Best slice backhand ever?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

first off thats just your opinion federer works the ball so hard and has so much underspin plus he does it way more elegantly than Rosewall I hate comparing differnt era's because the situation, style and everything else is differnt but if i had to choose which one would help my game I would pick Fed any day.

Exactly. People don't know that when a player put more effort on hitting the ball, whether it's more spin and/or more pace, it's harder to control...thus more prone for error, and precision. Not to mention he's receiving the ball with a lot more action. Rosewall wasn't challenged enough back then.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by piece

I think Rosewall is more elegant in this regard actually.

Fed's movement is definitely among the most graceful and elegant I've ever seen. But, I agree that Rosewall's backhand was a work of art.

[ultradr]

Federer's movement definitely the most graceful and elegant I have ever seen.

However, he is not exactly cat-like smooth. Stout(?) and graceful but I
have seem smoother cat like movers who glides very queitly.
Somehow Federer reminds me of great atheletic horse moving very elegantly.

Sorry if all these animal analogy offend someone.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Exactly. People don't know that when a player put more effort on hitting the ball, whether it's more spin and/or more pace, it's harder to control...thus more prone for error, and precision. Not to mention he's receiving the ball with a lot more action. Rosewall wasn't challenged enough back then.

If you watch Rosewall he was able to hit with great power if needed with great control. Effort does not necessarily mean greatness.

I frankly don't understand where you get the idea Rosewall wasn't challenged when he faced Gonzalez (arguably the greatest server and possible GOAT), Hoad (legendary power and talent), Laver (see Hoad and also potential GOAT), Ashe, Newcombe, Vilas, Nastase, Smith, Gimeno, Emerson, Gerulaitis, Borg, Connors, Kodes, Orantes, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Cooper, Tanner. And yes he actually faced Lendl in a practice match and from when I understand, did very well. Lendl I believe was about 20 and Ken was about 46. Most of these guys he faced when they were in their primes and at least three GOAT candidates there in Gonzalez, Laver and Borg.

Federer has a good backhand and it looks good generally speaking. I don't want to get into comparisons between Federer's backhand and others because it's been done too often here.

I believe that Rosewall's backhand was greatly tested and passed with honors.

[TCTEN]

Originally Posted by TMF

Welome aboard TCTEN. Just let you know if you stick around on this forum you are going to get insulted by some of the bad apples in here. Last time a poster MotherMarjorie was attack by one of the member in here, who hardly visit this forum. But don't let them deter you....just stand up your own right and post what you believe whether if they like it or not.

Meant to post this sooner but thanks for showing some class TMF.

[Backhanded Compliment]

Rosewall, Graf and Edberg are all scary but Rosewall's is the gold standard.

[Manus Domini]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

first off thats just your opinion federer works the ball so hard and has so much underspin plus he does it way more elegantly than Rosewall I hate comparing differnt era's because the situation, style and everything else is differnt but if i had to choose which one would help my game I would pick Fed any day.

Fed's slice over one that has been proclaimed by every pro--without any exception that I know of--to be the greatest in history?

Maybe it might suit your style better, but which would you rather base your game around?

[BTURNER]

I have not see very much of Rosewall, but I gotta say, there is so little bling or flash to any part of his game. Exactly the opposite of Fed. Everything Roger does has such obvious beauty and flare. He plays glorious tennis. I was remarkably underwhelmed when first watching Ken. But it is all so deceptive. He made errors, but never at a bad time. His serve was unimpressive, but it did just enough. Not many dramatic gets, but he was usually where he ought to be. Even the backhand, that was clearly the better wing, was not producing stunning winners, so much as consistently inducing forced errors on volley. He was sort of a droll self-effacing character but the tennis was more efficient than openly inspiring. It takes a real affienado to see what he is actually accomplishing behind his subtle greatness. the more I saw the more I appreciated. You gotta look under the hood of the car to see the beauty of the Rosewall engine.

[Seth]

Henman? He sure struck a beautiful slice.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Seth

Henman? He sure struck a beautiful slice.

