Greatest baseliner of all time?

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer at his best was all about crushing his forehand, Novaks F-B S-R Combo is better than Federers F-B S-R.

Federer had a solid backhand at his best too. Even though it's not as good as Nole's, it's still good enough to give the impression of a well rounded game.

Return of course goes to Djokovic, but Federer's that much better in the serve category.

So it comes down to intangibles and I give the large edge to Federer there. So all in all, Federer (to me) is the more complete player.

 

[xFedal]

Federer had a solid backhand at his best too. Even though it's not as good as Nole's, it's still good enough to give the impression of a well rounded game.

Return of course goes to Djokovic, but Federer's that much better in the serve category.

So it comes down to intangibles and I give the large edge to Federer there. So all in all, Federer (to me) is the more complete player.

That backhand of Fed is his worst shot, its a terrible shot, and I thought it was beyond dispute how bad the backhand is?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That backhand of Fed is his worst shot, its a terrible shot, and I thought it was beyond dispute how bad the backhand is?

Watch the highlight reel I posted and tell me Federer had a crap backhand.

 

[xFedal]

Watch the highlight reel I posted and tell me Federer had a crap backhand.

From the highlight reel, Fed did hit some good back hands mostly it was about using the serve and forehand.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

From the highlight reel, Fed did hit some good back hands mostly it was about using the serve and forehand.

That's his bread and butter (serve and forehand) much like Nole's bread and butter is his return and backhand.

 

[xFedal]

That's his bread and butter (serve and forehand) much like Nole's bread and butter is his return and backhand.

There is a huge disparity between the forehand and the backhand.

 

[Druss]

undoubtedly federer

As much as I believe Federer is one of the Greatest ever, I don't think he is considered a pure baseliner. He is an all-court player, and if the title read "Best all-round player of all time", I would have picked Fed. Nadal won 9 RGs based on his baseline game. Djokovic should also be on that list. That said, my pick went to Agassi.

 

[jm1980]

There is a huge disparity between the forehand and the backhand.

To be fair his FH is pretty great and his BH is not that bad. Very few players have been able to exploit it. If you have a 9.5 FH / 7.5 BH combo like Fed that's probably better than a hypothetical player with a 8.5 FH / 8.5 BH combo

 

[xFedal]

To be fair his FH is pretty great and his BH is not that bad. Very few players have been able to exploit it. If you have a 9.5 FH / 7.5 BH combo like Fed that's probably better than a hypothetical player with a 8.5 FH / 8.5 BH combo

9.5 FH / 7.5 BH vs 9.5 BH / 8.5 FH, You tell me which is better?

 

[Shbeals]

I voted for Borg. He could hit something like 1000 shots from the baseline without missing one. Placements and directions hard to hit winners off of for opponents. So quick, could get to any ball. So I voted for Borg.

I have to agree. Borg was amazing yet underrated at the net as well. It still blows my mind that he could go from winning on clay to winning on grass year after year.

 

[Cup8489]

I don't know how so many people could vote for Federer and Agassi. True, both are outstanding baseliners. Truth be told however, Federer played mostly against other baseliners and never quite played in the serve and volley era. So his baseline game was never tested against legendary serve and volleyers like McEnroe, Edberg, and Becker, in an era that favored them. Agassi was also on the losing end against Pete Sampras, a serve and volleyer.

Borg deserves to be near the top of the list. I wouldn't necessarily say number 1 but near the top because of his unprecedented feat of winning the French Open and Wimbledon consecutively 3 times. Borg did it at a time when the grass was much faster, where the bounces were very low, all while swinging a heavy wooden racquet and gut string. He's the guy often credited for popularizing open-stance topspin.

federer has proven himself a few times against serve and volleyers.. sampras among them. Agassi struggled with sampras because sampras could neutralize the best parts of agassi's game: moving the ball. Sampras' serve took the racquet out of Agassi's hands, and his netrushing gave agassi less time to set up for point construction. finally, the Sampras forehand was the biggest shot on the court in their matches.. and could often take Agassi's overall superior groundstrokes away with a swing of the frame.

 

[eyedropper]

Connors. Weakest serve out of the bunch, but he won anyway because of such great baseline play.

 

[Jokervich]

This poll is already BS. Djokovic is not included on this list?! Unbelievable. The one guy who has been beating Federer and Nadal regularly doesn't get included on the list.

Probably because this thread was created in February 2007.

 

[rossi46]

federer is an all-courter. muster should be on that list. nadal shouldn't be since he is worthless. i voted courier

Federer is not an all courter. He is a glorified baseliner.

It's similar to when people refer to Sampras as a serve and volleyer, he wasn't. Sampras was a true all court player.

 

[nguyentuanson16792]

Federer is not an all courter. He is a glorified baseliner.

It's similar to when people refer to Sampras as a serve and volleyer, he wasn't. Sampras was a true all court player.

What do you mean ' All courter?' and 'Serve and volleyer?' For me Serve and volleyer mean a person who rushing to the net after 1st and 2nd serve and Sampras is.
And all courter is a person who plays both S&V and baseline and also combines it: Serve -Rally 2-3 shots - Volley

 

[Cup8489]

Federer only played Sampras once. They played at Wimbledon 2001 when the surface began to change and Sampras was on his way out. The 20 year old Federer barely got by the aging 30 year old Sampras: 7-6(7) 5-7 6-4 6-7(2) 7-5. http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015...federer-vs-3-pete-sampras/54662/#.VhDKSmtRK3M

Agassi had so much difficulty against Sampras but Lendl got the better of McEnroe, who is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, pure serve and volleyer of all time. Yet Agassi get so many more votes than Lendl.

