Greatest Strokes of All Time - new book

[urban]

Good descriptions here. Rosewall often hit his first lobs - all underspun- too low deliberately, to let the net rusher get the smash, and to tire him out on the longer run. Later on he hit it just a little higher. He was no absolute first strike player, more a combination hitter. He anticipated very well and was always in position to hit the next shot. Therefore he made the court on his side smaller, than it really was. His slightly underspun backhand was hard too, and could pass the volleyer straight down the line.
Laver was extremely versatile with his returns and passings, which he could hit as flat drive, topspin or hard underspin. When he got hot, he passed you from either flank, on either side, or directly through the body. He could hit extreme angles, with his balls often dipping very sharp after net passage. He could hold the ball long on the racket side, and so could hide the direction of the pass until the net player made a futile move. Even the older Laver at 37, as in the Borg WCT match of 1975, could find angles on the backhand, i haven't seen since.
Along with Santana, Laver was the first who turned the offensive topspin lob into a weapon, hitting it from both sides (i think Vic Seixas was the first who hit a topspin lob on the forehand). I often saw him hitting a topspin lob directly on the return, to surprise the net rusher. It took a sharp curve, only the fall down like a pierced balloon. He even hit topspin lobs from the volley, to use suprise tactics on net exchanges.

[BTURNER]

Thanks guys, I see my ideas weren't far off, but unjustifiably generic and bland. those descriptions of their respective passing talents are great. I have seen almost nobody try a lob return in singles and make it work, let alone topspin lob volleys. I need to watch more of these two.

[illkhiboy]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Standing on just one spot, I've never seen Agassi lose a bh to bh battle even on his worst days. At this year's AO, Djokovic vs Murray, Djokovic had to rely on backhand slices every now and then because Murray was overpowering him on that side. You are right though when you said that Djokovic mobility enables him to hit great shots on the run from the bh side. Agassi's ability though to hit on rise with that bh is still unequalled today IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3uiZvHN9f8

Agassi's backhand definitely had more power than Djokovic's but he lost his share of backhand to backhand battles. In that, players like Nalbandian, Safin, and even Coria often came out on top in backhand battles against Agassi by changing direction and hitting winners up the line. Though it was really tough for them to out-hit Agassi in pure cross court exchanges.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by urban

Good descriptions here. Rosewall often hit his first lobs - all underspun- too low deliberately, to let the net rusher get the smash, and to tire him out on the longer run. Later on he hit it just a little higher. He was no absolute first strike player, more a combination hitter. He anticipated very well and was always in position to hit the next shot. Therefore he made the court on his side smaller, than it really was. His slightly underspun backhand was hard too, and could pass the volleyer straight down the line.
Laver was extremely versatile with his returns and passings, which he could hit as flat drive, topspin or hard underspin. When he got hot, he passed you from either flank, on either side, or directly through the body. He could hit extreme angles, with his balls often dipping very sharp after net passage. He could hold the ball long on the racket side, and so could hide the direction of the pass until the net player made a futile move. Even the older Laver at 37, as in the Borg WCT match of 1975, could find angles on the backhand, i haven't seen since.
Along with Santana, Laver was the first who turned the offensive topspin lob into a weapon, hitting it from both sides (i think Vic Seixas was the first who hit a topspin lob on the forehand). I often saw him hitting a topspin lob directly on the return, to surprise the net rusher. It took a sharp curve, only the fall down like a pierced balloon. He even hit topspin lobs from the volley, to use suprise tactics on net exchanges.

I've heard that Laver also used to deliberately hit a short low lob to tempt his opponent to hit a smash, then he would hit a winning volley off the smash, (which would usually demoralize the opponent to think that anyone could be that strong and that quick).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I've heard that Laver also used to deliberately hit a short low lob to tempt his opponent to hit a smash, then he would hit a winning volley off the smash, (which would usually demoralize the opponent to think that anyone could be that strong and that quick).

Now how can that be? Don't you know that players of that era couldn't possibly do things like that.

