Djokovic most underrated forehand of all time

[HailDjokovic]

I've seen posters claiming that Novak can never last in a fh to fh rally with Nadal and Federer's forehand. But hasn't he been doing this for a whole decade? He has definitely outrallied them from both the forehand and backhand side and that deserves a lot of credit, considering Federer and Nadal are probably the greatest forehands of all time....

Then there are posters saying his backhand is stronger than his forehand? Is this even biomechanically possible? Even on TV, you can see how much faster is forehand is than his backhand

He produces an astonishing variety off the forehand side. Off the return, on the offense, on the defense, and on the pass. And he produces an extremely heavy ball. I actually think that when he cranks it up, he hits a faster forehand than Nadal and Federer. But the difference is that Nadal and Federer have used the forehand as their premier shot to end a point, while Novak enjoys rallying a little more and constructing a point.

In addition his forehand since 2015, has literally been a fricking wall. Impossible to hit through and succeed.

(needs to be updated)

I'll admit, it doesn't look as nice as federers or Nadals but it certainly gets the job done.
He hits it like a complete animal and I do think it is a top 8 forehand. Combined with possibly the greatest backhand of all time, has attributed alot to his success. Most of his winners come off the forehand too

 

[Sysyphus]

Not underrated except for in Chico's alternative universe.

The majority in here tend to name it as the best forehand on tour presently. Maybe it is, maybe it's not so clear -- either way, that's not underrating. I'd say it's rated.

But yes, solid forehand.

 

[HailDjokovic]

Its definitely the best on tour right now in terms of consistency and depth and variety. But I'm talking about in terms of all time.

Users will laugh at you for even suggesting it is a top 10 all time

 

[metsman]

fed, nadal, sampras, lendl, agassi, borg all have better forehands in my book. He probably fits in with Courier or something after that. So he could definitely be top 8 but only through virtue of his consistency. His forehand rarely takes over a match like lesser players could do (Gonzalez, Delpo) so his peak forehand is outside the top 10 but overall it's consistency has to be applauded so it is probably top 8-10. I'd laugh if you said top 5 but top 10 is definitely a possibility.

 

[Elessar]

He just doesn't have the power, or penetration from his forehand side that players like Federer, Nadal, Sampras have/had.
His forehand is very consistent and he can hit a bomb occasionally, but his grip doesn't allow him to hit through the ball with explosion, and he just doesn't have the raw power of a Nadal.
Arguably, he has a top 10 forehand all time, and it is because of Novak's consistency and depth from that side, because his forehand doesn't come close to even guys like Del Potro and Gonzales, when it comes to power and/or explosiveness. Guys like Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Lendl etc. are a step above.

 

[mattosgrant]

One thing worth noting is he is averaging about 8 mph than Nadal off the forehand side in recent encounters. Of course a large part of that is how much Nadal's forehand has declined, but it still worth noting, and probably indicates his forehand is probably alot better than credited for.

 

[hawk eye]

He just doesn't have the power, or penetration from his forehand side that players like Federer, Nadal, Sampras have/had.
His forehand is very consistent and he can hit a bomb occasionally, but his grip doesn't allow him to hit through the ball with explosion, and he just doesn't have the raw power of a Nadal.
Arguably, he has a top 10 forehand all time, and it is because of Novak's consistency and depth from that side, because his forehand doesn't come close to even guys like Del Potro and Gonzales, when it comes to power and/or explosiveness. Guys like Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Lendl etc. are a step above.

That forehand in Dubai looked pretty explosive if you ask me. To me it's more a choice, he prefers consistency end depth over hitting all out for flashy winners with lots of risk.
The strategy of keeping the UE-count low while still hitting plenty of winners when the opportunity arises has proved its value to say the least.
Besides that, he's the master at using the opponents pace against them. You often see in his rallies with Federer, who's the one who blinks first in the majority of FH-FH exchanges.

 

[okdude1992]

Let's forget about the "of all time" nonsense...

