Best slice backhand ever?

RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
Manus Domini said:
First off, no one ever said anything about Rosewall as an overall player being stronger than Fed. So, I dunno why you're bringing that up, except maybe you're insecure?

Secondly, there's no way Fed would have developed a better slice than Rosewall. Unless you're telling me he could go, what was it, 18? matches without missing a backhand return of serve?



Yes, I'm sure the posters on here claiming Fed has the best forehand in the game are anti-Federer :roll:

Get real



Wtf?

Let me know when Federer's slice never produces a sitter, has barely any net clearance, and is commonly used in offensive situations. Also, clue me in on when his slice is less of a chip and more of a drive.



Like they didn't put sitters away or set them up for approach shots in Rosewall's day?



So, in short, Fed's slice is primarily defensive?

Oh, and if you're insinuating Rosewall's slice was either lacking in quality or weak in nature, you have essentially claimed almost every professional player is an idiot. Including Sampras, who tried copying Rosewall's slice, and Kramer, who saw both Federer and Rosewall play, as well as many other great players.



Err, the difficulty of a slice today is far less than it was many years ago. I can emulate Federer's slice far better than I can the slice of Roche, Laver or Rosewall.
Click to expand...

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.
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
RF20Lennon said:
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.
Click to expand...

The universal opinion of everyone who has seen both of them play is that Rosewall's slice was a greater shot than anything Federer can do on the backhand side.
 
P

piece

Professional
RF20Lennon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think Rosewall is more elegant in this regard actually.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
RF20Lennon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
U

ultradr

Legend
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

pc1

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you watch Rosewall he was able to hit with good 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.
 
Last edited:
TCTEN

TCTEN

Rookie
TMF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
RF20Lennon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
B

BTURNER

Legend
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.
 
Last edited:
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
BTURNER said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BTURNER said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/vault/article/magazine/MAG1086052/2/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?!"
 
B

BTURNER

Legend
pc1 said:
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/vault/article/magazine/MAG1086052/2/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?!"
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BTURNER said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rosewall also had an excellent backhand offensive and defensive lob.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
pc1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

...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

kiki

Banned
BTURNER said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BTURNER said:
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.
Click to expand...

krosero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Historically it's Rosewall imo. Other excellent slice/flat backhands to think of would be Laver, Federer, Ashe, Kramer, Riggs, Tilden, Nastase, McEnroe, Edberg, Lendl.
 
T

thrust

Legend
Rabbit said:
Rosewallapalooza!

Ken Rosewall without a doubt had the deadliest, bestest, sliced backhand of all time. While other players, like Laver, had other options, Muscles lived and died by his (with living being the usual result). His backhand, we can just call it his backhand because he didn't vary it much, was so on and so accurate that he didn't need a ton of pace. But, he could hit it with as much pace as he needed to get it past a guy at net or put him in trouble.

I also think Evonne Goolagong was an outstanding selection on the women's side. Her slice, she was in possession of a topspinner too, was elegant and never appeared rushed. Graf's, by contrast, was always so close in to her body and taken late that it had no aesthetic value. Mind you it was a great shot, but nowhere near as beautiful to behold as Goolagong's.
Click to expand...
Years ago I read an article in which Arthur Ashe was describing his various backhand shots, three or four of them. He then said, but then Rosewall had just one backhand shot, which was perfect.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Years ago I read an article in which Arthur Ashe was describing his various backhand shots, three or four of them. He then said, but then Rosewall had just one backhand shot, which was perfect.
Click to expand...
Actually Ashe mentioned he could counterattack in a half dozen ways.

Ashe had a tremendous backhand and it was very versatile. He could use great touch on the backhand (see 1975 Wimbledon final). He could hit it with enormous power (see 1969 Wimbledon semi against Laver). He could hit with great topspin or slice. He could be very steady with it if he wanted to be and he seemed to get great power easily. I've also seen him just hit a ton of winners off the service return. The problem with Ashe was that he too often went for the very low percentage winner with his great backhand and too often he missed it. They also said he has so many choices of shots on his backhand that he often picked the wrong shot! I know Ashe felt his backhand was as great as any backhand. Overall Rosewall's slice backhand was better. However for today's racquet tech Ashe's backhand would be fantastic imo. Below is some examples of Ashe's versatility with the backhand.

 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
Ashe also said that Rosewall was the greatest volleyer he ever played against. One year Ken was playing Newcombe in a cay court final I think in South Carolina when Ken, at the net, hit a defensive top spin volley winner. Newcombe stopped stared at Ken and said Where did that come from? The reason being that Rosewall never purposely hit with top spin, as far as I have read.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Ashe also said that Rosewall was the greatest volleyer he ever played against. One year Ken was playing Newcombe in a cay court final I think in South Carolina when Ken, at the net, hit a defensive top spin volley winner. Newcombe stopped stared at Ken and said Where did that come from? The reason being that Rosewall never purposely hit with top spin, as far as I have read.
Click to expand...
Yes Ashe did write that about Rosewall's volley. Ashe's opinions are always interesting. He felt Laver and Rosewall were equal number ones on the backhand but since Laver also hit topspin I think it's safe to say he felt Rosewall had the best slice backhand. He also felt his (Ashe) backhand was as good as anyone's. He felt Pancho Gonzalez had the best serve and Borg had the best forehand.
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Ashe also said that Rosewall was the greatest volleyer he ever played against. One year Ken was playing Newcombe in a cay court final I think in South Carolina when Ken, at the net, hit a defensive top spin volley winner. Newcombe stopped stared at Ken and said Where did that come from? The reason being that Rosewall never purposely hit with top spin, as far as I have read.
Click to expand...

