After Federer, who had the most beautiful game?

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Yet Fed beat peak Novak at the French Open with that "dainty" game. I guess you didn't watch that match.
We can go all day bro, but it's not for me. It LOOKS dainty. Like I said, it's very effective, the guy barely swings his arm and he hits devastating I/O forehands. I'm not saying he isn't powerful of course. AESTHETICALLY, I prefer watching a more physical style. You can be as upset as you like about it really :) but I'm not obligated to say he has my favorite style to watch, when he doesn't. Next.
 

jiddy-p

Semi-Pro
Dolgopolov, hands down. At least his footwork and movement are very graceful imo. He glides around the court, it's great to watch.

Agree with Haas as well, he has a great textbook style, ditto for Berdych, such great technique, even the way he holds the racket is graceful :p

I'm also going to throw in a vote for Robredo, there's something about the racket head speed and the shape of the arc he swing, on both the backhand and the forehand that I find very appealing.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Isn't beauty subjective? Isn't effective beautiful? Isn't winning beautiful?

I don't know, but I'm just raising questions.
 

Colin

Professional
Aesthetics are a very personal matter, so there's no wrong or right here. But strong opinions are a must.

To the true Federer believers — and may I deign to place myself among your fervid legion — his game is unparalleled in its aesthetic renown, the effortless elegance, the flowing movement, the cool grandeur. To say it is just too beautiful is to spit upon the budding rose and welcome the rugged weeds in its place, an alliance to that which supplants beauty in its gaudy futilitarianism, a stupid determination that asserts that which works harder works better.

To us, Nadal is the complete opposite of what we love, all sweaty brows, slothfully untucked butt-cracks, smelly fingers, grunting and awkward, hard-working but ugly, despoiling the virginal whites of Wimbledon, the sacred lawns with his grease-monkey ethos. That's not say it's not effective — as Michael shrewdly pointed out with his take on Federer — but just that is appeals to different brain centers in the tennis fans' minds.

The keenness in which we approach the matter is both essential to tennis — to our strong love of a certain kind of game; why bother if you're going to embrace a mediocre middle? — and divisive in appreciating other forms. So, as I think is the case with many, I appreciate certain brands of tennis, but I don't love them.

But I love Rogi. Who has a beautiful game that is second? I can't even fathom someone in the same sentence. But I do love Venus, Agassi and Nalbandian, too.
 
Last edited:

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Lol no. The point is Fed's game just doesn't make me feel like I'm watching a sport. It's too dainty, no matter how effective. I'm just having fun with the Cesaro stuff :lol: Definitely not big on Novak, I like Federer 5x more, but at least Novak, like Rafa, gives me a good, athletic show. If Fed played more like Stan does, I'd probably be his biggest fan.
The stuff Antonio Cesaro can do is ridiculous... easiest pick for strongest pound for pound imo...
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Isn't beauty subjective? Isn't effective beautiful? Isn't winning beautiful?

I don't know, but I'm just raising questions.
Couldn't agree more, which is why there's really no wrong answer.

Aesthetics are a very personal matter, so there's no wrong or right here. But strong opinions are a must.

To the true Federer believers — and may I deign to place myself among your fervid legion — his game is unparalleled in its aesthetic renown, the effortless elegance, the flowing movement, the cool grandeur. To say it is just too beautiful is to spit upon the budding rose and welcome the rugged weeds in its place, an alliance to that which supplants beauty in its gaudy futilitarianism, a stupid determination that asserts that which works harder works better.

To us, Nadal is the complete opposite of what we love, all sweaty brows, slothfully untucked butt-cracks, smelly fingers, grunting and awkward, hard-working but ugly, despoiling the virginal whites of Wimbledon, the sacred lawns with his grease-monkey ethos. That's not say it's not effective — as Michael shrewdly pointed out with his take on Federer — but just that is appeals to different brain centers in the tennis fans' minds.

The keenness in which we approach the matter is both essential to tennis — to our strong love of a certain kind of game; why bother if you're going to embrace a mediocre middle? — and divisive in appreciating other forms. So, as I think is the case with many, I appreciate certain brands of tennis, but I don't love them.

But I love Rogi. Who has a beautiful game that is second? I can't even fathom someone in the same sentence. But I do love Venus, Agassi and Nalbandian, too.
I like this post. Basically exactly how I feel but the opposite. Just reading that first paragraph about Fed is exactly my point, I don't watch for absolute perfection and to not see a hair not come out of place. It's just TOO pretty lol. TOO!!! Pretty. If I had someone over that never watched tennis, I could hook him way easier with a Rafa match than a Federer one, because it looks so much more athletic.