I think it is clear that Djokovic has one of the best forehands around, currently. It is not the biggest weapon, but it is very very solid. And underrated by some people, for sure

 

[Aretium]

It is a different kind of shot. He almost plays it like a backhand, doesn't miss but he also has the short angle as well.

 

[123456789]

Its pretty goddamn ugly. Effective tho.

Sure, its the best forehand of today's era. Declined Nadal, 80 year old Federer, and mugs like Grigor Smackitrov.

 

[wy2sl0]

I think it is very good, very consistent, but if you compare it to

then yeah, you can see the difference between an all time great shot and a "weapon".

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Always found that compilation to be an injection of motivation, optimism and adrenaline for me.

 

[droliver]

fed, nadal, sampras, lendl, agassi, borg all have better forehands in my book. He probably fits in with Courier or something after that.

Sampras and Borg aren't really in the GOAT list for forehands. Novak's is light years better then both btw. While he doesn't blow people off the court with pace like Federer/Agassi/Gonzolez/Courier/Berdych/Delpo or play with ridiculous spin like Nadal, he is extraordinarily consistent in depth, location, and pace. It's just a constant pressure that puts players in a more and more unfavorable position during the point.

 

[Roddick85]

Djokovic forehand is mechanically efficient but average to ugly aesthetically speaking. It's a functional stroke, but not the greatest one at generating pace/spin nor can he create crazy angles with it. I don't think it's as big of a weapon if you compare it to the likes of Federer/Nadal for the simple fact that his backhand is as good as is forehand. He doesn't have the greatest inside in/out that those 2 have because he doesn't really need to run around his backhand. I do think his forehand is a better shot than it was 5 years ago, however I don't think it's amount the greatest of all time. Now if you talk about his backhand, that I can definitely agree with.

 

[Elessar]

That forehand in Dubai looked pretty explosive if you ask me. To me it's more a choice, he prefers consistency end depth over hitting all out for flashy winners with lots of risk.
The strategy of keeping the UE-count low while still hitting plenty of winners when the opportunity arises has proved its value to say the least.
Besides that, he's the master at using the opponents pace against them. You often see in his rallies with Federer, who's the one who blinks first in the majority of FH-FH exchanges.

It is a choice, because he can't sustain it for longer periods of time, apart from 2011 (and maybe some stretches in 2007/2008). He couldn't replicate that ferocious 2011 forehand in 2012-2013, that's why he switched to a percentage type of game. Nowadays, Djokovic would try out his FH to see if it's clicking, and the moment he starts missing, he immediately retreats and starts playing safe. Now, that tactic has proven to be more successful in the last 2 years or so, but his FH doesn't have the bite it had in, say 2011.
Federer and Nadal always rely on their FH to save them when everything else fails. Djokovic can't do the same with his FH. Federer's FH is nowhere close to the weapon it once was, so yeah, it is easier for Novak to win those exchanges nowadays.
Novak's FH is underrated, because of his stellar backhand. But it still lacks a bit of oomph, so to speak, when compared to Federer's and Nadal's FH.

 

[123456789]

Always found that compilation to be an injection of motivation, optimism and adrenaline for me.

Really, having your arm and wrist twisted the opposite direction, as if Djokovic intends to torture himself while hitting that stroke is motivating and optimistic?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Really, having your arm and wrist twisted the opposite direction, as if Djokovic intends to torture himself while hitting that stroke is motivating and optimistic?

Watching him drop those forehand diamonds always gave me some extra energy, the feel I can do more. Of course that isn't the only motivation out there.
Maybe you personally can find that in RAFA'S fearhands DTL.

 

[123456789]

Watching him drop those forehand diamonds always gave me some extra energy, the feel I can do more. Of course that isn't the only motivation out there.
Maybe you personally can find that in RAFA'S fearhands DTL.

Personally, I find that in Rafa's butt picking.
....
....
....

Jk of course. Its all about DTL!

 

[HailDjokovic]

Really, having your arm and wrist twisted the opposite direction, as if Djokovic intends to torture himself while hitting that stroke is motivating and optimistic?