There was a story that John Newcombe gave about a tournament in the early 1970's in which he was playing Laver. Laver won the first two sets and Newcombe won the next two. It was close in the fifth set. Newcombe was serving and having a lot of success volleying to Laver's backhand and smashing away Laver's backhand lobs. So Newk served to Laver, hit a volley to Laver's backhand and shifted his weight back to prepare for what he thought was a lob by Laver. Laver brought his racquet back like he was about to lob then hit a crosscourt chip to Newcombe's forehand! Newcombe realized that he was moving backwards so if he attempted a volley it would not be penetrating and Laver would move in, hit his great forehand and probably pass him. So he figured (all this in a fraction of a second) that he would just hit the ball back deep and start the point over again. Newcombe hit the ball out by a fraction. He give Laver and look acknowledging what a brilliant shot it was. Newcombe thought the crowd didn't even know what a brilliant shot Laver made.

We're talking about passing shots but actually we should rephrase it as how to handle a player at the net. It could be passing shots, lobs, dinks, whatever. Wouldn't be a bad thread to start. I may start one.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by pc1

NonP,

I didn't write that Kuerten's backhand wasn't excellent on all surfaces but I still felt it wasn't quite as effective on faster courts despite Kuerten coming up with some great hard court tournament wins. It was a wonderful backhand.

There are some so great passing shots in the history of tennis. Laver and Rosewall had superb passing shots and lobs. Borg was the best I've seen. Connors was fantastic. Chang and Mecir were great but Mecir had such a short career I'm reluctant to put him there. Nevertheless Mecir was fantastic. Nastase, Tilden, Segura, Wilander, Lendl all had great passing shots.

pc1, cool. And yeah, most of those guys you named would've been a better pick than Djokovic. That was a real head-scratcher.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Agassi's backhand definitely had more power than Djokovic's but he lost his share of backhand to backhand battles. In that, players like Nalbandian, Safin, and even Coria often came out on top in backhand battles against Agassi by changing direction and hitting winners up the line. Though it was really tough for them to out-hit Agassi in pure cross court exchanges.

Obviously it was rather hyperbolic to say Agassi never lost a BH battle, but at the same time let's keep in mind that he had lost a step or two by the time he was slugging it out with those guys. That's especially crucial since we're talking changing direction.

[Moose Malloy]

I respect Flink's knowledge even though I had a mistrust of his Evert worship

He had Evert at #1 in 4 of the categories I mentioned in the OP. care to guess which ones? some were kinda obvious, I think.

[kiki]

When Laver and Rosewall were playing their best tennis against each other, that is the best description of pure shotmaking ability.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

He had Evert at #1 in 4 of the categories I mentioned in the OP. care to guess which ones? some were kinda obvious, I think.

Return, backhand, lob or passing shot, mental toughness. I was wondering if you would care to post the women's lists, in either this thread or in another.

[drakulie]

This list is great comedy.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by drakulie

This list is great comedy.

Drak,

Got any opinions on the Flink list?

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by pc1

Drak,

Got any opinions on the Flink list?

To be honest, it gave me a great chuckle. Just very funny.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by drakulie

To be honest, it gave me a great chuckle. Just very funny.

Okay. Actually the book in general is a great read even if you are amused by the list.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by drakulie

This list is great comedy.

Haha! I agree, but, I doubt we'll agree on why.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Haha! I agree, but, I doubt we'll agree on why.

I'm sure we would have quite a few things we would agree on. I'll give you one, Laver not being on the list for greatest FH or BH.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by drakulie

I'm sure we would have quite a few things we would agree on. I'll give you one, Laver not being on the list for greatest FH or BH.

I agree with you. Kind of hard to accomplish what Laver did without a great forehand or backhand. Flink is obviously very knowledgeable about the game but I don't believe he carefully thought out his picks logically.

[Moose Malloy]

^you do realize he only had a top 5 list for each stroke? its impossible for anyone to come up with a list that's going to please everyone. and to say that leaving someone off the top 5 fh list means that they must think that player didn't have a great fh is a bit of a stretch, did you read the book? the chapters on Laver's matches break down his game in more detail than just about anyone has(certainly more than anyone on this forum)
ditto with Lenglen & players that no one has seen, with no good footage of those players, this book is the next best thing. you feel like you have seen them all play after reading it. if no Laver footage existed, this book could educate any curious fans about his game pretty well. I'm sure he's seen more Laver matches than anyone on here, tennis is his living, he covered every Wimbledon & USO of the Open Era.

