Most effective forehand

[NonP]

again, those FHP samples are based on 20-30 matches - very limited. also more net rushing in 90s means higher FHP (due to lesser UEs).
I'm not saying Krajicek's FH would hurt him vs fed/nadal on clay. I'm saying it would only help a little, nothing remotely close to what Sod did.
Again, like I said, nothing Krajicek did with his FH anywhere comes close to what Sod did at RG in 09/10.
Sod's was better on HC again. Krajicek on faster carpet/grass.

You can't just assume more net rushing = fewer UFEs, cuz that also means fewer FHs period (remember, net points are excluded in the first place). Besides I've already explained why you should look at the %s rather than the totals.

And FYI only 3 of Krajicek's 22 charted matches were on grass. And these 3 on carpet:

1996 (1) - YEC SF
1997 (2) - Stuttgart SF/F

So just 27% or 6/22 on fast surfaces. And 4 on clay. If anything you could well argue his sample is skewed against him, but he's still got a higher FHP than Sod. You can't dismiss that so easily. Sod will always have those two big Ws and that's indeed to his great credit, but how can you expect Krajicek to match those performances when he was a full-time net rusher and hit just 589 FH GS in his 22 matches vs. 3265 in Sod's 25?

Since this has dragged on long enough I'll end with these winner, FE and UFE %s for both by surface (hard/clay/grass):

Krajicek - 8%/7%/18%, 9%/7%/14%, 11%/15%/6%
Soderling - 6%/9%/4%, 6%/6%/8%, 11%/11%/18%

As expected Sod does have better %s on dirt, and grass is also no contest even after accounting for net play. But compare their HC #s. Of course some of Rick's edge has to do with those 3 matches on carpet, but the gaps are too big to be chalked up to that small subsample. And see also how high Sod's UFE%s are across the board.

So I do say Rick's FH is better on hard and indeed overall. At the very least a FH contest between these two wouldn't be as lopsided as you think.

better movement -> winners to forced errors ... yes. but that doesn't affect FHP.
better movement doesn't translate forced errors to unforced ones. whether something is forced/unforced depends on the incoming ball - pace/spin/bounce, irregular bounce, wind whatever, not on the player.

Let's try this one last time. The main reason why Dre's potency ratings are so high is cuz he plays so close to the baseline. So if his opponent lands a perfect hit to the opposite sideline he just won't bother with the ball. That's a winner for the opponent, but has no effect on his own potency ratings.

Now say Dre has somehow turned into Fed. That shot is no longer registered as a winner cuz Fed will have chased it down. Most likely it's an induced FE for the opponent, but right, that still doesn't affect Fed's own stats. So far so good.

But now assume the ball doesn't quite paint the lines this time. In fact there are several furious exchanges before your opponent decides to go for the kill. If you happen to be Oldgassi the same result is likely to follow: a winner for the opponent, but nothing on your end.

If you're a Fed/Bull/Djoker (take your pick), though? It's actually not so sure what will happen, because now we've got three probable outcomes: 1) a winner from your opponent (again), 2) an induced FE as the opponent's kill shot was still too good, and... 3) a plain UFE on your end cuz your impeccable footwork allowed you to weather the exchanges and set up your response so well the statistician couldn't count your miss as forced.

That 3) is what I was getting at. Obviously it's a fairly rare occurrence, otherwise Dre's edge in FHP/BHP over the rest would be even bigger. That's really the only explanation I've been able to come up with cuz he doesn't slice all that often (obviously).

that's why I said somewhat similar.
In any case, sod's peak level at RG 09/10 > kafel's at any RG (incl RG 96)

Hard disagree. Let's move on.

so? the FHP rate will still be lower on clay.
as far as Courier's BHP goes, again, I'll repeat smaller size is one thing. Another factor is his BH setting up (+0.5) his FH winners/errors forced.

OK, here goes again. Say you've hit 99 FHs in 1 match each on hard, clay and grass. You're saying that if each match produced the same 33 FHs the average FHP would likely drop a bit compared to all 99 FHs on grass. I'm not disputing that.

