Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dimeaxe, May 5, 2011.
What you think, besides Nadal, maybe
definitely not nadal or federer. both are very good baseliners but not good enough the BH wing.
I would go with agassi because he was super strong of both wings.
Super strong only got him 8 slams. It's Federer.
Novak is not yet the best baseliner of all time. He may in future.
Roger Federer is and Rafael Nadal is. Andre Agassi and Ivan Lendl are in that race too.
Yeah, i forgot himEven Wilander said, that Novak reminds him of Agassi, but faster version of him
how many slams would fed have won with ferrers serve?
Djokovic? Are you serious? How many slams has he won? To call him the greatest of all time, now? Silly.
Bjorn Borg has to be up there as one of the greatest baseliners.
The joker is one of them, give him a few more years.
Roger is more versatile for sure, but Novak is equaly good on both(F/B) sides.
You're an idiot if you think Novak's forehand is like a prime Fed's. The guy's only got two slams on slow hardcourt.
Yeeah, maybe not successfull yet, but his time is coming!
Don't make me laugh with Bjorn. Just compare speed of tennis now and 30+years ago.
Yes, the King is the best baseline player of all time. That's why he's unbeatable.
Yes, i'm IDIOT)))(your lovely Rog said the same thing about Novak at AO)I Didn't say that Novak has better forehand than Roger, Roger has the best footwork and forehand in history, but you must admit that Novak plays solid on both sides, especially on his BH, which you can't say about FED.
Im going to go with Murray, as the best baseliner of all time, he has a better BH than Djokovic.
Of those I've seen...prime Agassi and Nalbandian.
FOr the record, the big difference in Djocker's game is his serve and return of serve.
if you flip this question around and ask, how many slam would djoker win with ferrers serve and return of serve, the answer would probably be none.
No, Djorde. Djokovic is not the best baseliner of all time.
Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera and Connors were better pure baseliners! Djoko is a better overall athlete than all of them but Borg, about equal to Lendl.
What a joke.
You are kidding right? Btw, I would put prime Davydenko and Nalbandian over Murrray any day.
Roger Federer is the GOAT on all accounts, he can play any style: S&V, baseline, any shot, any serve, droppers, etc.
Ferrer has had the best return of serve in the game over the past 5 years, so probably more.
How often did Fed's backhand breakdown when he was 24?
Agassi is nowhere near the mover Federer or Nadal are though, even in his prime. Overall I would say Federer and Nadal are atleast on par with Agassi as baseliners since their movement and defense are so much better, even though Agassi's backhand is clearly better.
Bruguera is only a top baseliner on clay. Muster and Kuerten to a degree as well. None of them are even close to the best overall baseliner counting all surfaces.
The others on your list I agree with though.
How old are you, about 15? You can't compare two players from different eras obviously but Borg was one of the speediest best athletes there was and was definitely one of the best baseliners of all time. If you equalize everything--i.e.court surfaces, racket technology, etc. etc. Borg would be there for sure and would be the only one to give Nadal a run for his money on clay.
Re Djokovic and his time coming. Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.
Djokovic is nothing compared to a great player like Borg, Borg is a completely different class of player compared to the over rated Djokovic.
Borg won 11 slams by the time he was 26 and he didn't even play the AO except for once his entire career, the man could have easily attained 20 slams if he didn't retire at such a young age and had decided to play the less prestigious AO during his career.
Djokovic doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Borg. This is true now, and will also be true 30 years from now, when Djokovic will be all but forgotten from the sport, while a true legend like Borg will live forever.
No one has a more well-rounded game than Djokovic. Can you even think of a weakness he has? He has every shot and can combat every shot. He owns Nadal.
Mr. Djokovic is a very good counter-puncher.
Borg is one of the legends of the sport & dominated on courts that were faster than today. Ruled the fast courts of Wimbledon as a baseliner in an era of serve and volleyers. He was also a superb athlete.
Best baseliner can mean different things.
When a player has time, I would put Delpo at or near the top as far as modern players are concerned. He hits the ball very sweetly and powerfully and gets great direction, like a male Lindsay Davenport. Kuerten also had some of the sweetest groundies ever when he had time.
When it comes to efficency I would put Agassi at the top. However, Nole has improved greatly on this front and explains why he is having such a good run right now. Nalbadian is also very good in this arena.