The stuff Antonio Cesaro can do is ridiculous... easiest pick for strongest pound for pound imo...
Exactly. This MN guy knows what he's talking about usually :lol: I hate his new music though, the Real Americans theme was so perfect.
 

jiddy-p

Semi-Pro
To us, Nadal is the complete opposite of what we love, all sweaty brows, slothfully untucked butt-cracks, smelly fingers, grunting and awkward, hard-working but ugly, despoiling the virginal whites of Wimbledon, the sacred lawns with his grease-monkey ethos. That's not say it's not effective — as Michael shrewdly pointed out with his take on Federer — but just that is appeals to different brain centers in the tennis fans' minds.
I dunno hey, I appreciate what you're saying but I find more often than not Federer and Nadal are placed on opposing corners here at TT. I'm a Federer guy myself, but I do find Nadal, especially on the forehand side, to be supremely elegant, channelling such ferocious power with precision; it is a thing of beauty. Different in its way to Federer, but to call it brutish is misguided imo.

I don't see why so many people feel divided by allegiance to either of these styles. That being said, I don't think Nadal game comes close to the elegance of Federer's, but it is a thing of beauty nevertheless.

No other love for Dolgo?
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I dunno hey, I appreciate what you're saying but I find more often than not Federer and Nadal are placed on opposing corners here at TT. I'm a Federer guy myself, but I do find Nadal, especially on the forehand side, to be supremely elegant, channelling such ferocious power with precision; it is a thing of beauty. Different in its way to Federer, but to call it brutish is misguided imo.

I don't see why so many people feel divided by allegiance to either of these styles. That being said, I don't think Nadal game comes close to the elegance of Federer's, but it is a thing of beauty nevertheless.

No other love for Dolgo?
Outstanding post. Nadal's tennis can be amazingly beautiful (think summer 2013) especially Montreal/USO. But in a different way. Dolgo love definitely from me. Love everything about his game.
 

flymeng

Semi-Pro
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I am bias to classic tennis form. Hitting close stance on both sides, one handed back hand, volley and all court game.

No doubt, Federer from 2004 to 2006 was the best. His elegance, speed, precision and fluid style of play was a marvel to watch. There was a confidence in the air every time he walked on the courts.

Here are my list of players which have beautiful tennis form:

Cedric Pioline - Beautiful back hand and all court game.

Marcello Rios - Fluid strokes and movement.

Michael Stich - Beautiful serve and all court game. His height made his movement awkward sometimes.
 

Praetorian

Professional
THIS fed is still with us. He's a little bit slower yes, but everything he does is still graceful, and effortless. It's not like he's contorting his body, looking like he took a punch from Mike Tyson, everytime he hits the ball like Nadal, or Djoker.
 

Praetorian

Professional
Outstanding post. Nadal's tennis can be amazingly beautiful (think summer 2013) especially Montreal/USO. But in a different way. Dolgo love definitely from me. Love everything about his game.
Dolgo really? Everything about his game is speed, and jerky movements. Don't get me wrong, it's what makes HIS game particularly effective, but I wouldn't call it beautiful.

Personally, when I think of a beautiful game, I can imagine their games to the backdrop of music of say Andrea Bocelli - Federer, Edberg, maybe even Fognini (his games looks so smooth, he looks lazy). Guys like Nadal, Djoker, and pretty much most of the top 20, looks like they should be play the song from Rocky, "Eye of the Tiger".
 
I think Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg had beautiful games. I think Sampras did as well actually. I admire beautiful results of shots not just the swinging part, but everything including movement, easy power, touch and explosive speed. These days, how about Wawrinka as well. He's not great as far as movement and getting about the court, relative to Federer, Djokovic and others like Nadal, but he's got a beautiful tennis game as well.
 

monfed

Banned
In Fed's prime? Haas. Nalbandian had nice clean strokes and looked good but wasn't explosive so got a bit boring unless he was playing Fed. Also enjoyed Roddick's bazooka serves. Agassi was good to watch in those USO night sessions, had good fashion sense.

Also really enjoyed watching Davydenko. Seeing him having no trouble against the moonballing was very easy on the eye. :lol:

Just watch this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UorPxEdICtg
 
Last edited:

papertank

Hall of Fame
Not sure why people are saying Dimitrov. He is a poor man's Federer. He has the shots but none of the intangibles and sloppier movement. He lacks almost everything that makes Federer's game beautiful.