But what I'm saying is that it often doesn't work like that IRL. Since players tend to get more freebies on serve and come in more on grass and hard, and assuming everything else is more or less equal, you're in fact likely to hit more FHs aka more chances to hit winners/UFEs on clay. And for slow-courters like Jim it's not at all clear that those extra #s on clay and slower hard don't mitigate whatever boost they get on faster courts. I mean I just gave you Sod's #s which clearly show that he hits a higher % of FH winners on clay than on the faster surfaces. Sure he's an anomaly, but certainly not the only one.

That said I do see that Jim's own %s are more in line with the tour averages... except on grass where he won a whopping 14% and 25% of all his FHs and BHs outright! So there was indeed a surface skew here, just not where we were expecting. With a greater sample his BHP/100 should come down to earth (I think), though I'd be interested to see how his FHP changes.

not nearly as lopsided because its in terms of %s. I re-watched the USO 95 match in 21 and Courier's FH was clearly better one (though not by a margin)

Like I said, looking at total #s is wrong when there's such a big discrepancy in shot attempts. Don't have an issue with your verdict, just your framing.

oh come on, for Sampras, 5-6% higher on hard, higher on carpet than career, a little higher on grass than career and much significantly lower on clay than career. if that's now a skew, what is.
6 matches out of 165 charted on clay = 3.63%
actual matches played: 144/984 = 14.63%
You are twisting yourself hard here now.

How the hell is that such an obvious skew when hard is slower than carpet and TA's sample is "skewed" in favor of hard by almost 6%? And hard is supposed to be the neutral surface, no?

Also you keep harping on this clay "skew" but fail to mention that besides the '94 Rome SF and F those matches were among Pete's worst Ls on the surface. And I still see that his FH winner % on clay is just a point below his 10% on hard and only the UFE% disappoints (15% vs. 12%). In other words, even with a greater clay sample his overall FHP isn't likely to change much. (In fact his BH fares better on clay than on hard, but that's for a different discussion.)

Courier won 6 matches to 0 for agassi from 91-95, only 2 of them close. agassi didn't win a set in 3 of them and 4th one had a blowout set (6-1)....

Courier had a little better serve, was better mentally (&stamina wise - which is at best a factor in 1 of those 6 matches). agassi's return was clearly better, as was his BH.
Courier's FH is a little better to turn this in favour that clearly.

It's not '91-95 unless you think the '95 Tokyo F is uber important. It's '91-92 when Jim was at his peak while Dre had yet to reach his. Doesn't tell us much.

And of those 5 matches only the '91 YEC SF was played on a quick court. Courier should've won most of 'em and that's what he did, including (to his credit) that SF on carpet.

Zverev's level did go down in the 3rd and 4th sets, he wasn't playing damn good by any means in those 2 sets.
choking was terribad in the 5th set.
Zverev is the better HC player in Bo3 for sure, but not necessarily slam wise at that stage atleast. guy had lost 6 sets on the way to the USO 20 final, including 0-2 in the semi.

Sod's runs to his 2 USO QFs weren't exactly walks in the park, either. Anyhoo I definitely see a closer match between the two.

kucera didn't play that well in the semi, unlike dolgo.
Sod obviously had a clearly better serve than Korda. I didn't Sod would dispatch Bjorkman easily, but that he'd win for sure.

Sod did win each of their three all-Swedish meetings, but that was after Jonas was no longer a factor off grass. I'll just say that given the actual scores of Sod's matches vs. Llodra, Petzschner, Kendrick and Mahut I don't share your complete confidence.

except med already showed some signs of choking in the 3rd set vs Djoko and when faced a little less worse level in nadal in AO 22, he crumbled. so no.
and even if we stipulate to agree about fellow slammers, let say he gets either prime Roddick or Hewitt for example and loses that one time (let alone an in-form ATG). how does he get one regardless of era?
why wouldn't the same hold true for say someone like Gonzo of AO 07 or Sod of RG 09/10?

We've gone over this. When era swapping you need to put one Slammer in place of another with a comparable resume/situation, otherwise the whole comparison is moot. Med in this scenario would be facing '03 Ferrero rather than A-Rod, or a gassed Pistol/craptastic Nalby instead of Rusty himself.