And I doubt there's a more 'logical' writer than Flink, he's essentially a computer when it comes to tennis as anyone who's followed his work for the last 30 years would know. He was one of the first statisticians of the Open Era(he does have a photographic memory) I'm sure he put great thought into this list(as he does with every word he's ever written about the game, he's no blogger that just thoughtlessly puts out gossip or innuendo about anything that pops into his head. he's remained more like a newspaper/magazine writer than an internet writer, which is pretty hard to do in this age)

Having done stats on a lot of matches, esp older ones (which I does think bring you a different perpective on players & matches, maybe more so than someone just watching for fun, like majority of viewers) I did notice that Laver was just about the most balanced player I encountered. Meaning his winners were pretty much equally distributed on every shot(and that's pretty rare, most players have a lot more winners on one side than the other. for example Flink's top 2 - Fed & Nadal, those guys hit majority of all winners they hit from the fh side, sometimes to a ridiculous %. I know we don't have stats for every player that ever played & every match, but I would bet that Fed & Nadal have hit more fh winners than anyone in history. many longtime observers have commented on them taking the fh to another level. does it really seem a joke to rank them 1 & 2? even if stats indicate they deserve it?

and look at McEnroe - the majority of all his winners from volleys in the matches I've done (with often a big edge to his fh volley - notice Flink put him in top 5 of fh volley)

In a way, not putting Laver in top 5 of fh or bh is a compliment, because it shows that he was such an all around player that he didn't rely on just one shot to dominate(which you can argue with Sampras and the serve & Federer with the fh)

I notice with all the criticism in this thread, no one has bothered to actually compile their own top 5 list. I guess that's too much work, its much easier to say 'this list is joke, blah, blah.'

[NonP]

Have to say I'm with Moose. With only 5 strokes to choose in each category you're bound to have some questionable omissions. We all know comparing eras is a tricky business. I mean, I started that "Greatest Serves" thread more than 2 years ago and I don't think we're even halfway done, and remember, that one is about the serve only, the most "independent" stroke in this game! Just imagine trying to compare all the historic contenders for other strokes--which, again, are even more difficult to assess than the serve--with biased fans waiting to dissect and eviscerate every selection of yours they don't like.

So yeah, I thought Flink did a decent job. Djokovic for the passing shots was the only selection I found highly dubious, and even that's not entirely crazy. And as others have said Flink isn't one of those hack journos with nary an understanding of the finer points of tennis or its long history.

At the very least this is much more respectable than the farce Tennis Channel put together for the umpteenth frivolous GOAT ranking. If that didn't make you wary of the so-called expert opinions, nothing will.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

just got Steve Flink's 'The Greatest Matches of All Time,' its a must read for any fan.

at the end he has a section titled Greatest Strokes of All Time for men & women, with thoughts on each pick. I will list his choices for the men.

1st Serve
1. Sampras
2. Gonzales
3. Becker
4. Ivanisevic
5. Federer/Isner

2nd serve
1. Sampras
2. Kramer
3. Newcombe
4. Roddick
5. Rafter

Return of Serve
1. Agassi
2. Connors
3. Djokovic
4. Hewitt
5. Murray

Forehand
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Lendl
4. Tilden
5. Borg/Sampras/Del Potro

Backhand
1. Budge
2. Rosewall
3. Connors
4. Djokovic
5. Hoad/Kuerten

FH Volley
1. Kramer
2. Newcombe
3. Emerson
4. Rafter
5. McEnroe

BH Volley
1. Edberg
2. Roche
3. Rosewall
4. Laver
5. Sampras

Overhead
1. Sampras
2. McEnroe
3. Gonzales
4. Federer
5. Trabert

Lob
1. Nastase
2. Borg
3. Santana
4. Wilander
5. Connors/Murray

Passing Shot
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Agassi
4. Hewitt
5. Djokovic