When it comes to taking the ball early; its Davydenko and Federer, also prime Agassi.
When it comes to spin its Rafa hands down. Rafa also has great margin and consistency.
Concerning movement and defense, its Rafa and Nole right now.
Angles go to Rafa.
Overall best baseliner amongst modern players: If I had to pick one it would probably be Rafa. He would win the most games if each point were started from just the ground.
Why is everyone so high and mighty on the number of grand slams? Has anyone even read his book and see how he was in the dumps for a while? Or that he didn't enter Wimbledon for a while. What about the caliber of players he was facing? Including Pete Sampras who was a lock for Wimbledon and hard courts almost every year? Plus a decent field at the French? I would definately say that Agassi probably is the best baseliner ever in terms of pure talent. An old Agassi was taking it to Nadal. Man, if he were in his prime, he would destroy Nadal by taking the ball early and toying with him.
Depends on what you call Agassi's "prime" -- Agassi's prime was 1998 onwards; Pete Sampras was out of his "prime" (according to his legion of fans) by then. So the point about him having to face Sampras at every wimbledon or USO is invalid (another case of circular argument using Sampras and Agassi to bolster each other's "tough" competition).
Young nadal took an "old" agassi to the woodshed (on HC and grass). what can you interpret from that?
Nadal never took Agassi to any woodshed. Agassi was the controlling player in all their matches. He hit harder and dominated the rallies. He would run Nadal from side to side for a 30 shot rally while he stood in the middle of the court, eventually making an error while Nadal ran everything down, and in the end he looked more tired than Nadal did. He was beaten by 1 thing only, Youth. Guys like Nadal and Djokovic are insane athletes and have superhuman speed and stamina. That’s where the difference lies in modern tennis. I’d put Agassi as a better shotmaker and baseliner than both of them. Not taking anything away from Nadal though because he’s up there and will go down as one of the best players of all time bar none.
I like Novak a lot but he's got a long way to prove he the best baseline player ever. But I will say that he's very mobile, is terrific off both sides and that's important. One thing I am skeptical about with him is his stamina and his ability to handle heat.
All time baseliners would include Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Nadal, Federer and a ton I've forgotten.
I agree with your description of how Agassi's matches vs Nadal went -- so the question is, what would have Agassi done differently in his "prime"? Agassi became a fitness freak later in his career... throughout his career, he wasn't known for his mobility, so it's not like court coverage was the issue when he played Nadal?
Agassi is one of the (if not THE) cleanest strikers of the ball; movement is a big part of baseline play, and it was not Agassi's strong suit. IMO, it has to be Nadal.
Yeah but the question here was who was the better baseliner. Just strokes and hitting I’d give it to Andre for sure. If you gave Andre Nadal or Djokovic’s athleticism, speed and stamina and a healthy body, then on top of that you add the slower court surfaces of the modern game, he’d be like a 30 slam winner. I mean I’m exaggerating but he was one of the best baseliners ever despite his physical shortcomings (bad back etc.).
Movement, defense, and athleticsm are a big part of the overall baseline game too though. Otherwise one might as well just say best groundstroker of all time which is difference than overall baseliner.
Davenport would probably be the best baseliner ever if she didnt move like a turtle. Since she did though Venus, Serena, Henin, and Clijsters, maybe even Capriati were all probably better baseliners in her own era. Of course Agassi isnt as slow as Davenport but you get the idea.
Borg, Nadal , Federer, Agassi/Lendl ,Vilas , Wilander and then Nole and the rest of the lot.
I actually agree with something you've said! Although I basically said the same thing a few posts back...
Lets see if we're on a roll here...
Would you consider Delpo the Davenport of the men's game more or less?
Why would we laugh. Currectly he is one of the best ever. Sampras said he's the best ever in moving from defense to offense.
Yeah Del Potro at his best is probably the most similar to Davenport at hers.
where does he say that?
Agassi, then Del Potro
I hope this hip thing with Delpo is not serious! I wish he had done what Davenport did in 04-05 when she got injured: she used the time off to get extremely fit and eventually got back to #1, although she didn't win another slam again.
When Delpo got hurt last year, it didn't seem that he did a lot of off court work during his time off the tour. He didn't gain a lot of weight or anything but I don't think he really focused on his fitness either. Now his body has been struggling somewhat with the day in and day out grind of pro tennis since his comeback.
Separate names with a comma.