Originally Posted by World Beater
This is key.
A serve can be at most used twice to win a point.
A fh can be used several times - though this is dependent on the opponent.
The reality is that there are players who extremely serve reliant ...i.e. karlovic, isner etc.
But are there really that many players who are overly fh reliant? Sure some have stronger fhs, but this doesnt mean they dont know how to hit an average backhand.
Karlovic serve - best in the game and still hasnt got him that far.
Contrast to say a fh reliant player like F.Gonzalez and he has reached the australian open final and had a better career.
What about other serve reliant players ? Wayne Arthurs, J.Isner....not saying too much.
Nadal and federer in their younger days had barely passable backhands - these wings could be broken down. Federer would constantly slice and nadal would hit short backhands to get clobbered. Still they achieved very good results compared to serve only players.
In reality, an fh reliant player is going to have more success than a serve reliant player. In theory - having a serve seems better, but there are very few examples of players having a fh but absolutely no bh.
Read the OP again, we ain't talking just a serve, we are talking Pete's serve. You know, Pete Sampras, the guy that could serve you to love with just 4 strokes aka 4 straight aces or who could get out of 0-40 with his next 5strokes.
All this rubbish about Roddick or Ivanisevic having better serves than Sampras is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. They may have had faster serves, but they didn't have the placement, or the disguise, or the second serve or that x factor, the clutch serve.
Sampras' serve by a mile.