And almost always there's one big stumbling block in your way. Sure everything could fall into place like it did for ToJo, but that's just not very likely.

I'm saying marginally better luck and Andrei wins the slam.
guy had already beaten Kuerten.
with better luck in a slam, he may not even have to face agassi as well.

C'mon, you know Guga was still on his honeymoon a la post-'90 USO Pistol, not to mention Andrei like Yev was a tough matchup for him.

And you should recall it was Dre himself who motivated the mercurial near-retiree into making that lone Slam F. How likely is it that Andrei would be able to keep it together long enough to take advantage of whatever opportunities may come his way? Again not impossible, but unlikely.

 

[abmk]

You can't just assume more net rushing = fewer UFEs, cuz that also means fewer FHs period (remember, net points are excluded in the first place). Besides I've already explained why you should look at the %s rather than the totals.

I meant % of FH UEs would be lesser due to net rushing obviously

And FYI only 3 of Krajicek's 22 charted matches were on grass. And these 3 on carpet:

1996 (1) - YEC SF
1997 (2) - Stuttgart SF/F

So just 27% or 6/22 on fast surfaces. And 4 on clay. If anything you could well argue his sample is skewed against him, but he's still got a higher FHP than Sod. You can't dismiss that so easily. Sod will always have those two big Ws and that's indeed to his great credit, but how can you expect Krajicek to match those performances when he was a full-time net rusher and hit just 589 FH GS in his 22 matches vs. 3265 in Sod's 25?

Since this has dragged on long enough I'll end with these winner, FE and UFE %s for both by surface (hard/clay/grass):

Krajicek - 8%/7%/18%, 9%/7%/14%, 11%/15%/6%
Soderling - 6%/9%/4%, 6%/6%/8%, 11%/11%/18%

As expected Sod does have better %s on dirt, and grass is also no contest even after accounting for net play. But compare their HC #s. Of course some of Rick's edge has to do with those 3 matches on carpet, but the gaps are too big to be chalked up to that small subsample. And see also how high Sod's UFE%s are across the board.

So I do say Rick's FH is better on hard and indeed overall. At the very least a FH contest between these two wouldn't be as lopsided as you think.

you are playing around with way too much limited sample sizes.
its clear sod's better on clay, krajicek's on grass
agree to disagree on HC.

 

[abmk]

Let's try this one last time. The main reason why Dre's potency ratings are so high is cuz he plays so close to the baseline. So if his opponent lands a perfect hit to the opposite sideline he just won't bother with the ball. That's a winner for the opponent, but has no effect on his own potency ratings.

Now say Dre has somehow turned into Fed. That shot is no longer registered as a winner cuz Fed will have chased it down. Most likely it's an induced FE for the opponent, but right, that still doesn't affect Fed's own stats. So far so good.

But now assume the ball doesn't quite paint the lines this time. In fact there are several furious exchanges before your opponent decides to go for the kill. If you happen to be Oldgassi the same result is likely to follow: a winner for the opponent, but nothing on your end.

If you're a Fed/Bull/Djoker (take your pick), though? It's actually not so sure what will happen, because now we've got three probable outcomes: 1) a winner from your opponent (again), 2) an induced FE as the opponent's kill shot was still too good, and... 3) a plain UFE on your end cuz your impeccable footwork allowed you to weather the exchanges and set up your response so well the statistician couldn't count your miss as forced.

That 3) is what I was getting at. Obviously it's a fairly rare occurrence, otherwise Dre's edge in FHP/BHP over the rest would be even bigger. That's really the only explanation I've been able to come up with cuz he doesn't slice all that often (obviously).

yeah, I agree with that.
being up against more net rushing also helps agassi FHP in contrast with say fedal fh

OK, here goes again. Say you've hit 99 FHs in 1 match each on hard, clay and grass. You're saying that if each match produced the same 33 FHs the average FHP would likely drop a bit compared to all 99 FHs on grass. I'm not disputing that.

But what I'm saying is that it often doesn't work like that IRL. Since players tend to get more freebies on serve and come in more on grass and hard, and assuming everything else is more or less equal, you're in fact likely to hit more FHs aka more chances to hit winners/UFEs on clay. And for slow-courters like Jim it's not at all clear that those extra #s on clay and slower hard don't mitigate whatever boost they get on faster courts. I mean I just gave you Sod's #s which clearly show that he hits a higher % of FH winners on clay than on the faster surfaces. Sure he's an anomaly, but certainly not the only one.

