The best backhand ever?
- Thread starter theagassiman
- Start date
pc1
G.O.A.T.
He's not known for his backhand. If you check his Wimbledon finals against Nadal, he almost never breaks Nadal. Nadal holds serve by serving to Federer's backhand and pounding it with high heavy topspin groundstrokes. I'm not sure if Federer broke Nadal even once in the 2008 Wimbledon Final.
John Newcombe won a lot of majors, he could hit a hard backhard but like Federer he was known for a great forehand and a good backhand. And like Federer he ran around his backhand on big points.
Jack Kramer won some majors and some have called him the GOAT. He had a GOOD backhand that he could hit hard at times but he, like Newcombe and Federer had a great forehand which he used (I think he said by a two to one ratio) much more often than his very good consistent backhand.
Pancho Segura won a number of Pro Majors and he could hit a hard backhand but he was known for his super forehand which he used much more than his good backhand.
Stan Smith won a few majors and he could hit a backhand very hard but his forehand was the much superior stroke.
Point is that you don't have to have a great backhand to win majors. Arthur Ashe was the reverse. He had a great backhand but only a good forehand and Arthur won several majors.
Federer is a great player, no doubt about that but off the ground he has one of the greatest forehands ever, arguably the greatest. He did NOT win majors because his backhand is of the highest highest highest level, it is a fine backhand and it fits in superbly with his game. It fits in like Kramer's, Newcombe's, Segura's backhand and these guys won most of the time. These guys can hit winners with the backhand but more often they kept the ball in play and used the backhand to set up their awesome forehands. Does this ancient technique sound familiar with Federer today?
Last edited:
Look i am not saying he has the best backhand as you said his forehand is so good that makes his backhand look less good.You mentioned that Federer suffers the Nadals lefty top spin forehand but can you tell me who among the great players of the past with a one hand backhand would not suffer that shot.In my mind only Kuerten would handle that shot but at but still at the end Nadal would overpower him.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
It does look nice: natural and smooth. (It actually reminds me of Lendl's a bit.)
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, he could "thread the needle." He would (with backhand or forehand) pass someone when you thought it was impossible, there just wasn't any gap there. But after he'd done it, and you watched the slo-mo replay, you'd realize yes, there was about 6-10 inches between the tip of his opponent's racquet and the edge of the court. (Time after time.)
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
5th edition--
1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Connors
4. Budge
5. Borg
6. Edberg
7. Kuerten
8. Lendl
9. Nalbandian
10. Lacoste
11. Ashe
12. Agassi
13. Vilas
14. Kovacs
15. Rios
16. Mancini
17. Safin
18. Mecir
19. Tilden
20. Kodes
21. Becker
22. Wilander
23. Kafelnikov
24. Orantes
25. Korda
1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Connors
4. Budge
5. Borg
6. Edberg
7. Kuerten
8. Lendl
9. Nalbandian
10. Lacoste
11. Ashe
12. Agassi
13. Vilas
14. Kovacs
15. Rios
16. Mancini
17. Safin
18. Mecir
19. Tilden
20. Kodes
21. Becker
22. Wilander
23. Kafelnikov
24. Orantes
25. Korda
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I loved the look of his backhand. Korda had a great return too. It's too bad he was tainted by the steroid issue.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I would watch Borg in those day and think to myself that no person should be able to pass like that consistently if a player hits a great approach and sets himself up perfectly at the net. I thought it defied the laws of percentages in tennis. I realized that Borg probably liked breaking the law at that point...a lot. lol.
If he's healthy and at his best, I think Nalbandian's is clearly the best backhand of the last few years. It's great to watch and it amazes me how Nalbanian, when in shape can hit streaks where it seems NO ONE in the world, including Federer and Nadal can touch him. It stems mainly from that super backhand.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Changmaster
Rookie
No, no, I only meant consideration for maybe top 20. After all, if Becker's bh is in the top 20, then I don't think it's a stretch for Fed's bh to be in the top 20, either.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's a great question. I'm not sure if I agree with your terminology about Nadal OVERPOWERING Kuerten since I think Kuerten may very well have more power with Nadal, especially taking into account Kuerten's great serve. I think Kuerten, as tall as he was and the fact his backhand was so smooth and natural for him that he would handle the Nadal high topspin very well, especially on red clay. Do I think Kuerten could beat Nadal on red clay? Probably not most of the time but at his best I'm not sure if it's not better than Nadal at his best on red clay. Yes I do think Kuerten would handle it fairly well on his backhand.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
CM,
Is Fed's BH better than Wawrinka's or Haas's or Djokovic's? (If so, then I will move it up.)