Djokovic's forehand is probably the easiest to replicate out of Nadal and Federer's. In fact, most college players hit their forehand much like Novak's. Almost a western with a bent forehand arm at contact. Most recreational players also use a bent forehand without even realizing it.

Nadal and Federer have what is known as a "Straight Arm" forehand. A very small percentage of players actually use this forehand. Another person who uses this would be Del Potro. This is the forehand style where the arm is almost completely straight at contact. The straight arm forehand allows more spin and velocity but is much harder to prepare for. Very few people naturally use a straight arm forehand.

 

[HailDjokovic]

Speed wise, I think Novak can crank it extremely hard if he wanted to.
I've seen him hit a good amount of 95+ mph winners.
So he is certainly capable of top forehand speeds.

He just doesn't use it as a weapon as much as Federer or Rafa's. He is a marginal player so he likes to play out points.
Back in 2011, he was a monster in that wing though, as many of you have said. He was literally smashing every ball at the baseline at ridiculous speeds.

Now, he likes to grind it out and wait for a short reply to hit winners. In addition to being a wall, he realizes its a lot more safer to just hit constant depth rather than speedy angles.

 

[every7]

One thing worth noting is he is averaging about 8 mph than Nadal off the forehand side in recent encounters. Of course a large part of that is how much Nadal's forehand has declined, but it still worth noting, and probably indicates his forehand is probably alot better than credited for.

Have you got this comparison data from previous Nadal / Djokovic matches as well? Unless you have, the current data is not an indication of anything decline-related. I would suggest Djokovic's general ball speed has always been slightly faster than Nadal's, including most of the long stretches of Nadal beating Djokovic. Nadal is putting a massive amount or racquet head speed into shot shape and ball speed, whereas all of Djokovic's juice is being put towards ball speed by hitting flatter.

 

[HailDjokovic]

That forehand in Dubai looked pretty explosive if you ask me. To me it's more a choice, he prefers consistency end depth over hitting all out for flashy winners with lots of risk.
The strategy of keeping the UE-count low while still hitting plenty of winners when the opportunity arises has proved its value to say the least.
Besides that, he's the master at using the opponents pace against them. You often see in his rallies with Federer, who's the one who blinks first in the majority of FH-FH exchanges.

Have you got this comparison data from previous Nadal / Djokovic matches as well? Unless you have, the current data is not an indication of anything decline-related. I would suggest Djokovic's general ball speed has always been slightly faster than Nadal's, including most of the long stretches of Nadal beating Djokovic. Nadal is putting a massive amount or racquet head speed into shot shape and ball speed, whereas all of Djokovic's juice is being put towards ball speed by hitting flatter.

Federer and Novak on average, both hit faster than Nadal. This is common sense since they both hit more linear whereas Nadal's balls is more loopier.
Nadal's ball has always been slower than theirs. But this doesn't mean anything. He can rip pretty crazy angles and his ball at its peak is probably the heaviest forehand in tennis history.

 

[metsman]

Sampras and Borg aren't really in the GOAT list for forehands. Novak's is light years better then both btw. While he doesn't blow people off the court with pace like Federer/Agassi/Gonzolez/Courier/Berdych/Delpo or play with ridiculous spin like Nadal, he is extraordinarily consistent in depth, location, and pace. It's just a constant pressure that puts players in a more and more unfavorable position during the point.

yes they are. Saying Djokovic's forehand is light years better than Borg is a tremendous amount of ignorance. Borg had a forehand that was far ahead of his time and would be considered on par with Nadal's given equal racquet tech. Sampras while a little inconsistent had a forehand that was very penetrating and accurate and a menace especially on faster courts. And of course the running forehand equalizer. No one really fears Djokovic's forehand. He's not going to consistently hurt you from that wing unless you drop it short whereas Sampras could hurt you from anywhere on the court.

 

[metsman]

He can rip pretty crazy angles and his ball at its peak is probably the heaviest forehand in tennis history.