That said I do see that Jim's own %s are more in line with the tour averages... except on grass where he won a whopping 14% and 25% of all his FHs and BHs outright! So there was indeed a surface skew here, just not where we were expecting. With a greater sample his BHP/100 should come down to earth (I think), though I'd be interested to see how his FHP changes.

didn't say equal. Just saying faster surfaces skew/increase the %s to increase the FHP or FH winners+errors forced - UFEs.
Like I said Courier's are in line with tour avgs on clay.
again, Courier's grass thing is based on a very limited sample. you shouldn't be reading too much into that.

 

[abmk]

Like I said, looking at total #s is wrong when there's such a big discrepancy in shot attempts. Don't have an issue with your verdict, just your framing.

its in line with what I was saying. +13 to +5 isn't a big difference. it shows clear difference, but not a big one. not sure why you were thinking its a big one.

How the hell is that such an obvious skew when hard is slower than carpet and TA's sample is "skewed" in favor of hard by almost 6%? And hard is supposed to be the neutral surface, no?

clay is 3.6% (charting) to 14.6% (real) - that's -11%
you said carpet was what 41 matches out of 165. that's what? 24.8%
actual matches = 190/984 ? 19.3%
so +5.5 in % of carpet.

its around 5%+ more on HC, around 5.5+% on carpet.
-11% on clay.
that's an obvious skew.
rough numbers, not exact ...

Also you keep harping on this clay "skew" but fail to mention that besides the '94 Rome SF and F those matches were among Pete's worst Ls on the surface. And I still see that his FH winner % on clay is just a point below his 10% on hard and only the UFE% disappoints (15% vs. 12%). In other words, even with a greater clay sample his overall FHP isn't likely to change much. (In fact his BH fares better on clay than on hard, but that's for a different discussion.)

errors forced also drops from 8% on HC to 6% (-2%). -1 on winners%. and again 3% difference of UFEs. so that's a swing of 6% from HC if you want to consider the limited sample.
oh and hell yeah, its going to change FHP significantly enough.

you need about (6+x)/(165+x) = 14/100 matches on clay for Sampras to make it around 14% matches on clay charted. that's 20 more matches.
That will drag his FHP down to below that of Courier's, probably around 7.8 mark (just a rough estimate)

lets look at the actual matches charted:

Rome 93 SF - yes, not a good loss, but not a particularly bad one either. especially from UE/FHP point of view. given Sampras ended up with +2 on W/UE.
Rome 94 SF - one of his best
Rome 94 F - one of his best
Hamburg 95 SF - Andrei Medvedev d. Pete Sampras 6-4 2-6 6-4 - pretty competitive, hardly one of his worst
RG 96 SF - lost to kafel in straights. yes, one of his worst

the 6th one is Atlanta 92 on har tru?
7-5,6-4 Agassi
hardly one of Sampras' worst and Sampras has a 17 winners to 9 UFEs in this one and agassi a whopping 29 winners to 13 UEs. is that even accurate?

1992 Atlanta F: Pete Sampras vs Andre Agassi Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

now actual worst ones would include matches like Schallar in RG 95 where Sampras hit 99 UFEs

TENNIS;A 2-Day, 5-Set Match Is Too Much for Sampras (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

Wasp has Sampras at 49 UFEs in the straight-set RG 92 QF between Sampras and Agassi: (20 FH, 21 BH)
7 FH winners, 9 BH winners

Match Stats/Report - Agassi vs Sampras, French Open quarter-final, 1992

Andre Agassi beat Pete Sampras 7-6(6), 6-2, 6-1 in the French Open quarter-final, 1992 on clay Agassi would go onto lose in the next round to eventual champion Jim Courier. He would go onto win his first Slam at Wimbledon shortly after. The two had recently played the final of Atlanta...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

UE count is obviously on the clearly higher side for both wings.
even assuming that Wasp is more strict than one should be and more accurate count is like 42-45 UFEs for the match, its still on the higher side.