Changmaster
Rookie
??? Djoker and Murray that low? Brad Gilbert has repeatedly said that he thinks Murray's bh is the best in the game today (Perhaps he was forgetting Nalby because of his dropoff from the top of the game;injuries). While I'm not entirely sure if I agree with him, I think it certainly should be at least top 5, and Gilbert obviously knows more about tennis than probably anyone on this forum.
What is the reasoning for putting Haas and Stan that high? Because their backhands look pretty? Don't see how you can put them above Djoker, Murray, Delpo, or maybe even Davy. And no way is Nadal's bh better than the 2-handers I just listed.
No offense, but that's an awful list.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I can very much appreciate this. It happened to Laver. People said his backhand was so great, so titanic, that they underestimated his forehand (perhaps even unconsciously saying to themselves that it was "unfair" for one player to have two such great shots).
Changmaster
Rookie
I'm not sure about Djoker, but Fed's bh very well may be overall better than Stan's or Haas's. He certainly has a better slice, dropshots, and variety than either of those two.
I still would like to see evidence for Becker's bh being in the top 20? I'm genuinely curious if his backhand really was THAT good.
illkhiboy
Hall of Fame
Did you see my post about Agassi vs. Nalbandian on page 9?
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Best backhands among current male players:
2nd edition--
1. Nalbandian
2. Gasquet
3. Murray
4. Djokovic
5. Federer
6. Davydenko
7. Nadal
8. Haas
9. Wawrinka
10. del Potro
(I confess, now that I think about it, I must have a bit of prejudicial ingorance about two-handed backhands--they all look the same to me: awkward, engirding, effective and practical but no more. In the women's game I like Henin's and Mauresmo's backhands, but no others--the rest all look the same to me.)
2nd edition--
1. Nalbandian
2. Gasquet
3. Murray
4. Djokovic
5. Federer
6. Davydenko
7. Nadal
8. Haas
9. Wawrinka
10. del Potro
(I confess, now that I think about it, I must have a bit of prejudicial ingorance about two-handed backhands--they all look the same to me: awkward, engirding, effective and practical but no more. In the women's game I like Henin's and Mauresmo's backhands, but no others--the rest all look the same to me.)
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
You truly believe that Nalbandian's BH was/is better than Agassi's? Okay. Good case made.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Guys like Edberg in my opinion have their backhand as their strength and natural shot. Edberg played against guys like Wilander who hit with heavy topspin. It's a smoother shot than Federer and I don't think Edberg's backhand would unravel like Federer's occasionally does. Nadal would probably have a better shot going after Edberg's forehand but as Lendl said, that's not easy to do.
No one really knows how some of the old time greats with one handed backhands would do against Nadal's topspin but I would tend to think guys like Laver, with his huge forehand and wrist could handle the heavy topspin of Nadal since Laver was able to handle the topspin of Borg pretty well, same with Arthur Ashe who did pretty in handling Borg's topspin also as he did with Vilas. I think Rosewall, would do well also because of his great concentration and he wouldn't try to do more than necessary. Incidentally Rosewall at age 42 was able to crush Vilas on grass in 1976 with the loss of I believe only four games in an Americas against Australian Challenge type competition. And Vilas hit very heavy topspin. Incidentally in theory it's easier to slice back a heavy topspin shot then to topspin it back and that's what Rosewall would do.
Vines mentioned that guys like Laver and Vilas could handle Kick serves well because their giant wrists would be able to "kill" the high kick serve and I'm sure that would also apply to the heavy high topspin. These guys were able to play Ping Pong Tennis and flick their wrists at shots.
Everything is debatable. Nadal would have change from his natural crosscourt forehand because Laver's a lefty also and he would be hitting to Laver's powerful forehand. Nadal would have to hit down the line to perhaps the even more powerful Laver backhand. On the other end could Nadal handle Laver's variety of spins, angles and power? Laver has a very heavy slice backhand hit with unusual pace and Laver could hit with heavy topspin on both sides if he wanted to.
Fun imaginary matchup.