*sigh*

You act like all s&v players played at the same level all the time and all base liners did as well... That's not the case... Lendl was the superior player to McEnroe... As evidenced by his career... Same with Sampras and Agassi...

And you are also trying to make an excuse that federers one win against Sampras was somehow illegitimate despite Sampras being the four time defending champion at the time... And federer was not yet in his prime. In other words, you're twisting the facts to suit your argument, rather than using facts to back it up. If you can't legitimately disprove that federer wouldn't be able to handle serve and volley players, you should leave the thread. Because then you're just spewing nonsense.

I submit as evidence the matchup with Henman, who owned Federer until Federer started to find his prime form.. Federer then owned Henman. Henman was one of the last pure net rushers left. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/tim-henman-vs-roger-federer/H336/F324

Also.. Thread was February 2007... A couple of weeks after Federer straight setted your pet Djokovic at the Australian Open. At the time of the creation of this thread, Djokovic had no credentials to speak of.

 

[swordtennis]

Borg and Connors old school. Nadal and Djokovic new school.

 

[swordtennis]

Lendl was right up there. I just think the two hander is just more solid on the baseline game. Love Lendl. Agassi was great but let us be frank his movement was nothing like Nadalovic. He depended nearly 100% on placement and court positioning.

 

[Cup8489]

Lendl was not the superior player to McEnroe to begin with. He just ended up as the superior player because guys like McEnroe and Connors forced him to become a better player. Most would agree, Mac is the more naturally talented player. During McEnroe's reign, him and Lendl flipped flopped over who own whom, until 1985 when Mac lost his edge as well as his head, and Lendl muscled his way in for good.

How can you ever make a case for 1 win? Especially when there's a big disparity between the 2 players? It's like saying Robin Soderling's fluke win at the 2009 French Open against Rafael Nadal meant something. At least there's better debate here since Soderling and Nadal are around the same age.

What has Tim Henman ever won? No one is going to confuse him for John McEnroe.

It's well known, prior to 2010, Djokovic had uknown sporadic health issues so whatever happens prior to that is not worthy of discussion.

Wow, you really do have an excuse for everything.

 

[Cup8489]

It's only an excuse if there's no logic to it

1 win over an aging Sampras and we are to believe Federer is capable of beating serve and volley players.

Beating Tim Hemnan is the same thing as beating John McEnroe, Boris Becker, or Stefan Edberg. Suuuure

Guys like Connors, Lendl, and Wilander had to deal with these guys. That's a reason why they got stuck with 8, 8, and 7 Slams respectively.

You also seem to forgotten, Federer's dynasty did not begin until 2004. By that time, there was almost no serve and volleyers left. All his victims were mostly baseliners.

Federer beat Sampras. that's a win over someone you yourself proclaimed to be a S&V player. Therefore, Federer is capable of beating serve and volley players.

Tim henman made the semifinals at Wimbledon on 4 separate occasions because he was a netrusher. You never established that the calibre of player NEEDED to be that of McEnroe, Edberg, or Becker. That's your fault for not being specific.

I didn't forget that Federer's dynasty or whatever began in 2004. You can't fault him because there were no capable netrushers.. that's not his fault. It's easy to make ridiculous proclamations that he would never beat the likes of McEnroe or edberg.. when you have no evidence whatsoever of this. I provided an argument.. you have yet to do so. Oh... well I suppose 'YA BUT SAMPRAS WAS OLD AND HENMAN ISN'T EDBERG" sorta counts as an argument.

 

[Cup8489]

And I made it clear 1 win doesn't mean much. Did Soderling's 1 win over Nadal at the 2009 French Open meant he can start beating great clay court players? Why couldn't Soderling do it again, then?

The fact that Federer didn't play and beat enough great serve and volleyer players is evidence for uncertainty.

I'm sure we can agree guys like Connors, Lendl, and Wilander have more than made their case for playing enough and beating / losing their fair share against serve and volley legends, but Federer cannot make the same claim.

The reality is that Federer has beaten mostly if not entirely baseliners to win all his Slams. But past legends like Connors, Lendl, and Wilander had to beat baseliners AND serve and volleyers to earn their slams.

Yet somehow, Federer is a greater baseliner over them?? Come on, get real here.

Why does beating serve and volley players make one a better baseliner? I would suggest that being the dominant number 1 as a baseliner in an era of baseliners lends more credence to the claim.

W/R to Soderling.. he did make back to back French Open finals. Beating two different defending champions. SO yeah, he's got the game for it.

 

[beltsman]

Easily Rafael Paella Bull Nadal.

 

[Cup8489]

Can you disprove my statement?

 

[Gary20]

Nadal by a distance. 9 FO's is surely the only evidence requred!!

 

[Gary20]

why is courier on the list?

1. Need to define baseliner (is federer a baseliner? )

2. It is hard to compare era's especially wooden racquet vs modern.

that being said, borg was the best baseliner that I have seen.

Courier is one of the greatest baseliners that is why. This thread is about baseliners.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Can't believe Fed is leading this poll to such a degree. Lendl and Agassi were better ball strikers and more consistent from the back of the court. Federer is the superior player to either of them (by a large degree), but as a pure baseline, Andre and Ivan are way ahead of him and always will be.