 

[NatF]

Fed has the GOAT forehand. Full stop.

 

[abmk]

It's not '91-95 unless you think the '95 Tokyo F is uber important. It's '91-92 when Jim was at his peak while Dre had yet to reach his. Doesn't tell us much.

And of those 5 matches only the '91 YEC SF was played on a quick court. Courier should've won most of 'em and that's what he did, including (to his credit) that SF on carpet.

I don't think 95 Tokyo is uber important, but that was in agassi's peak year and not in Courier's prime. worth mentioning still no?
Courier didn't win most of them in 91-92. He won ALL of them. 5 of em. didn't lose even 1. that is a significant thing.
how much of a favorite was Courier in IW 91 and RG 91 anyways. Not by that much.
and YEC 91?

Sod's runs to his 2 USO QFs weren't exactly walks in the park, either. Anyhoo I definitely see a closer match between the two.

Haider Mourier in the USO 10 1R match is the only questionable match.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

That Djoker CC FH is such a killer shot.

Not even a top 10 forehand all time.

 

[abmk]

Sod did win each of their three all-Swedish meetings, but that was after Jonas was no longer a factor off grass. I'll just say that given the actual scores of Sod's matches vs. Llodra, Petzschner, Kendrick and Mahut I don't share your complete confidence.

all of them with better serves than Bjorkman or much better. So yeah, will agree to disagree.

We've gone over this. When era swapping you need to put one Slammer in place of another with a comparable resume/situation, otherwise the whole comparison is moot. Med in this scenario would be facing '03 Ferrero rather than A-Rod, or a gassed Pistol/craptastic Nalby instead of Rusty himself.

And almost always there's one big stumbling block in your way. Sure everything could fall into place like it did for ToJo, but that's just not very likely.

Med would have to to through Henman, Ljubicic, Nalby AND Ferrero in USO 03 in Roddick's place
don't see it.
and Haas, Blake, young Roddick, Kafel and Sampras in USO 01 in Hewitt's place.
don't see it.
grass at Wim, Med is going to lose to Henman for sure (loss to Schalken also very possible)

everything did fall into place for Med in USO 21. cakewalk to the final and a sh*t Djokovic (worst slam final). He held his nerves till about the last few games. that's the credit I can give him.

sod removed atleast 3 fricking stumbling blocks in RG 09 (ferrer, nadal, gonzo) and 2 of em in RG 10 (fed, berdych) (yeah, I know RG and not USO, but still)
sod obviously had to face well playing federer, federer, nadal, federer in Wim/USO in 09/10.

gonzo obviously removed stumbling block in nadal in AO 07 easily. mowed through Haas in the semi with an absolutely frightening performance. just had to face peakest of peak fed in the final. and obviously 5-setter vs peak ferrero in RG 03 (only one to take a set off) and 5-setter vs peak Sod in RG 09.

med could easily be slamless if he had to face decent competition. definitely would be if he had to face something like sod's above or gonzo above.

Thiem as well due to his big final under-performances, even if he's a better player than Med.

you don't seem to realise/want to admit how much of a joke/weak competition this inflation era is for most part, even more so after COVID struck.

 

[abmk]

C'mon, you know Guga was still on his honeymoon a la post-'90 USO Pistol, not to mention Andrei like Yev was a tough matchup for him.

err, what?
Kuerten had won Monte Carlo and Rome in 99 before RG. came through comfortably in first 4 matches at RG (losing 1 set total).
Andrei wasn't an easy matchup + the windy conditions in that match helped him that day. But he still had to execute at a high enough level.

And you should recall it was Dre himself who motivated the mercurial near-retiree into making that lone Slam F. How likely is it that Andrei would be able to keep it together long enough to take advantage of whatever opportunities may come his way? Again not impossible, but unlikely.

but Andrei had his opportunities earlier as well - RG 93/94 - lost both to Bruguera
possibly could have won 94 without him. (93 still loses to Courier)
and we're talking about getting 1 slam with some luck, not multiple. definitely possible with weaker competition/more luck, especially in inflation era.

 

[RS]

Nadal number 1.