mental toughness
1. Nadal
2. Connors
3. Gonzales
4. Sampras
5. Laver

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

^you do realize he only had a top 5 list for each stroke? its impossible for anyone to come up with a list that's going to please everyone. and to say that leaving someone off the top 5 fh list means that they must think that player didn't have a great fh is a bit of a stretch, did you read the book? the chapters on Laver's matches break down his game in more detail than just about anyone has(certainly more than anyone on this forum)
ditto with Lenglen & players that no one has seen, with no good footage of those players, this book is the next best thing. you feel like you have seen them all play after reading it. if no Laver footage existed, this book could educate any curious fans about his game pretty well. I'm sure he's seen more Laver matches than anyone on here, tennis is his living, he covered every Wimbledon & USO of the Open Era.

And I doubt there's a more 'logical' writer than Flink, he's essentially a computer when it comes to tennis as anyone who's followed his work for the last 30 years would know. He was one of the first statisticians of the Open Era(he does have a photographic memory) I'm sure he put great thought into this list(as he does with every word he's ever written about the game, he's no blogger that just thoughtlessly puts out gossip or innuendo about anything that pops into his head. he's remained more like a newspaper/magazine writer than an internet writer, which is pretty hard to do in this age)

Having done stats on a lot of matches, esp older ones (which I does think bring you a different perpective on players & matches, maybe more so than someone just watching for fun, like majority of viewers) I did notice that Laver was just about the most balanced player I encountered. Meaning his winners were pretty much equally distributed on every shot(and that's pretty rare, most players have a lot more winners on one side than the other. for example Flink's top 2 - Fed & Nadal, those guys hit majority of all winners they hit from the fh side, sometimes to a ridiculous %. I know we don't have stats for every player that ever played & every match, but I would bet that Fed & Nadal have hit more fh winners than anyone in history. many longtime observers have commented on them taking the fh to another level. does it really seem a joke to rank them 1 & 2? even if stats indicate they deserve it?

and look at McEnroe - the majority of all his winners from volleys in the matches I've done (with often a big edge to his fh volley - notice Flink put him in top 5 of fh volley)

In a way, not putting Laver in top 5 of fh or bh is a compliment, because it shows that he was such an all around player that he didn't rely on just one shot to dominate(which you can argue with Sampras and the serve & Federer with the fh)

I notice with all the criticism in this thread, no one has bothered to actually compile their own top 5 list. I guess that's too much work, its much easier to say 'this list is joke, blah, blah.'

Of course it's impossible to please everyone. Lists like this are generally very subjective however and it's a big however we do have some statistical information nowadays to analyze things like serve and serve return. So the thing I disagree with clearly and again it is arguable is the inclusion of Roger Federer as the fifth best first serve in tennis history. I think in this stat era information points to the fact that players like Roddick or even Karlovic have had superior first serves to Federer. Still Federer has a superb first serve and it's not like we have Frankie Durr as the best first serve for women.

Like I wrote in my first post, the list is reasonable with nothing outrageous.

Moose you started this thread so you must have known there would be some disagreement. I'll throw in some picks and I'll take the criticism. Bear in mine that I haven't had that much time to put deep thought into this.
First serve
1. Pancho Gonzalez-I'll pick him over Sampras because as many have said, his first serve took so little out of him that he could still be serving bombs in the fifth set. Over the years Gonzalez in my opinion has probably been named the most times for the greatest serve ever before Pete Sampras. Vic Braden was of the opinion (in the year 2000) that Gonzalez would be able to serve about 140 mph with the racquets at that time.
2. Sampras-Dominated the 1990's in percentage of holding serve. Even in his last year he was in the top ten. Possibly number one.
3. Goran Ivanisevic-Goran, along with a few others are possibly the greatest lefty serve ever.
4. Kramer-Perhaps he didn't serve as hard as some but he had a high percentage of first serves and a lethal combo of a powerful flat first serve plus a slice serve that could pull you off the court.
5. Roddick-Hesitant to pick him over guys like Vines, John Doeg or Newcombe but Roddick has led the ATP many times in percentage of holding serve, more than Federer. And the guy could bomb it over 150 mph.
5. Vines-Many think Vines is number one.
Others choices-Tilden, Doeq, Newcombe, Ashe, Tanner, Stan Smith, Hoad, Ashe, Tanner, McEnroe.

