The Greatest Hard Court Players of the Open Era

timnz

Legend
List in order?

Is the list in order from top down? If so, then I would rate Sampras over McEnroe. Sampras won 5 and got to 8 finals at the US Open + 2 Australian Open wins out of 3 finals, whereas McEnroe won 4 US Opens out of 5 finals + no Australian. Even excepting Australia (which didn't go to Hard Court until McEnroe was 28/29) Sampras record is superior. Sampras is also superior to Agassi on fast hard court eg US Open but not on slow hard court eg Australian Open.

If the list is not in order - I agree with it. I think you have the top guys.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Is the list in order from top down? If so, then I would rate Sampras over McEnroe. Sampras won 5 and got to 8 finals at the US Open + 2 Australian Open wins out of 3 finals, whereas McEnroe won 4 US Opens out of 5 finals + no Australian. Even excepting Australia (which didn't go to Hard Court until McEnroe was 28/29) Sampras record is superior. Sampras is also superior to Agassi on fast hard court eg US Open but not on slow hard court eg Australian Open.

If the list is not in order - I agree with it. I think you have the top guys.

I don't think the list is in order; Sampras would be higher and I can't see Agassi as #2. I'd also take exception with the comment that Connors had "no great weapons"...really? what connors matches was she watching? Really, a lot of her description of Agassi is interchangeable w/Connors. Also, her comment re: Lendl not pulling the trigger, I can't quite agree with. If he had the shot, he went for it.

But, these are small nits to pick; this list is pretty spot on in terms of the top HC guys.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Pretty much spot on. Those 6 are well clear of the rest in the Open Era. Good analysis of each ones games too except the Connors one I didnt totally agree with.
 

BTURNER

Legend
I am going to mirror others here. The names are good but to say that Jimmy had no weapons is absurd. That backhand drive was as offensive as any forehand and no one turned the service return into an intimidation like Jimbo. It was a weapon in his hands.
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
I am going to mirror others here. The names are good but to say that Jimmy had no weapons is absurd. That backhand drive was as offensive as any forehand and no one turned the service return into an intimidation like Jimbo. It was a weapon in his hands.

Pretty much agree with this tidbit about Connors, his return is definitely intimidating.

Nice list and effort. I like your analysis. Although I think you may contradict yourself a bit here when you say
"McEnroe sums up Sampras as a hard court player in 1993 whilst commentating at the US Open when he said it was rare to see a serve and volley player with such an all-around game."

and follow up with

"In the last two years of his career, Pete’s style of play mirrored his grass play. He no longer stayed back on his second serve to rally and chipped and charged on return of serve, something he hardly ever did previously. Most people put that down to the influence of his latter coach Paul Annacone, who favored aggressive play."


I actually feel what you said in later part of the analysis is more accurate, about Pete being an all around player..who can serve and volley great...as opposed to a serve and volleyer with a ground game, if you get what I'm saying... Overall it's not meant to be a criticism, because I like the work.
 

urban

Legend
Agree with most of the descriptions. For Connors, he was actually a hard hitter, who stayed at least even with Lendl with his drives from the baseline. His low forehand only was a weakness on grass with its lower bounce. On hard courts his forehand was no weakness at all.
Agree that Sampras was originally a hard courter. At first at Wim he had actually quite bad results, while on hard courts he was a factor even at a young age. Could stay in rallies with people like Agassi or Courier.
It may be interesting that the best hard court finals record actually is in the hands of an old guy, who couldn't play on hard (according to some posters here), none other than Rod Laver, who is 18-2 in official hard court finals.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Thanks for the comments, probably didn't give Connors enough credit in terms of major weapons.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Hi I wrote this article. Read on and see if you agree or have any other candidates.....
Del Potro didn't beat Federer to win the US Open last year... It was almost 2 years ago. Since then, injuries aside, Del Potro has shown little promise as a serious threat at slams - hard-court or otherwise.

Otherwise, nice list really. Not that hard to piece it together considering how few players since 1980 have won more than 3 hard court slams.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Del Potro didn't beat Federer to win the US Open last year... It was almost 2 years ago. Since then, injuries aside, Del Potro has shown little promise as a serious threat at slams - hard-court or otherwise.

Otherwise, nice list really. Not that hard to piece it together considering how few players since 1980 have won more than 3 hard court slams.