I like Clijsters' backhand among the Women for two handers. Incidentally I'm of the opinion that technically, Henin's one handed backhand is better than Federer's. It's a more versatile stroke, adjusting for the differences in power between both tours, I think among the females Henin's backhand is more powerful, consistent and a better passing shot. One of the greatest female backhands that I've ever seen. If Federer had Henin's technique, then I may very well rank it among the top backhands of all time.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
illkhiboy
Hall of Fame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C_o5b_nxSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aRFMDEX3GM
Both of these are Agassi vs. Nalbandian matches, and both times Nalbandian completely out-hits Agassi from that side. It's Agassi's flat hard forehand that bothers Nalbandian more than the backhand. One reason why Nalbandian's winner count is more off the backhand is Agassi's relatively inferior movement. But a lot of the times Nalbandian crushes a down-the-liner, Agassi is barely able to move a muscle. And notice Agassi never does the same to David.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
This list is certainly a lot better than the first list, I think it's really good actually. I probably don't rate them top 10 but I enjoy watching Youzhny and Kohlschreiber hit their one handers.
I'm really not feeling Djokovic's backhand anymore. Here's my list:
1. Nalbandian
2. Murray
3. Federer
4. Gasquet
5. Davydenko
6. Djokovic
7. Nadal
8. del Potro
9. Haas
10. Wawrinka
***
11. Kohlschreiber
12. Youzhny
Same names, different order.
***
Forehand list for kicks:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Gonzales
4. Verdasco
5. del Potro
6. Soderling
7. Djokovic
8. Tsonga
9. Ferrero
10. Monfils
Honourable mentions; Roddick, Davydenko, Murray, Andreev, Blake
I'm less sure about this list though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Novak seems to be hitting the tape often with his bh.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Time for a new posting (for convenience):
1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Connors
4. Kuerten
5. Borg
6. Budge
7. Nalbandian
8. Agassi
9. Edberg
10. Safin
11. Lendl
12. Lacoste
13. Ashe
14. Vilas
15. Kovacs
16. Rios
17. Mancini
18. Mecir
19. Tilden
20. Kodes
21. Becker
22. Wilander
23. Kafelnikov
24. Orantes
25. Korda
26. Murray
27. Almagro
1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Connors
4. Kuerten
5. Borg
6. Budge
7. Nalbandian
8. Agassi
9. Edberg
10. Safin
11. Lendl
12. Lacoste
13. Ashe
14. Vilas
15. Kovacs
16. Rios
17. Mancini
18. Mecir
19. Tilden
20. Kodes
21. Becker
22. Wilander
23. Kafelnikov
24. Orantes
25. Korda
26. Murray
27. Almagro
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
^^Excellent list Hoodjem. Well done as usual. Kovacs and Jan Kodes..those are the 2 guys I'm not very familiar with though I know the name Kodes pretty well from the 1970's..Looking on YouTube a bit right now, but could you enlighten me as to why Kovacs had such a great backhand? I'm sure you're right that he did. Thanks.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Kovacs was an unbelievable player when on his game. To quote Jack Kramer from his book "The Game." "Kovacs' bet shot was a hard angled backhand crosscourt, but he could never figure out how to set it up so he could take advantage of it. He just guessed most of the time. But he was such a beauty to watch that I was in awe of him."
Kramer actually sort of puts down Kovacs but saying Frankie never won anything. However Kovacs did win a lot of tournaments and I believe that in some years you could argue he was above Budge in the pros. My favorite line with Kovacs is that he used to annoy Don Budge by going up to Budge and saying "How's the world's second best backhand?" Or at least something like that.
Apparently no one could serve and volley against Kovacs because his return on the backhand and forehand were too good. Kovacs was one of those players, like Laver, Hoad and just a few others who could blow anyone away when he was on his game.
This is what Bobby Riggs said about Frankie Kovac from Ellsworth Vines' book "Tennis Myth and Method" with Gene Vier--"Kovacs had incredible groundstrokes. I recall--I can't remember the tournament except that it was on clay--a match around 1950 in which he blanked Frank Parker 6-0 6-0 6-0...simply not to be believed. It gives you the heights Kovacs could reach when he was hot. I'm certain no one else who ever played the game could have beaten Parker that badly."
Actually Parker did win one game in the match Riggs was referring to. Beating Parker that badly is incredible considering Parker won the French Championship twice, in 1948 and 1949.
Kovacs is one of the most gifted players of all time. He had no stroke weaknesses, tall at 6'3", moved well but his mental game wasn't there.
Kodes was also an excellent player who won the French Open twice and Wimbledon once. All three majors were won in weak fields in which the top players didn't compete. He had a great backhand return and was a very good player but below that of the top players like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe etc.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
A very reasonable list.
I'm curious which backhands would you say is the most dangerous weapons. For example Kovacs' backhand was an awesome attacking weapon and Korda's was also.