Kavlovic has had some of the greatest first serve stats in recent years and Isner is fantastic too.

Second serve
1. Sampras-Was talking to a well known great and he thought Sampras' second serve was the best, before that it was Jack Kramer.
2. Jack Kramer
3. John Newcombe
4. Vines
5. von Cramm

Others-Roddick, Gonzalez, Rafter

Forehand
1. Segura
2. Federer
2. Borg-Probably the most error free forehand I've seen. People forget his forehand was considered by far the best in tennis in his time. Surprisingly versatile on that side in my opinion.
4. Lendl
5. Nadal-I do wonder how his forehand would translate to wood. He probably would adapt well.

All can be interchanged. Others-Kramer, Newcombe, Nastase, Agassi, Tilden, Perry, Laver, Vines, Fletcher, Okker. Perry's forehand was picked by World Tennis magazine I believe as the greatest in history a number of years ago. However too many had said that the best single shot they had ever seen in tennis was Pancho Segura's two handed forehand. Among them were Vines, Kramer, Riggs. Laver said it was the best forehand he ever played against and Segura was past his best at the time.

Backhand
1. Rosewall
2. Budge
3. Connors
4. Laver-Most versatile backhand of the top five and probably the most dangerous when Laver was on. More prone to errors than the others in my opinion.
4. Borg

Others-Kovacs, Djokovic (too early to put him higher), Agassi, Mecir (not a long enough career), Edberg, Arthur Ashe, Don McNeill. Ashe's backhand was unbelievable when he was on his game and it had the most variety of any backhand, along with Laver that I've seen.

Forehand Volley
1. Kramer
2. Newcombe
3. Budge Patty
4. Sedgman
5. John McEnroe

Others-Wilmer Alison, Rosewall, Segura

Backhand Volley
1. Tony Roche
2. Edberg
3. Rosewall-Rosewall had this amazing backhand volley in which the ball almost seemed to be pass him and he would, with his back almost to the net, hit a sharp angle drop volley.
4. McEnroe
5. Laver

Others-Sedgman, Budge, Ashe
Overhead
Too many to list but my favorite is Yannick Noah. Kramer was great too as was Sampras and Gonzalez. It seemed to me that Sampras' form on his jumping overhead was very similar to Noah's. Noah was taller and I think he jumped higher so I'm picking him.

Lob
1. Riggs-He was legendary for his lobs. He would on occasion toss up over a hundred in a long match. The lobs would often wear down his opponents.
2. Rosewall
3. Nastase
4. Borg
5. Connors

Others-Segura, Santana, Orantes, Laver

Passing shot
1. Borg-I put Borg ahead of Nadal because I believe he's faster with more stamina. His passing shots were incredible with a wood racquet. It's scary to think of what he could do with the current modern racquets.
2. Nadal
3. Laver
4. Rosewall
5. Connors


Others-Wilander, Mecir, Nastase, Vilas, Agassi (not great on the run), Nastase. With Mecir at times you would think he could get to any shot and pass his opponent.

Mental toughness is so arbitrary that I'm not picking any candidate.

I took into account the extra spin and power today's racquets provide on shots.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by drakulie

I'm sure we would have quite a few things we would agree on. I'll give you one, Laver not being on the list for greatest FH or BH.

Maybe. The only backhands I've seen that I can say off the top of my head were better than Laver's were Connors, Agassi and maybe Borg and Djokovic, all 2 handers. Some will say Rosewall had a better backhand, but, after seening Laver's crippling crosscourt topspin backhand passing shots on the stretch from outside of the doubles ally, I have to go with Laver.

Laver's forehand was actually very similar to Federer's forehand. The biggest differences were the grip and Federer's more consistent open stance and longer upper body rotation. Having said that, Laver did shank the ball more than most on the forehand side, going for so much with that huge wrist snap and Conti grip. Back then, a shank was called a "carry" because it was considered a double hit (strings and frame), and was an automatic loss of point. Anyway, I don't think I would put Laver's forehand in the top 5. Maybe top 10.