Thanks, not able to amend now but will do so in a few hours.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Agree with most of the descriptions. For Connors, he was actually a hard hitter, who stayed at least even with Lendl with his drives from the baseline. His low forehand only was a weakness on grass with its lower bounce. On hard courts his forehand was no weakness at all.
Agree that Sampras was originally a hard courter. At first at Wim he had actually quite bad results, while on hard courts he was a factor even at a young age. Could stay in rallies with people like Agassi or Courier.
It may be interesting that the best hard court finals record actually is in the hands of an old guy, who couldn't play on hard (according to some posters here), none other than Rod Laver, who is 18-2 in official hard court finals.

Connors' backhand was one of the great weapons in tennis history, every bit as good as Lendl's forehand, IMO. His forehand (a relative weakness compared to his backhand), was, still one of the best groundstrokes in the game, and a formidable weapon, compared to the weapons possessed by most of his competitors, even if he did hit some errors on low short balls.

I was going to ask about Laver's hard court record. Someone (PC1 I think), posted that Laver had over 30 hard court titles (among his 184-199 total titles). I would be interested to know how many of those were during the open era. I saw Laver win a hard court WCT event (singles and doubles), and was amazed at how brutally effective his game was on hard courts. I've never seen him play on grass, but, it wouldn't surprise me if hard court was Laver's best surface.
 

urban

Legend
Laver's exact hard court record is difficult to give. In the pre open era, the sources don't divide exactly between hard courts and clay courts, in fact the British compendia always refer to hard court, when they mean clay courts. The British Hard Court Champs at Bournemouth were one of the most prestigious clay events in the early open era. Overall in Europe hard courts, ashes or sand courts were the names for clay courts.
Since 1968 we have a clearer picture, the pros mainly played on hard courts and indoor Supreme court, they played very few grass events in Britain or Australia (and Forest Hills) and some clay events in Europe and a few clay events in Florida, at Houston and Louisville and at the Canadian Open. Between 1973 and 1977 many US events turned to har tru, later back to hard court.
Laver indeed won a ton of important hard courts events in the open era, many Super Nine Equivalents, which are not all registered by the ATP or ITF. For instance, he won the SA open 1969 and 70, the Boston US pro 1969 (then on Hard court), the LA South Pacific 1968 and 70, the Berkeley event 1971, the Fort Worth event 1967-1971, the Delray and Honkong events in 1973, the Palm Desert and the rich Alan King Las Vegas events 1974, most of them frequently. Many events of the WCT tours were indoors or on hard court. Even in 1975, Laver set a WCT record, winning 4 tournaments in 4 weeks (i think all on hard courts).
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Also, no one really cared much about AO in the 80s compared to other slams, anyway, so most weren't trying their hardest, I don't think
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Connors' backhand was one of the great weapons in tennis history, every bit as good as Lendl's forehand, IMO. His forehand (a relative weakness compared to his backhand), was, still one of the best groundstrokes in the game, and a formidable weapon, compared to the weapons possessed by most of his competitors, even if he did hit some errors on low short balls.
I don't know where that writer got the impression that Connors had no weapons. In 1982 Connors, at the US Open against Lendl hit crosscourt from his two handed lefty backhand to Lendl's forehand and Connors was winning most of the rallies. The backhand was explosive both on the service return and off the ground in regular rallies and it was very consistent.

Connors backhand is arguably the best in tennis history.

His forehand was a weapon also and he was a good volleyer.

I don't think anyone could win the way Connors won without some top flight weapons.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
I don't know where that writer got the impression that Connors had no weapons. In 1982 Connors, at the US Open against Lendl hit crosscourt from his two handed lefty backhand to Lendl's forehand and Connors was winning most of the rallies. The backhand was explosive both on the service return and off the ground in regular rallies and it was very consistent.

Connors backhand is arguably the best in tennis history.

His forehand was a weapon also and he was a good volleyer.

I don't think anyone could win the way Connors won without some top flight weapons.

See post number 9.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought Lendl. And there he was, right at the top of the list.