Yes he did! I wouldn't call it a GOAT slice, though.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

I have not see very much of Rosewall, but I gotta say, there is so little bling or flash to any part of his game. Exactly the opposite of Fed. Everything Roger does has such obvious beauty and flare. He plays glorious tennis. I was remarkably underwhelmed when first watching Ken. But it is all so deceptive. He made errors, but never at a bad time. His serve was unimpressive, but it did just enough. Not many dramatic gets, but he was usually where he ought to be. Even the backhand, that was clearly the better wing, was not producing stunning winners, so much as consistently inducing forced errors on volley. He was sort of a droll self-effacing character but the tennis was more efficient than openly inspiring. It takes a real affienado to see what he is actually accomplishing behind his subtle greatness. the more I saw the more I appreciated. You gotta look under the hood of the car to see the beauty of the Rosewall engine.

IMO, Rosewall had one of the most classic, beautiful games of tennis ever played. His technique was flawless and graceful. His footwork and movement were amazing. He was a champion who expected to win every time he stepped on to a tennis court, and, most importantly, he was equally graceful, gracious and sportsmanlike winning and losing.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

I have not see very much of Rosewall, but I gotta say, there is so little bling or flash to any part of his game. Exactly the opposite of Fed. Everything Roger does has such obvious beauty and flare. He plays glorious tennis. I was remarkably underwhelmed when first watching Ken. But it is all so deceptive. He made errors, but never at a bad time. His serve was unimpressive, but it did just enough. Not many dramatic gets, but he was usually where he ought to be. Even the backhand, that was clearly the better wing, was not producing stunning winners, so much as consistently inducing forced errors on volley. He was sort of a droll self-effacing character but the tennis was more efficient than openly inspiring. It takes a real affienado to see what he is actually accomplishing behind his subtle greatness. the more I saw the more I appreciated. You gotta look under the hood of the car to see the beauty of the Rosewall engine.

Rosewall has been compared to Bach as far of the purity of his tennis is concerned. There is no wasted movement, everything is efficient with very little wasted effort.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...52/2/index.htm

You are right. Rosewall is not flashy like some but you appreciate how he does things so easily. There was a famous chessplayer named Jose Capablanca, arguably the greatest player ever. They said something like this about Capablanca "Very apparent move." "Obvious." And afterwards after Capablanca won again, they would say "How does he do it!" Capablanca was like Rosewall, nothing wasted, very little flash.

I think in watching Rosewall I am sure many of Rosewall's opponents and people who watched him over the years would ask "How does it do it?!"

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by pc1

Rosewall has been compared to Bach as far of the purity of his tennis is concerned. There is no wasted movement, everything is efficient with very little wasted effort.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...52/2/index.htm

You are right. Rosewall is not flashy like some but you appreciate how he does things so easily. There was a famous chessplayer named Jose Capablanca, arguably the greatest player ever. They said something like this about Capablanca "Very apparent move." "Obvious." And afterwards after Capablanca won again, they would say "How does he do it!" Capablanca was like Rosewall, nothing wasted, very little flash.

I think in watching Rosewall I am sure many of Rosewall's opponents and people who watched him over the years would ask "How does it do it?!"

A few things are clear in what I have seen so far, he gives his all to every point. He does not 'go for the gold' in shot selection when silver or bronze will do. his volley is always hit in front in good position, and every stroke is struck on balance. And he gets back for some amazing overheads he had no business reaching (those have some glory to them!).

As for that drive slice backhand so often discussed here, the casual inattentive eye would not realize it is actually sliced rather than a routine flattish drive with the all the pace normal for such a stroke with a wood racket. It does not look like he missed out on any pace or control by not having a topspin drive.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

As for that drive slice backhand so often discussed here, the casual inattentive eye would not realize it is actually sliced rather than a routine flattish drive with the all the pace normal for such a stroke with a wood racket. It does not look like he missed out on any pace or control by not having a topspin drive.