Nadal does not on average hit a heavier ball than Fed does (or did). Nadal beats him on spin but the gap isn't huge. Fed beats him in pace and depth. Heaviness is the combination of pace, spin, and depth. Nadal's neutral rally ball doesn't penetrate the court like Federer's.

 

[coloskier]

Sampras and Borg aren't really in the GOAT list for forehands. Novak's is light years better then both btw. While he doesn't blow people off the court with pace like Federer/Agassi/Gonzolez/Courier/Berdych/Delpo or play with ridiculous spin like Nadal, he is extraordinarily consistent in depth, location, and pace. It's just a constant pressure that puts players in a more and more unfavorable position during the point.

You need to go back and watch some Sampras videos. He had the most feared forehand on tour in his prime. He would dare someone to try to hit DTL on him and he would kill them with a running Xcourt FH that even the fastest players couldn't touch. Rarely does Djoker have more than a few FH winners in a match.

 

[droliver]

You need to go back and watch some Sampras videos. He had the most feared forehand on tour in his prime. He would dare someone to try to hit DTL on him and he would kill them with a running Xcourt FH that even the fastest players couldn't touch. Rarely does Djoker have more than a few FH winners in a match.

Stop. Just stop... Sampras had a spectacular serve, maybe the 2nd or 3rd best ever, but he did not have some GOAT forehand and it's a complete misunderstanding of what made him successful to argue otherwise. Novak's shot is better, and it's not even close.

 

[droliver]

yes they are. Saying Djokovic's forehand is light years better than Borg is a tremendous amount of ignorance. Borg had a forehand that was far ahead of his time and would be considered on par with Nadal's given equal racquet tech. Sampras while a little inconsistent had a forehand that was very penetrating and accurate and a menace especially on faster courts. And of course the running forehand equalizer. No one really fears Djokovic's forehand. He's not going to consistently hurt you from that wing unless you drop it short whereas Sampras could hurt you from anywhere on the court.

Borg's was good for his era, but Novak's shot is better. Harder, spinnier, and deeper. You can't really have strokes from the pre graphite era in any comparison on this as it's almost a different game. Sampras had a good FH, but not a great one. It was flashy and hard struck, but it wasn't as consistent as the best of the best and it's not what drove his game to excellence. Certainly a weapon, but not the kind of versatile dagger Novak is sporting. His depth and consistency is unprecedented. It's just as hard to deal with in terms of court position as Nadal's in some ways

 

[BeatlesFan]

Users will laugh at you for even suggesting it is a top 10 all time

And the users would be right. Djoker's FH is indeed consistent, steady, reliable and almost never breaks down under pressure. It's error free and in this weak era, that's good enough to dominate. Is it a weapon? No, nor has it ever been. His BH is a weapon, as is his tremendous ROS. His FH is merely dependable and solid.

His FH isn't remotely in the league of players like Agassi, Lendl, Fed or Nadal. He's not in the discussion for all-time great FH's and never will be.

 

[zep]

I have always thought that Djokovic's FH worked better against Nadal than Federer's. Djokovic can stretch Nadal wide on the FH side with his inside out FH to get short replies, something Federer could not. He can also attack Nadal's BH with it better than Federer could. Against the field, Federer's FH was obviously much better.

 

[Bilders]

Would be nice to see Djokovic rip a few more forehands like he used to instead of letting his bionic chip keep it within the safe margins.

 

[NoleFam]

It is a choice, because he can't sustain it for longer periods of time, apart from 2011 (and maybe some stretches in 2007/2008). He couldn't replicate that ferocious 2011 forehand in 2012-2013, that's why he switched to a percentage type of game. Nowadays, Djokovic would try out his FH to see if it's clicking, and the moment he starts missing, he immediately retreats and starts playing safe. Now, that tactic has proven to be more successful in the last 2 years or so, but his FH doesn't have the bite it had in, say 2011.
Federer and Nadal always rely on their FH to save them when everything else fails. Djokovic can't do the same with his FH. Federer's FH is nowhere close to the weapon it once was, so yeah, it is easier for Novak to win those exchanges nowadays.
Novak's FH is underrated, because of his stellar backhand. But it still lacks a bit of oomph, so to speak, when compared to Federer's and Nadal's FH.

