handle and master.
Evert is the ancestral EVE of the two-hander and definitely belongs in the mix.
Speechless because, apparently, you think Korda didn't use a modern racquet.
By a modern racquet, I meant a 2011 racquet with those Poly strings. Not a carbon graphite.
So are you trying to imply that racquets and strings from 1997 are the same or similar enough to the tennis technology of 2011 that it wouldn't have improved his backhand.
I don't think today's racquets are sufficiently different from those of the late 90's to make any palpable difference in Korda's shot making. I also think that poly strings would be more of a detriment than a benefit to Korda's stroke production.
So are you trying to imply that racquets and strings from 1997 are the same or similar enough to the tennis technology of 2011 that it wouldn't have improved his backhand.
I wonder what Korda's backhand would be like with modern rackets.