Rosewall also had an excellent backhand offensive and defensive lob.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

If you watch Rosewall he was able to hit with great power if needed with great control. Effort does not necessarily mean greatness.

I frankly don't understand where you get the idea Rosewall wasn't challenged when he faced Gonzalez (arguably the greatest server and possible GOAT), Hoad (legendary power and talent), Laver (see Hoad and also potential GOAT), Ashe, Newcombe, Vilas, Nastase, Smith, Gimeno, Emerson, Gerulaitis, Borg, Connors, Kodes, Orantes, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Cooper, Tanner. And yes he actually faced Lendl in a practice match and from when I understand, did very well. Lendl I believe was about 20 and Ken was about 46. Most of these guys he faced when they were in their primes and at least three GOAT candidates there in Gonzalez, Laver and Borg.

Federer has a good backhand and it looks good generally speaking. I don't want to get into comparisons between Federer's backhand and others because it's been done too often here.

I believe that Rosewall's backhand was greatly tested and passed with honors.

...and, so much as I agree with you 100%, I´d add...who has seen, off those posters, a Rosewall return off a Newc,Smith,Roche,Tanner or Ashe´s serve...and not once, rather 4-5 times in a game?.I´ve seen that BH in action, and it is one of the most beautiful and state of art shots that one can imagine...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

I have not see very much of Rosewall, but I gotta say, there is so little bling or flash to any part of his game. Exactly the opposite of Fed. Everything Roger does has such obvious beauty and flare. He plays glorious tennis. I was remarkably underwhelmed when first watching Ken. But it is all so deceptive. He made errors, but never at a bad time. His serve was unimpressive, but it did just enough. Not many dramatic gets, but he was usually where he ought to be. Even the backhand, that was clearly the better wing, was not producing stunning winners, so much as consistently inducing forced errors on volley. He was sort of a droll self-effacing character but the tennis was more efficient than openly inspiring. It takes a real affienado to see what he is actually accomplishing behind his subtle greatness. the more I saw the more I appreciated. You gotta look under the hood of the car to see the beauty of the Rosewall engine.

Yes, it is a machine close to perfection, the subtle foot work, the non forced backswing, the recovery, the ability to just enforcen his shot with just a bit more of power than his last...this is as much close to art as tennis can be.

As much as I regard Laver the greatest tennis player we have ever seen, I also must say that no shot comes closer to perfection as Ken´s...wonder.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

I have not see very much of Rosewall, but I gotta say, there is so little bling or flash to any part of his game. Exactly the opposite of Fed. Everything Roger does has such obvious beauty and flare. He plays glorious tennis. I was remarkably underwhelmed when first watching Ken. But it is all so deceptive. He made errors, but never at a bad time. His serve was unimpressive, but it did just enough. Not many dramatic gets, but he was usually where he ought to be. Even the backhand, that was clearly the better wing, was not producing stunning winners, so much as consistently inducing forced errors on volley. He was sort of a droll self-effacing character but the tennis was more efficient than openly inspiring. It takes a real affienado to see what he is actually accomplishing behind his subtle greatness. the more I saw the more I appreciated. You gotta look under the hood of the car to see the beauty of the Rosewall engine.

Originally Posted by krosero

Here's the statement from Ralston's article, The Return of Serve, written in The Fireside Book of Tennis:

"Ken Rosewall has an excellent return of serve (as I write this article, he has not missed a backhand return of serve in two weeks) and he never takes his feet off the ground."

It's an instructional article, with this comment about Rosewall made in passing. And he specifies that he means BH return errors, not all return errors.

I agree with this way of looking at it, not ruling it out as impossible but not taking it as fact either.

I'll post some of my stats on return errors just for perspective, for anyone reading this discussion.

The stats are relevant to this question about Rosewall, but having collected them, I think they also give interesting information in general about many players -- particularly Connors.

Incidentally guys, I have it on good authority from someone that Ralston meant it when he wrote Rosewall didn't miss a backhand return in two weeks. Whether it really happened, well who knows? All I know is that Ralston believes it was so.