Forehand GOAT list

[Deleted member 77403]

I think anyone who saw Andre play live would say his FH was absolutely jaw dropping. I've never seen any pro ever hit FH's like Andre, though admittedly, I never saw Del Potro play live.

I saw Andre's second-ever match that he played on the ATP tour. It was in 1995 at Indian Wells and he played Wilander, who was then one of the game's greats. I have never seen a crowd that stunned when Andre started hitting FH's. Admittedly, most of them were long, but the pace was just... unbelievable. Wilander was chucking on the other side of the net, just because of the pace. Andre lost something like 6-0, 6-1, but there was nobody in the stadium who wasn't awestruck. Everyone was talking about this kid for days after he'd lost in the second round.

I've seen many Andre matches since then and never failed to be stunned by his FH. Pete's running FH was second-to-none, but his FH while stationary just wasn't as great as Andre's, IMO. I place Fed and Rafa's FH above Andre because they had greater variety, perhaps more consistency and both were better lateral movers than Agassi.

Lendl and Becker's FH were also awesome and hit with great pace, but not in the league of Andre.

1995? Are you sure? I am certain he faced Sampras that year in the final. Must have been in the 80s, going by your description,

 

[captainbryce]

Which is tantamount to saying that a player's game and his results are completely unrelated. If we accept your premise on Blake's Forehand - that its so much better than so many others - then what good is having such a shot if it never does the job for you in the tournaments that matter most? It matters not one whit that Blake can hit a great Forehand when it's 1-all 15-all. The question is, where is that same shot when it's 4-all 30-all? Deuce? Break Point down? Set point down? Or more to the point, where was it at the business end of Majors in the 2nd week? If such a shot isn't there for you in the moments that matter most, then the shot itself doesn't matter all that much; having it is essentially useless. Where do you think Nadal's career results have come from? They've come from the same shot - his Forehand. But Nadal, unlike Blake, can pull off that shot optimally when it mattered most - whereas Blake always found a way to choke that shot when it counted.

I think there is are some key points you are not considering with this argument. For one thing, while Blake has a great forehand and foot speed, as well as a solid return of serve, those are really his only notable attributes that set him apart as a player. His backhand was "okay", and volley was "okay", and his serve was "okay", but at the end of the day he lived and died with his forehand. The main differences between Blake prime (06-07) and Nadal prime (05-10) were largely A) mentality and approach to the game, and B) endurance. Nadal played every point (regardless of the score) the same, didn't often succumb to the pressure of the situation, and played with more margin (within himself) going for higher percentage shots. Blake on the other hand would often succumb to pressure, play "high risk" tennis, and go for low percentage shots when the pressure was on. That has nothing to do with forehand technique, that has to do with mental composure. Also, endurance is one of the hallmarks of Nadal's game and notably one of James Blakes great weaknesses (a simple comparrison of their 5-set records demonstrates this). That's not a "forehand" issue, that's a conditioning issue. So there are a lot of things that factor into results, which is why I tend not to give too much strenght to the importance of one shot.

The comparison to Blake & Roddick is ludicrous. Roddick won his lone Major (and reached the Final of 4 others) because of his Serve, not his Forehand. More succinctly put, the Roddick Serve was far better than the Blake Forehand.

Again, for reasons just given above, that is simply NOT the case. Roddick won his one-slam because he played overall BETTER than the opponents he faced in that match (namely, not Federer), and where he only had to face ONE single time grand slam champion (Juan Carlos Ferrero) in rout to his victory. But listen to any commentators of his matches from 03-04, and his forehand was listed as one of the best in the game (at the time). He was actually a two-trick pony then, rather than the one-trick pony he later became.

And it's more than rich irony that you embed this particular video to showcase Blake's Forehand. No matter how beautiful it looks here, Blake lost this match - to the very guy you say he caused problems (and incidentally, after early wins against Nadal, Blake didn't beat Nadal again starting with the match before this one, 2008 Indian Wells). The video clip proves the entire point I'm making. Thanks for that .

Actually, the video clip includes two of his three victories over Nadal, and one 3-set loss. And it "proves" nothing other than what an awesome forehand technique he has and how many other players would trade their forehand for his any day. You're entitled to make non-relevant factors such as head to head record part of your argument for great shots, but I choose not to. Again, different strokes for difference folks!

 

[captainbryce]

Ivan Lendl retired in 1994, which, correct me if I am wrong, is part of the 90s. So I fail to see the point of that rebuttal (if you can call it that ).

Perhaps that's because you haven't kept the entire conversation in perspective. I was accused of being a person ignorant of tennis before the 1990s. I have Ivan Lendl (a player whose last major title came in 1990) on my list of GOAT forehands. Obviously his prime was the 80s when he won 7 of his 8 major titles. People generally consider Lendl a player of the 80s, not the 90s.

 

[captainbryce]

I think blake had a great forehand but it was too one-dimensional. It was extremely flat and lacked variety (as did much of his game) - on a quick hard court it is no doubt one of the most devastating shots the game has seen, but on clay it was muted - he couldn't rip it with spin and he couldn't hit angles or open up the court, Andre's was a more 'complete' forehand for me, capable of doing more with the ball across conditions. At the US open I would take blake's for sure though.

Thanks for the logical, and well articulated answer! I would tend to agree.

 

[La Grande]

Roger, Rafa and Delpo's are my favourite

 

[captainbryce]

I saw Andre's second-ever match that he played on the ATP tour. It was in 1995 at Indian Wells and he played Wilander, who was then one of the game's greats. I have never seen a crowd that stunned when Andre started hitting FH's. Admittedly, most of them were long, but the pace was just... unbelievable. Wilander was chucking on the other side of the net, just because of the pace. Andre lost something like 6-0, 6-1, but there was nobody in the stadium who wasn't awestruck. Everyone was talking about this kid for days after he'd lost in the second round.

Wilander and Agassi never met at Indian Wells, nor was 1995 Agassi's second ever match (he won Wimbledon in 1992).

However, they did meet at La Quinta (the tournament which became Indian Wells) in 1986, and Agassi lost 6-1, 6-1 (his only ever hard court win over Agassi). Could that be the match you are referring to?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Is this list a joke? Sampras had a much better forehand than Juan Martin.

And James Blake? LOL. He had a good forehand, but no way was it better than Sampras' either.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

 

[captainbryce]

Is this list a joke? Sampras had a much better forehand than Juan Martin.

And James Blake? LOL. He had a good forehand, but no way was it better than Sampras' either.

Agree to disagree (on both counts). Cheers!

 

[roger presley]

Is this list a joke? Sampras had a much better forehand than Juan Martin.

And James Blake? LOL. He had a good forehand, but no way was it better than Sampras' either.

Agree with you,better forehand than lots of guys mentioned here ( Blake,Courier,Del Potro,Agassi etc.)

 

[DanF1961]

My current list of GOAT forehands (in descending order):

10. Jack Sock
9. Robin Soderling
8. Ivan Lendl
7. Pete Sampras
6. Andre Agassi
5. James Blake
4. Fernando Gonzalez

3. Juan Martin Del Potro

2. Rafael Nadal

1. Roger Federer

Borg and Jim Courier should be in the top five

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Wilander and Agassi never met at Indian Wells, nor was 1995 Agassi's second ever match (he won Wimbledon in 1992).

However, they did meet at La Quinta (the tournament which became Indian Wells) in 1986, and Agassi lost 6-1, 6-1 (his only ever hard court win over Agassi). Could that be the match you are referring to?

that's what I was thinking, Wilander would be 30+ and near retirement, how could he beat Andre, especially at 1995, soon followed by Summer of revenge when Andre was no.1