Again, I have to say...what? Djokovic's forehand is lethal and he can live with anybody on that side. If you think he doesn't have stamina on his forehand wing then you haven't watched enough of him in big matches. He couldn't replicate his 2011 forehand yet he just blew Nadal and Federer away with it in January of this year. Djokovic has so much game that he doesn't have to hit it like that in every match. He still blows opponents away with a higher percentage type of game. A man who has a winning record over all 3 of his main rivals can't rely on his forehand? He can absolutely rely on it in tight situations and it has plenty of bite since he can hit it over 95 mph with relative ease.

 

[NoleFam]

Sampras and Borg aren't really in the GOAT list for forehands. Novak's is light years better then both btw. While he doesn't blow people off the court with pace like Federer/Agassi/Gonzolez/Courier/Berdych/Delpo or play with ridiculous spin like Nadal, he is extraordinarily consistent in depth, location, and pace. It's just a constant pressure that puts players in a more and more unfavorable position during the point.

What? Absolutely not. Sampras has one of the top 2 or 3 forehands of all time. It is the most powerful yet consistent forehand I have ever seen, and add that to the fact that he can hit a running forehand better than anybody. Novak's forehand is awesome but not better than Sampras'.

 

[HailDjokovic]

yes they are. Saying Djokovic's forehand is light years better than Borg is a tremendous amount of ignorance. Borg had a forehand that was far ahead of his time and would be considered on par with Nadal's given equal racquet tech. Sampras while a little inconsistent had a forehand that was very penetrating and accurate and a menace especially on faster courts. And of course the running forehand equalizer. No one really fears Djokovic's forehand. He's not going to consistently hurt you from that wing unless you drop it short whereas Sampras could hurt you from anywhere on the court.

You see this right? Borg would not last in a rally with a top 10 player today if he was playing like this video.
These two guys are essentially just hitting moonballs probably around 50-60 mph.
Racket technology plus the windshield wiper technique with semi western to western groups have allowed players to hit at an average of 75 mph(at least Djokovic's) and even more top spin. Borg hits a very traditional forehand .
His forehand isn't even close to modern technique. Thats why you can't use him as a comparison.
I'm sure if he was born today, he would have developed great forehand technique with the same level as Federer's but you simply cannot compare him to maybe this

As for Sampras, I do think he arguably had a better forehand than Novak especially on the run. Then again Novak's rally ball is definitely better so its arguable between those of which who is better.

 

[HailDjokovic]

And the users would be right. Djoker's FH is indeed consistent, steady, reliable and almost never breaks down under pressure. It's error free and in this weak era, that's good enough to dominate. Is it a weapon? No, nor has it ever been. His BH is a weapon, as is his tremendous ROS. His FH is merely dependable and solid.

His FH isn't remotely in the league of players like Agassi, Lendl, Fed or Nadal. He's not in the discussion for all-time great FH's and never will be.

Perhaps you should listen to more Beatle's music instead of watching tennis because you failed to understand what I and other posters have said above you

It IS a weapon. It has stood AGAINST both Federer and Nadal FH TO FH. It is his BREAD and BUTTER.
How is his backhand better if he gets more velocity, spin, angles, and does inside out with his forehand?

It is in the top 10 of all time, top 8 arguably, but not in the top 5/6/7

Troll somewhere else, it won't bring the beatles back HAHHAHA

 

[Russeljones]

The most underrated here is the magnitude of the OP's failure to grasp the meaning of "all-time".