It seems like none of you guys have watched tape of the old masters recently. In track and field, the sprint times have gone down radically over time, due to the ante being raised. It's like saying Jesse Owens was the best sprinter ever. He would find it hard to win a college race now. It's far worse in tennis. Laver in his prime would be destroyed by any of the top guys. Just look at the tapes and see how slow the shots are, how little action is on the ball, how bad the footwork is, how antiquated the equipment. What if they were playing with the current equip? What if, blah, blah. They would still be destroyed, due to bad techniques.
Kuerten had a devastating bh.
Gasquet
Almagro
Sampras: only against Agassi. Sucked against most others.
Henin: hon. best female bh ever.
Yet, all of those guys always ran around their bh given the chance. The ih bh is a dying shot. Takes much longer to perfect, given the deltoids are the driving force, and hip timing/tech. is harder to master. More versatile, better for volleying, and chips, and oh, and more reach.
Kuerten had a devastating bh.
Gasquet
Almagro
Sampras: only against Agassi. Sucked against most others.
Henin: hon. best female bh ever.
Yet, all of those guys always ran around their bh given the chance. The ih bh is a dying shot. Takes much longer to perfect, given the deltoids are the driving force, and hip timing/tech. is harder to master. More versatile, better for volleying, and chips, and oh, and more reach.
borg number one
Legend
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I believe in McCauley's book, he mentions at one point Kovacs' record against the great Jack Kramer was 14-3. Kramer was famous for his serve and volley game and I believe he tended to hammer the backhand usually but I'm not sure if he did that against Kovacs. I would guess that Kovacs' return tore Kramer apart.
That's an amazing record considering Kramer is called the GOAT by many and was considering to have an unbreakable serving game.
There are very few players if any in the history of tennis that have no stroke weaknesses, Kovacs is considered by some to be one of them.
borg number one
Legend
This is an oft discussed topic. I disagree completely, having played with the "old equipment" a lot and then all the new equipment as well, but what exactly do you mean by "bad techniques"?
If anything, the "stroke techniques" they used were only different and the eye hand coordination required to hit the ball flush in a tiny sweet spot is very tough to master. You had to be utterly "prepared" to hit each shot, because the racquets qwould not do the work for you.
How in the world is this stuff below "bad technique"? The "techniques" used by Laver, Ashe, Borg, and Connors were "through the roof". Borg in many ways ushered in modern "strokes" along with Lendl.
Have you played with a wood racquet ever in your life?
If not, I must respectfully say that it's very hard for one to comprehend the differences in old vs. new equipment UNLESS they have COMPETED in tourneys with wood racquets. The differences are VERY HARD to comprehend otherwise, they really are. The differences are STARK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M (Laver vs. Ashe)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (Borg vs. Connors)
(Thanks TW Poster Krosero for both clips on YouTube)
Last edited:
Jeannie_Berry
New User
abmk
Bionic Poster
I've said it before and will say it again, safin's and nalby's BH blow away most of these BHs ( except for connors and agassi )
agassi at no17 and lendl at no7 and edberg at no9 is a joke frankly speaking !
Also kafelnikov is way too low on that list IMO
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Borg Number one,
I agree with you.
Just the other day I broke a string and my stringer gave me a cheaper string instead of the one I wanted and I was amazed by the difference in performance. I decided to go back to my old strings and everything was back to normal. This big difference was just the strings.
Now imagine small wood rackets in which you have a much smaller surface to created topspin. Imagine these rackets are much heavier so you can't get the racket speed and imagine lesser strings than the ones we have today. Imagine that these wood rackets cannot produce the power we have today and have much smaller power zones.
It's a massive difference. Give Serena Williams today's rackets and Federer a wood racket and I'm sure there would be doubt on who would win.
Also as I have written numerous times, to put it in perspective, look at some of the female players of today. Players like Henin, just a bit taller than 5'5" tall but yet she can serve around 120 miles per hour with today's rackets. Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters can serve hard plus hit lightning bolt groundstrokes.
My question is this, if the women can do this, how would Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Ken Rosewall do with modern rackets?
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Both of the backhands you mention as blow-awayers are two-handed. The numerical ranking of Agassi versus Lendl and Edberg also implies your favoring of two-handed backhands. Even your mention of Kafelnikov's backhand suggests a bias in favor of two-handed backhands.
Is this correct?
Last edited:
Its not so good, yes a bit silly, to cite Jesse Owens as an example for sporting progress, to discredit old timers. With his world record in the long jump of 8,13 m, set in 1935, Owens would have still ended 6th at the Track and Field World Championships - in 2009. And he had no modern spikes and no tartan track, which would give him automatically some 30 cm more.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
incorrect, its not about bias ... I'm pretty sure you could ask ask lendl and edberg themselves and they'd say anyday that agassi had a better BH !
nalbandian and safin BHs are as good as anyone , perhaps even better when on
kafelnikov's BH isn't mentioned much. Quite consistent and could crank it up whenever he wanted !