The others are great picks, too. Spot on article!
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Federer is not the greatest on anything. :(

Actually he's the GOAT at crying and cheesy Wimbledon outfits, not to mention that his BH is so bad it's good. Don't forget he's also without a doubt the luckiest player of all time, to win so many HC slams wih such a crappy 1D game is quite amazing.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Actually he's the GOAT at crying and cheesy Wimbledon outfits, not to mention that his BH is so bad it's good. Don't forget he's also without a doubt the luckiest player of all time, to win so many HC slams wih such a crappy 1D game is quite amazing.
Quoted for truth.
 

krosero

Legend
I think it's a good article, Laurie, and I don't have much to add to the comments already made. Just one note: McEnroe was passed 27 times by Sampras but that was not the most times he'd ever been passed in a single match. Here's a short list of McEnroe matches we've done; all the counts are ours except in the Agassi match where the count comes from a published article.

22 passes by Borg - 1979 Masters (33 games)
30 passes by Borg - 1980 Wimbledon (55 games)
40 passes by Borg - 1980 USO (55 games)
25 passes by Borg - 1981 Wimbledon (46 games)

30 passes by Lendl - 1984 RG (51 games)
38 passes by Connors - 1984 USO (51 games)
19 passes by Wilander - 1985 RG (31 games)
23 passes by Wilander - 1985 USO (47 games)
41 passes by Becker - 1987 Davis Cup (72 games)
24 passes by Lendl - 1987 USO (28 games)
27 passes by Sampras - 1990 USO (36 games)
13 passes by Sampras - 1991 US Pro Indoor (18 games)
18 or 24 passes by Agassi - 1992 Wimbledon (27 games)

(McEnroe won the matches in bold).

Also I think Lendl must have had a ton of passes in two other matches, both of them straight sets: 1985 USO final and 1989 AO QF. In the latter he was reported to have 25 winners on the BH side alone, and most of those were probably passes.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
40 passes by Borg - 1980 USO (55 games)
25 passes by Borg - 1981 Wimbledon (46 games)


38 passes by Connors - 1984 USO (51 games)

23 passes by Wilander - 1985 USO (47 games)


(McEnroe won the matches in bold).
I guess the lesson here is, if you are a S&V player even if you get passed a ton of times, still keep coming in.
 

krosero

Legend
I guess the lesson here is, if you are a S&V player even if you get passed a ton of times, still keep coming in.
You know what, Hood, that's exactly what came to mind as I looked over the numbers. You can get passed an awful lot of times and still win, if you approach enough times.

For example Cash won a five-set match over Pernfors in Davis Cup despite getting passed 39 times in just 46 games. That's a rate of almost 1 pass per game; in the entire list above only Lendl in '87, and maybe Agassi in '92, have a better rate. Pernfors was passing left and right, and it looked especially bad from Cash's end in the first two sets which Pernfors won. But like you say, if you're a SV and that's your winning play, you've just got to accept that you're going to get passed a lot, and keep coming in anyway.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
You know what, Hood, that's exactly what came to mind as I looked over the numbers. You can get passed an awful lot of times and still win, if you approach enough times.

For example Cash won a five-set match over Pernfors in Davis Cup despite getting passed 39 times in just 46 games. That's a rate of almost 1 pass per game; in the entire list above only Lendl in '87, and maybe Agassi in '92, have a better rate. Pernfors was passing left and right, and it looked especially bad from Cash's end in the first two sets which Pernfors won. But like you say, if you're a SV and that's your winning play, you've just got to accept that you're going to get passed a lot, and keep coming in anyway.

It's the percentages for serve and volleyer. They know if they stay back the odds of them winning the point goes down.

I think McEnroe during his best years could stay back with some success but he knew what his bread and butter was.

Here's a question-Of people who are considered mainly serve and volleyers, who is the best baseliner?

Some choices-Laver, Kramer, Gonzalez, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Cash, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Sedgman, Stich, Emerson.

You would tend to think Laver but guys like Roche won the French. Newcombe won a number of clay tournaments. Kramer and Gonzalez were very good baseliners and McEnroe was pretty good at the baseline also. Rafter wasn't bad either.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Federer is not the greatest on anything. :(

Actually he's the GOAT at crying and cheesy Wimbledon outfits, not to mention that his BH is so bad it's good. Don't forget he's also without a doubt the luckiest player of all time, to win so many HC slams wih such a crappy 1D game is quite amazing.
What about those extra-cheesy tweeners ? Or is it true that everyone in Sid's country club hits tweeners all day long ?
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Here's a question-Of people who are considered mainly serve and volleyers, who is the best baseliner?