I would have to say Djokovic. The combination of athleticism, flexibility and shotmaking ability is amazing.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Not sure why people are saying Dimitrov. He is a poor man's Federer. He has the shots but none of the intangibles and sloppier movement. He lacks almost everything that makes Federer's game beautiful.

I would have to say Djokovic. The combination of athleticism, flexibility and shotmaking ability is amazing.
Probably because everyone but you understood the thread title.
 

kiki

Banned
Federer, in the 70´s or 80´s would be one more, nothing really special.Good but not distinguishable amongst the mainstream rest...that shows how tennis aesthetics have been going down more and more with each passing decade...
 

Boom-Boom

Legend
Federer, in the 70´s or 80´s would be one more, nothing really special.Good but not distinguishable amongst the mainstream rest...that shows how tennis aesthetics have been going down more and more with each passing decade...
You maybe right speaking generally but completely wrong re Fed. Just name someone in the 80's with more pleasing tennis aesthetics than RF???:confused:
Jay Berger? Krickstein? Cash? Sundstrom? Noah?

:rolleyes:
 

kiki

Banned
You maybe right speaking generally but completely wrong re Fed. Just name someone in the 80's with more pleasing tennis aesthetics than RF???:confused:
Jay Berger? Krickstein? Cash? Sundstrom? Noah?

:rolleyes:
Just 80´s?

Mac,Connors,Edberg,Leconte,Gerulaitis,Mecir,Mayer to start with a few.Clerc was on par.Maybe Kriek as well.


And the 70´s were far richer in aesthetics than the 80´s.

It depends on your concept of easthetics, Fed is the only one that fills the minimu requirements today but it is just my subjective opinion.

Others may find Nadal grinding and high rpm top spin equally or more beautiful.
 

Boom-Boom

Legend
Well Edberg' forehand was ugly, Connors' serve very average for example. They don't belong in the same sentence than RF aesthetically speaking.
Only JMac is.
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
I wouldn't call it "beautiful" but elegant. I loved rios & santoro for beautiful shotmaking and I think there are many other players performing a "beautiful" style of tennis.
with federer everything just looked so damn easy and if it wouldn't take him an effort. that I appreciate a lot.

I can understand MichaelNadal when he says he's not "into the match" watching Federer. The physical component of tennis isn't obvious when Federer plays, he doesn't show his fighting skills as others do, the pushing etc.
What one finds beautiful others think it's just dainty.
 
Last edited:

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Miloslav Mecir. The big cat. Smooth.
I seldom see him mentionned, but as I remember him, he was an incredible returner of serve wheb he was on, well ahead of his time. Playing a similar style to djoker or nadal when it comes to finding incredible angles. Afair, i.e ;-)
 

kiki

Banned
I seldom see him mentionned, but as I remember him, he was an incredible returner of serve wheb he was on, well ahead of his time. Playing a similar style to djoker or nadal when it comes to finding incredible angles. Afair, i.e ;-)
only that he did it with flat shots with few top spin on them
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I wouldn't call it "beautiful" but elegant. I loved rios & santoro for beautiful shotmaking and I think there are many other players performing a "beautiful" style of tennis.
with federer everything just looked so damn easy and if it wouldn't take him an effort. that appreciate I a lot.

I can understand MichaelNadal when he says he's not "into the match" watching Federer. The physical component of tennis isn't obvious when Federer plays, he doesn't show his fighting skills as others do, the pushing etc.
What one finds beautiful others think it's just dainty.
Thanks for that! Exactly.
 
I think most of us would agree that Federer's effortless grace and panache on the court, particularly in his prime years, was unmatched.

Who comes closest in recent tennis history?

I was just watching these highlights from 2005. I wish this Fed were still with us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgOWZZFg-QA
i personally think Nadal's game is more beautiful. i enjoy watching him methodically pick at an opponent's weakness until the player cracks. that's really beautiful to me.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
i personally think Nadal's game is more beautiful. i enjoy watching him methodically pick at an opponent's weakness until the player cracks. that's really beautiful to me.
your username is having a battle with your comment on the scale of WWII.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
edberg had great movement and a pretty bh.

but his fh and serve were not aesthetic at all.

he's probably the best back-to-front mover ever.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
This thread is based on the premise that Federer has the most beautiful game, which is subjective at best. It's like saying Federer is the GOAT, who's next?
 
Top