 

[Elessar]

Again, I have to say...what? Djokovic's forehand is lethal and he can live with anybody on that side. If you think he doesn't have stamina on his forehand wing then you haven't watched enough of him in big matches. He couldn't replicate his 2011 forehand yet he just blew Nadal and Federer away with it in January of this year. Djokovic has so much game that he doesn't have to hit it like that in every match. He still blows opponents away with a higher percentage type of game. A man who has a winning record over all 3 of his main rivals can't rely on his forehand? He can absolutely rely on it in tight situations and it has plenty of bite since he can hit it over 95 mph with relative ease.

I didn't say his FH sucks. It is arguably a top 10 FH all time, but it is not hard to notice it fails in comparison to prime Federer's and prime Nadal's FH. He has the complete game, for the current conditions, but his FH, on its own, while still great, just doesn't have the power, penetration, or even angles that prime Federer and prime Nadal have/had. Their FH are arguably top 2 FH all time. His FH was amazing in 2011, but it hasn't been quite the same since.

 

[Russeljones]

It is arguably a top 10 FH all time

Stop the presses. What?

 

[Elessar]

Stop the presses. What?

A case could be made that, when you take consistency and depth into account, his FH is borderline top 10 in the open era at the very least. It's just that, when compared to Federer's and Nadal's, it fails short. But just because their FH are so amazing, doesn't mean that Djokovic's FH isn't great.
He doesn't have the power of a Gonzo or Delpo, but his FH has qualities that are not as obvious as theirs.

 

[Russeljones]

A case could be made that, when you take consistency and depth into account, his FH is making use of modern racquet and string technology

Fixed.

 

[addictedtotopspin]

I agree that Novak FH is a bit underrated.Great shot definitly.

If we add some number to each shot in order to evaluate them Novaks summ of FH + BH would be higher than Rafas and Rogers.
Ofcourse that doesnt mean anything, i would always prefer to have one big wepon over being good from both wings.

 

[NatF]

What? Absolutely not. Sampras has one of the top 2 or 3 forehands of all time. It is the most powerful yet consistent forehand I have ever seen, and add that to the fact that he can hit a running forehand better than anybody. Novak's forehand is awesome but not better than Sampras'.

Perhaps at the business end of slams you could call it that - and I do have a preference for play in the business end of big tournaments - but even then that's an exageration IMO. The stats I've seen from Sampras's matches with Agassi/Courier have him hitting more errors and less winners off the forehand side than they did. Some of that might be because more rallies were played on their service games, however it's still hard to say it was definitely a significantly better stroke.

 

[The Unknown]

I've seen posters claiming that Novak can never last in a fh to fh rally with Nadal and Federer's forehand. But hasn't he been doing this for a whole decade? He has definitely outrallied them from both the forehand and backhand side and that deserves a lot of credit, considering Federer and Nadal are probably the greatest forehands of all time....

Then there are posters saying his backhand is stronger than his forehand? Is this even biomechanically possible? Even on TV, you can see how much faster is forehand is than his backhand

He produces an astonishing variety off the forehand side. Off the return, on the offense, on the defense, and on the pass. And he produces an extremely heavy ball. I actually think that when he cranks it up, he hits a faster forehand than Nadal and Federer. But the difference is that Nadal and Federer have used the forehand as their premier shot to end a point, while Novak enjoys rallying a little more and constructing a point.

In addition his forehand since 2015, has literally been a fricking wall. Impossible to hit through and succeed.

(needs to be updated)

I'll admit, it doesn't look as nice as federers or Nadals but it certainly gets the job done.
He hits it like a complete animal and I do think it is a top 8 forehand. Combined with possibly the greatest backhand of all time, has attributed alot to his success. Most of his winners come off the forehand too

This article strongly supports your assertions

https://medium.com/the-tennis-notebook/tennis-note-32-90984d2d9386#.wb2li6e90

 

[Elessar]

Fixed.

If Djokovic's FH is making use of modern racquet and string technology, the same thing could be said about Rafa and Federer. Rafa in particular would not be able to create his incredible spin with the racquets of old. For better or worse, we can only judge them by how their shots look like regardless of the equipment. And that's where you have a point about modern technology, but in that case all this is exercise in futility, since it is impossible to compare players from a few decades ago to today's stars, due to different tennis equipment among other things.

