borg number one
Legend
A few great ones..
As far as awful ranking & agassi is concerned, that was only in 97. Agassi's BH wasn't perfect, but it sure as hell was more stable and better than djokovic's and close to being stable as any backhand could be ( assuming minimum level of power hitting ). His BH was still the last stroke to go AWOL when he wasn't playing well. Even as late as 2005 US Open, he was jerking federer around with his groundstrokes and only the elite ones could do that at federer's peak.
Even in 11, when djokovic was at the peak of his powers, I didn't think it was better than agassi's BH , though it was in the same ballpark at that time.
Just a general observation , you seem to under-rate agassi and sampras considerably IMO.
I personally loved to watch David Nalbandian's double backhand. When he was playing really well, I believe he could do anything with his backhand playing offensively and defensively.
He was a master of angles. His backhand dtl was one of the best I've ever seen. Up their with Djokovic easily.
I agree. As an offensive weapon I rate Nalbandian's backhand even better than Djokovic's. If only he had a work ethic like the top 4, how much he could have achieved more in his career.
I dont know if djoko backhand is the best of all time, but it has is place very high in the list
Might have to rethink my position on Djokovic's bachand it is on fire right now!
I don't think it's the best either, but when it's on damn is it on.
Ashe had a pretty good Bh too.Much specially on the return of serve.
You see it's the smooth easy flowing power that Novak has on the backhand that I like over Agassi's. It is close and I not going to be upset if someone calls Agassi's backhand superior but overall I like Djokovic's. It's one of the finest backhands I've seen.
Novak can hit better shots on the backhand from defensive positions.
and agassi's was more stable, could handle changes of pace ( including slice, junk etc ) much better
obviously nole's doesn't exposed that way vs nadal ( like I said here previously nadal gives him the rhythm he needs unless he goes FH DTL often ...), but you can see him in trouble vs federer/murray when they slice/junkball him ...
the only thing Nole has over agassi in terms of the BH is hitting on the run ....
Will you forget about proving so and so is better! Who cares! You think Agassi's backhand is better and I was explaining why I think Djokovic's is better. I also wrote if someone thought Agassi's was better it's fine. Let it go for once. My goodness it's just my opinion. I'm not trying to win a contest here. You win okay. Happy? I repeat, it's not a contest. We are not competing!! Repeat after me, it's a discussion with give and take.
I love Agassi's play but I must admit I was disappointed in his career because I thought he greatly underachieved based on what I thought was super talent. One of the best pure hitters I've seen, perhaps the best. I guess you can say he's the greatest tennis player who didn't like tennis that much. lol.
To be honest I think I rate Sampras and Agassi where they belong. You just see the criticism but I have written articles praising them too. I just write my opinion of players the way I see it and what the facts indicate.
For example with Sampras I do think part of the reason he didn't win the French was because of his thalassemia which affected his stamina and hurt him. I thought he was capable of playing fantastic matches on clay like in the Davis Cup against Russia. It was disappointing to me that he didn't win the French. But facts are facts, Sampras wasn't in his career a great clay courter although he did win the Italian.
One of the most beautiful shots tennis had ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTK3uOngTYM
Vcore89, Kuerten is one of my favorite all time players and I loved his flowing backhand, especially on clay. However Kuerten's backhand, while superb imo isn't quite the quality of Laver's backhand. Laver's backhand was incredibly dangerous and was more versatile than Gustavo's backhand, although Kuerten's backhand was as dangerous as Laver's on clay when both were on their games. I do think Laver's backhand was superior to Kuerten's on fast surfaces although Kuerten's backhand was very dangerous there also. It's a shame Kuerten was injured because I think he was continuing to improve on fast surfaces.
Here's a good PC1 comment about the Rocket's backhand.
and agassi's was more stable, could handle changes of pace ( including slice, junk etc ) much better
obviously nole's doesn't exposed that way vs nadal ( like I said here previously nadal gives him the rhythm he needs unless he goes FH DTL often ...), but you can see him in trouble vs federer/murray when they slice/junkball him ...
the only thing Nole has over agassi in terms of the BH is hitting on the run ....
I was just stating the reality.
You stated one reason why you thought djokovic's BH was better. I stated two reasons why agassi's was better, both reasons which are by themselves more important than hitting on the run.
Its a discussion and I was pressing my point because I know and believe strongly that I'm pretty right on this. Its not my fault if you can't deal with it.
The reality.I was just stating the reality.
You stated one reason why you thought djokovic's BH was better. I stated two reasons why agassi's was better, both reasons which are by themselves more important than hitting on the run.
Its a discussion and I was pressing my point because I know and believe strongly that I'm pretty right on this. Its not my fault if you can't deal with it.