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I am starting to think that the pro game of tennis is actually easier than it was with old equipment, strokes, etc.
I am looking for an analogy, and here's a tentative one: what if in basketball they lowered the hoop from ten feet to nine feet, and they enlarged the diameter of the hoop from 18 inches to 24 inches.
The question then becomes would scores go up? Would newer, younger players be able to do things that pre-change players had never done before? More relevant to tennis, would the old geezers (i.e. Russell, Chamberlain, Havlicek, even Jordan) be better or worse with the lower goals and bigger hoops?
If you can make a shot on a goal that is ten feet off the floor and 18 inches in diameter, can you make a shot on a goal that is 9 feet off the floor in a hoop 24 inches in diameter?
Would Rosewall or Tilden or Laver be any good with racquet heads that are 90-110 inches and poly strings, when they were excellent with 65-69 sq. inch heads and gut strings?
(I am not arguing that yesterday's players were/are better, but I am positing that yesterday's players would not be worse off as kiteboard seems to think. )
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Alright, but don't lose sight of the list: we are talking, not about the present group of players, but about the entire history of the game. That is, the greatest backhands of all time in tennis.
I believe Nalbandian's backhand was more consistent than Safin's.
Danstevens
Semi-Pro
To be honest, I'm really not sure that Laver deserves to be number 1 or even particularly high up that list. I'm not saying he wasn't a great player (I have him as the second greatest ever) but after seeing footage of him, I'm just not sure that his backhand was on the same level as some of the other people on the list. When watching old footage of Rosewall and Connors, their backhands still look world class but I'm not so sure that Laver's does. I've no doubt that Laver's backhand was one of the most revolutionary on that list
As for Guga, I think he's a difficult one to rate. I think his backhand was probably the most beautiful tennis stroke ever - I absolutely love it but equally, I think it's perhaps a little like Berasategui's forehand; a dangerous weapon anywhere but only really comes in to its own on the clay. I think his swingpath was just too long and loopy to be truly useful on the quicker surfaces. Kuerten certainly deserves a place on the list but I really cannot decide where I would put him - it's possible to make a good case for him going higher but then you could say the same about moving him down the list.
I'm not sure that Gasquet's backhand deserves to be on the list. It's a nice backhand but I think that perhaps it's a little overrated. It ranks as being one of the most aesthetically pleasing backhands I've seen but I would question its effectiveness and at the end of the day, substance > style in tennis.
As for Safin and Nalbandian, I think I agree with one of the other posters here in that they should be moved up slightly.
I've never had the pleasure of seeing Don Budge hit a backhand so I can't comment on his positioning on the list. Finally, has anyone got a link to any footage of Mancini playing? I couldn't find any on YouTube.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, I very much do. I've seen enough of lendl and edberg to say their BHs are definitely worse than agassi's
as far as consistency of BHs of safin and nalby goes, I'd say they're about the same
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Maybe. I've always thought that Edberg's backhand was very graceful and classic, and very effective. In addition to an excellent BH drive, he had one of the best slices.
Here's some Edberg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA3768XDwXM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4AR-_l-iAg
Here's some Edberg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA3768XDwXM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4AR-_l-iAg
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
I said the very same thing much earlier when I'd noticed it wasn't talked about much , but it still isn't as good enough to be that high .... Definitely not better than the likes of agassi,connors,safin,nalbandian
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4227102&postcount=40
Edberg did have a great backhand His slice was probably the most penertating of all time (sorry I can't say Rosewall because I was not able to see him). I would place his backhand above Lendl's. Your list is quite comprehensive however I have a few questions. When determining the criteria for best backhand are we mostly talking about power? What are the criteria? For example, as a serve and volleyer I would rather hit an approach shot to Lendl's, Becker's, and Edberg's backhand rather then to guys like Mecir or Wilander. Both Wilander's and Mecir's backhand wasn't hit with the same pace as the other three but their backhand were more consistent and deadlier on the pass.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
No, it is not all about power. IMO it is a complex of power, placement, spin, angle, variety, and efficacy.
I have Laver at the top (right now), because he reigned supreme on all of these. Rosewall, I believe, had the most consistent BH of all time, but it was always either a slice or a drive. There was one report that he did not miss on his backhand for two weeks of tournament play--not once. Connors had great power and angled placement, but no topspin.