Some choices-Laver, Kramer, Gonzalez, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Cash, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Sedgman, Stich, Emerson.
Out of these names, I would offer that Emerson, Ashe, Roche, Becker, and Laver are, at least, very good baseliners.
 

krosero

Legend
If you want to get a sense of how awesome Lendl was in his best hardcourt performances, have a look at these two articles about his 1989 AO victory over McEnroe. It was a quarterfinal so it doesn't get the attention of their Slam finals, but have a look.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pW4aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5isEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6882,870585&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=05VVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=E5cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2130,4185409&hl=en

An excerpt:

Lendl, who can regain the No. 1 ranking by winning the tournament, swatted 40 passing shots by his net-rushing foe and held serve easily every time.

“I played very well, but he played better,” said McEnroe, who hasn’t won a Grand Slam title since beating Lendl in the 1984 U.S. Open final.
If that number is correct, that's 40 passing shots in only 34 games. That easily tops any rate in the list I gave above.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
It's the percentages for serve and volleyer. They know if they stay back the odds of them winning the point goes down.

I think McEnroe during his best years could stay back with some success but he knew what his bread and butter was.

Here's a question-Of people who are considered mainly serve and volleyers, who is the best baseliner?

Some choices-Laver, Kramer, Gonzalez, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Cash, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Sedgman, Stich, Emerson.

You would tend to think Laver but guys like Roche won the French. Newcombe won a number of clay tournaments. Kramer and Gonzalez were very good baseliners and McEnroe was pretty good at the baseline also. Rafter wasn't bad either.

I saw Mac beat Vilas in an indoor exo match from the baseline in about 1983. Granted, Vilas was a bit past his prime. But, what really struck me was that, with all of Vilas' modern style power and topspin on both sides, he really had nothing to hurt Mac with. Mac just absorbed his power and made him run a lot more than Vilas made Mac run.

As for your question, about the best baseliner among those great S&Ver's, first I want to state that every one of them could play and win from the baseline against other baseliners, although Cash, Rafter and Smith were probably the least effected from the baseline among this list. But, as you observe, they're odds of winning went up when the attacked. That's why they attacked.

Having said that, and having seen most of them play (except Kramer, Gonzales and Sedgman), IMO, there's little room for debate that Laver was clearly better from the baseline than all the rest (including Rosewall, who isn't listed). Not only did Laver have a power advantage over all of them, he had a consistency advantage as well. Laver hit heavy topspin on both sides, he was the best athlete and best conditioned athlete among them, and he had the biggest range of any of them because he hit on the run better than any of them (with the exception of Sampras' forehand), and because of his wristy, roundhouse swings preferred to hit at a distance from the ball. All JMO, of course!
 
Last edited:

BTURNER

Legend
Tell me, how much of Federer in his prime have I watched?

You have watched approximately 13 hours of Federer including matches, clips and interview snippets. It is subdivided into 3 hours grass, 3 hours clay 4 hours hard and only 1.5 hours of carpet play. The rest is interviews. He knows because I told him.
 

kiki

Banned
best hard court shots:

FH: Lendl,Sampras and Federer
BH: Connors,Agassi ( and Lendl would be my third pick)
S&V: Mc and Rafter

Those 7 players stand apart from the others, just as record shows.Borg would be my nº 8, then I´d pick Becker and Courier.But Becker was better indoors and Courier was better on clay.
 

BTURNER

Legend
One obvious factual correction,Laurie, of the 6 Opens Evert won, they are split evenly 3 on clay, 3 on hard (victims were Shriver in 78, Mandlikova both in 80 & 82). I can't put my finger on her hard court record, either the number of titles won on that surface, or her career win/loss ratio. both are very impressive, I can assure.
 
Last edited:
L

Laurie

Guest
One obvious factual correction,Laurie, of the 6 Opens Evert won, they are split evenly 3 on clay, 3 on hard (victims were Shriver in 78, Mandlikova both in 80 & 82). I can't put my finger on her hard court record, either the number of titles won on that surface, or her career win/loss ratio. both are very impressive, I can assure.

checked and edited, thank you.
 

Tilden1893

New User
Del Potro didn't beat Federer to win the US Open last year... It was almost 2 years ago. Since then, injuries aside, Del Potro has shown little promise as a serious threat at slams - hard-court or otherwise.

Otherwise, nice list really. Not that hard to piece it together considering how few players since 1980 have won more than 3 hard court slams.

And what happened yesterday doesn't help the cause, does it?
 
Top