Be careful: the whims of the tyranny of the majority.With different POV, no one has the right/wrong answer because they are all opinions, that's why the poll is use to solve the problem. Majority will determine who wins.
abmk,
You seem to have an obsession with making everything into a battle that you must win. This is not about winning. It's a discussion.
You also seem to state often that what you write is a fact when it's just your opinion. There is a difference.
Opinion-noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Fact-noun 1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
If I said I like the color blue and you like the color red. You would probably turn it into a battle on why red is better than blue. It's an opinion. Right now there are no facts supporting these things. It's supposed to be fun.
I'm not going to let this get into a abmk/BobbyOne type neverending battle. I'm not discussing this anymore. It's gets ridiculous after a while.
End of discussion. You win.
In any discussion in which you try to interject your opinions in the future I will concede on all your points. Or I may not reply to it at all. The problem I have is that you often don't discuss but try to just show you opinion is supposedly fact or 100% correct when they may not be. And to be honest I often agree with your points.
Best lefty BH open times:
Laver, Connors, Vilas, Orantes, Nadal
Best lefty FH open times:
Laver, Gomez, and Nadal for sure
Hmmm. I wonder if there is a coincidence here?.!
Yes, and what a coincidence¡¡¡
Laver, that pusher? How can his backhand and forehand be among the best for lefties?
Actually Connors' lefty forehand was pretty good too even though it was inferior to his great backhand.
Yes, me stupidly forgot Connors.Like Mac, both had very good but different Fh.Jmac´s BH was more reliable than his Fh, IMHO, while Connors Bh is an all time great stroke, however, specially when he was on, his Fh could also do some dammage, as Borg himself experienced in the 76 USO final or in the 77 Masters final.
Connors trouble came when someone like Ashe or Orantes hit an extremely low sliced shot into the middle.But when Connors could take advantage of someone´s power, like Lendl, Smith,Newcombe,Laver it could be a very proficient shot.
I was thinking of the really good lefties ever since 68.I am sure I forgot a few ones,but certainly not Ivanisevic.yes, he could hit a big Fh but most often he would miss the shot.
Gomez is another great one, IMo, he got one of the best FH strokes , just right behind Lendl.
Pilic had a very solid FH shot, but he is a bit more a 60´s than a 70´s player.Taylor , a Pilic coetaneous could be dangerous with his tricky lefty Fh.He is one of the most deceptive players I have ever seen, but you had to take him very seriously ( ask Borg and Laver FI).Oh¡ another britton, Mark Cox and aussie Tony Roche.Both known for great volleying ability, but the foundation of their backcourt game was a great, top spin Fh.I have seen both live and their forehand could be a great approach shot.
It's between Don Budge or Ken Rosewall. I suspect Rosewall had the better backhand, though Pancho Gonzales believes Budge had the better one.
Henri Leconte. Lefty with amazing hands and skill. Maybe the thing that separated he and McEnroe is Mac had a brain. Leconte might have had the best backhand volley of his era.
Yes, and what a coincidence¡¡¡
Well, it stands to reason that if you have a great forehand, a great backhand, and great volleying skills--you are bound to be a GOAT.Laver, that pusher? How can his backhand and forehand be among the best for lefties?
Welcome Herr Goebbels.Fed's BH is too low in that list. His slice is one of the greatest of all time and that's part of a BH. Plus no one in that list had to bear the brunt of Ralph's moonballing and also this slow high bouncing era so I don't think you've factored that in your list.
Well, it stands to reason that if you have a great forehand, a great backhand, and great volleying skills--you are bound to be a GOAT.
One day he makes every one and wins the match easily.Was thinking of Leconte more today. I loved his game so much in high school, I unfortunately emulated it. Loved the open forehand stance that allowed you to make any shot at any time. I didn't understand at the time it wasn't smart to try and hit any shot possible at any time. That was Henri. For no reason on a big point, he would go for some ridiculous winner from an impossible position on the court.
Was thinking of Leconte more today. I loved his game so much in high school, I unfortunately emulated it. Loved the open forehand stance that allowed you to make any shot at any time. I didn't understand at the time it wasn't smart to try and hit any shot possible at any time. That was Henri. For no reason on a big point, he would go for some ridiculous winner from an impossible position on the court. Very exciting player, but he seemed to enjoy pleasing himself and the crowd with his brilliance more than winning. Arthur Ashe was that way much of his career. Some of the all time talents like Nastase and Federer have also shown impatience bordering on "dumb tennis" at times born out of boredom.
It involves history, WWII, and a bit of British "spunk."Thank you but I didn't understand your post?