And where is the fun in that?

 

[NoleFam]

I didn't say his FH sucks. It is arguably a top 10 FH all time, but it is not hard to notice it fails in comparison to prime Federer's and prime Nadal's FH. He has the complete game, for the current conditions, but his FH, on its own, while still great, just doesn't have the power, penetration, or even angles that prime Federer and prime Nadal have/had. Their FH are arguably top 2 FH all time. His FH was amazing in 2011, but it hasn't been quite the same since.

I completely disagree with that. His forehand is more than enough to do plenty of damage and has. It may not be better Nadal or Federer but honestly, it doesn't have to be. They have weaker backhands and he does not. Djokovic and Agassi are the only two players where both of their wings are top 10 of all time so they don't need GOAT forehands since they are lethal on both sides. Djokovic's forehand is very versatile and hasn't gone anywhere since 2011 in my opinion.

 

[NoleFam]

Perhaps at the business end of slams you could call it that - and I do have a preference for play in the business end of big tournaments - but even then that's an exageration IMO. The stats I've seen from Sampras's matches with Agassi/Courier have him hitting more errors and less winners off the forehand side than they did. Some of that might be because more rallies were played on their service games, however it's still hard to say it was definitely a significantly better stroke.

Well I didn't study Sampras' stats because I watched him play in his prime. Sampras was deadly on his forehand wing and extremely explosive.

 

[NatF]

Well I didn't study Sampras' stats because I watched him play in his prime. Sampras was deadly on his forehand wing and extremely explosive.

You watched him in his prime and yet you clearly overrate his forehand wing by calling it top 2-3 all time.

 

[Shaolin]

It would be rated higher if people could stay awake during his matches.

 

[NoleFam]

You watched him in his prime and yet you clearly overrate his forehand wing by calling it top 2-3 all time.

LOL. It is definitely one of the top two or three forehands of all time, and not even debatable really. It was the shot that defined having a great forehand and along with that serve, the reason he won 14 Slams. I think some people may be influenced by recency bias.

 

[NatF]

LOL. It is definitely one of the top two or three forehands of all time, and not even debatable really. It was the shot that defined having a great forehand and along with that serve, the reason he won 14 Slams. I think some people may be influenced by recency bias.

Nope. No recency bias here, that's your lot

His forehand at it's peak was up there with anyone's I agree with that, but day in and day out it was never as good or dominant as Federer or Nadal's - it certainly didn't work consistently in all conditions and on all surfaces. His record on clay pretty much disqualifies it as a top 2 forehand - it could be deadly on clay but it was so sparring that it can hardly be called a top 2 forehand. No way is it better than either Nadal or Federer's. Then there are people like Lendl, Agassi and Borg who all have arguments at least to go above him.

It's not recency bias - just plain old bias.

 

[NoleFam]

Nope. No recency bias here, that's your lot

His forehand at it's peak was up there with anyone's I agree with that, but day in and day out it was never as good or dominant as Federer or Nadal's - it certainly didn't work consistently in all conditions and on all surfaces. His record on clay pretty much disqualifies it as a top 2 forehand - it could be deadly on clay but it was so sparring that it can hardly be called a top 2 forehand. No way is it better than either Nadal or Federer's. Then there are people like Lendl, Agassi and Borg who all have arguments at least to go above him.

It's not recency bias - just plain old bias.

I think you are trying to correlate his poor record on clay with his forehand not being as good as Federer or Nadal. That is a faulty argument. Sampras sucked at clay and hated the surface, and that has nothing to do with his forehand. For one thing, he didn't know how to move well on the surface and seemed to have no interest in learning. He also didn't have the patience to wait it out in long extended rallies. Lendl, Agassi and Borg have better forehands than Sampras? LMAO. Please just stop. Put prime Nadal against prime Sampras at Wimbledon or prime Federer against him at the US Open and you will see just how good his forehand really is.