A defensive topspin volley winner? I must admit I have never seen such a shot. I don't see how it could possibly be done without risking serious injury.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
2017 will end up being the year of the GOAT ;)
Click to expand...
hoodjem said:
I'll bank on it.
Click to expand...

Federer was born the Year of the Rooster. Laver was born the Year of the Dragon. Gonzalez was also born the Year of the Dragon. Hoad was born the Year of the Dog as is Rosewall. Nadal was born the Year of the Tiger. Djokovic was born the Year of the Rabbit as was Andy Murray. Sampras was born the Year of the Pig. Agassi was born the Year of the Dog. Boris Becker was born the Year of the GOAT. John Newcombe was born the Year of the Monkey. Ilie Nastase was born the Year of the Dog. Arthur Ashe was born the Year of the GOAT. Don Budge was born the Year of the Rabbit. Ellsworth Vines was born the Year of the Pig. Bill Tilden was born the Year of the Snake. Jack Kramer was born the Year of the Rooster. Bjorn Borg was born the Year of the Monkey. Jimmy Connors was born the Year of the Dragon. John McEnroe was born the Year of the Pig. Ivan Lendl was born the Year of the Mouse. Edberg was born the Year of the Snake.

This year 2017 is the Year of the Rooster which is Federer's Year.

Not too many Roosters in this list of greats except for Federer and Kramer. Ironically I think they are very similar in style despite the fact Kramer was a serve and volleyer. Very similar stroke equipment if you adjust for racquet tech.
 
Last edited:
S

slice bh compliment

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Federer was born the Year of the Rooster. Laver was born the Year of the Dragon. Gonzalez was also born the Year of the Dragon. Hoad was born the Year of the Dog as is Rosewall. Nadal was born the Year of the Tiger. Djokovic was born the Year of the Rabbit as was Andy Murray. Sampras was born the Year of the Pig. Agassi was born the Year of the Dog. Boris Becker was born the Year of the GOAT. John Newcombe was born the Year of the Monkey. Ilie Nastase was born the Year of the Dog. Arthur Ashe was born the Year of the GOAT. Don Budge was born the Year of the Rabbit. Ellsworth Vines was born the Year of the Pig. Bill Tilden was born the Year of the Snake. Jack Kramer was born the Year of the Rooster. Bjorn Borg was born the Year of the Monkey. Jimmy Connors was born the Year of the Dragon. John McEnroe was born the Year of the Pig. Ivan Lendl was born the Year of the Mouse. Edberg was born the Year of the Snake.

This year 2017 is the Year of the Rooster which is Federer's Year.
Click to expand...
All correct, and well researched. You own the year when you're twelve, twentyfour, thirtysix and uhm...fortyeight.

I am also very familiar with this other arcane system invented by madame zodiaczki.
Rafa is from the year of the topspinmonkey,
Nolé and boris were both born in the year of the ass.
Nastase, i have asked personally ... he admits to being from the year of the buffoon, or maybe baboon.
Federer and laver, the year of the goat. The GOAT. Same with Gorgonzola, Kramer, and late nineties pete.

Kyrgios is from the year of the goatcheese. Same with filappoussis baghdatis and samprras.
Murray is naturally from the year of the sheep, as in haggis and bagpipemaking.
Gasquet is from the year of the chicken, the wife of the rooster on his shirt.
Tsonga is from the year of the lion who thinks it is a sheep.
guga, goran, rafter, and noah are from the year of the cool guy.
Sarah jessica Parker is from the year of the trinomial horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
slice bh compliment said:
All correct, and well researched. You own the year when you're twelve, twentyfour, thirtysix and uhm...fortyeight.

I am also very familiar with this other arcane system invented by madame zodiaczki.
Rafa is from the year of the topspinmonkey,
Nolé and boris were both born in the year of the ass.
Nastase, i have asked personally ... he admits to being from the year of the buffoon, or maybe baboon.
Federer and laver, the year of the goat. The GOAT. Same with Gorgonzola, Kramer, and late nineties pete.

Kyrgios is from the year of the goatcheese. Same with filappoussis baghdatis and samprras.
Murray is naturally from the year of the sheep, as in haggis and bagpipemaking.
Gasquet is from the year of the chicken, the wife of the rooster on his shirt.
Tsonga is from the year of the lion who thinks it is a sheep.
guga, goran, rafter, and noah are from the year of the cool guy.
Sarah jessica Parker is from the year of the trinomial horse.
Click to expand...
How Sarah Jessica Parker got in there is beyond me but I like it.
 
T

thrust

Legend
hoodjem said:
Was it a forehand volley or a backhand volley?
Click to expand...
I don't recall, but Ken was at the net and he hit a reflex shot in order to not get hit by the ball. It was the announcer who said it was a top spin volley, which also shocked Newcombe. At least, that is how I remember the incident which was a long time ago, probably in the early seventies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Olli Jokinen
Wilander's slice (and the the backhand slice in general)
Replies
5
Views
537
Olli Jokinen
Olli Jokinen
T
Has anyone surpassed Rosewall for the best backhand slice in history yet
Replies
48
Views
6K
d-quik
d-quik
M
Backhand vs. Slice
Replies
9
Views
2K
rice&tennis
R
theagassiman
A Federer backhand slice or a Sampras one?
Replies
7
Views
2K
theagassiman
theagassiman
L
1H backhand Slice
Replies
4
Views
819
Djokovicfan4life
Djokovicfan4life
Top