 

[NonP]

being up against more net rushing also helps agassi FHP in contrast with say fedal fh

Not so sure about that cuz net points (and FEs) are excluded and he's literally the only pre-'00s guy with such a high rating. Maybe there's something else we haven't figured out yet. Will let y'all know if/when I do.

didn't say equal. Just saying faster surfaces skew/increase the %s to increase the FHP or FH winners+errors forced - UFEs.
Like I said Courier's are in line with tour avgs on clay.
again, Courier's grass thing is based on a very limited sample. you shouldn't be reading too much into that.

For the average player, yeah, but not for everyone. Again Sod is hardly the only one with higher winner/FC%s on clay/slower courts. Ditto Stan and Cilic. Bull is also close with the same 6% in winners and 5% in IndFcd on clay and hard.

Not to mention your UFE% tends to be lower on dirt (at least compared to hard). Granted those half winners still make hard and grass more favorable for the average player, but the surface skew is not nearly as big or straightforward in FHP/BHP as it most certainly is in service stats.

And I've already noted Jim's grass skew, but since the only GC matches of his I see are the '93 Wimby SF and F (no doubt among his very best) they can't have affected his %s that much. So file his BHP under TBD.

its in line with what I was saying. +13 to +5 isn't a big difference. it shows clear difference, but not a big one. not sure why you were thinking its a big one.

For the umpteenth time you can't use net totals when there's such a humongous difference in total # of shots. What the hell is any newb supposed to think when they see 13 to 5 and nothing else? Much of the time even servebots don't out-ace their opponents by that margin.

%s give us a much more accurate picture for this matchup (all-courter/S&Ver vs. baseliner), and they do show an edge for Jim. Just not that big.

clay is 3.6% (charting) to 14.6% (real) - that's -11%
you said carpet was what 41 matches out of 165. that's what? 24.8%
actual matches = 190/984 ? 19.3%
so +5.5 in % of carpet.

its around 5%+ more on HC, around 5.5+% on carpet.
-11% on clay.
that's an obvious skew.
rough numbers, not exact ...

errors forced also drops from 8% on HC to 6% (-2%). -1 on winners%. and again 3% difference of UFEs. so that's a swing of 6% from HC if you want to consider the limited sample.
oh and hell yeah, its going to change FHP significantly enough.

you need about (6+x)/(165+x) = 14/100 matches on clay for Sampras to make it around 14% matches on clay charted. that's 20 more matches.
That will drag his FHP down to below that of Courier's, probably around 7.5 mark (just a rough estimate)

No, you can't harp on everyone's sample size being too small but make a mountain out of this molehill. Your contention is that Pistol's FHP is inflated (or whatever term you wanna use) by his tiny clay subsample, and I'm telling you his FH GS winner % on dirt is still well above the tour average (9% vs. 6%) and just a point below his 10% on hard. Hell, even his IndFcd% is a point higher than the average guy's (6% vs. 5%). That's despite losing 4 of those 6 clay matches. I know my boy was no dirtballer but I'm pretty sure his career W% on the surface was a bit better than that.

The only area where he underperformed is UFE%, and nobody I've looked at so far did worse on dirt by 3% than on hard (15% vs. 12%) so the Q is whether this is due to an unrepresentative sample. Well, that W-L% should be a good enough answer but since you've listed all the matches:

Rome 93 SF - yes, not a good loss, but not a particularly bad one either. especially from UE/FHP point of view. given Sampras ended up with +2 on W/UE.
Rome 94 SF - one of his best
Rome 94 F - one of his best
Hamburg 95 SF - Andrei Medvedev d. Pete Sampras 6-4 2-6 6-4 - pretty competitive, hardly one of his worst
RG 96 SF - lost to kafel in straights. yes, one of his worst


the 6th one is Atlanta 92 on har tru?
7-5,6-4 Agassi
hardly one of Sampras' worst and Sampras has a 17 winners to 9 UFEs in this one and agassi a whopping 29 winners to 13 UEs. is that even accurate?

Green clay is green clay (that probably explains his high winner % as opposed to IndFcd%) and that L to Kaf is best forgotten. I'll give you the '93 Rome SF vs. Goran (frankly wasn't expecting a net positive) but the Hamburg L to Andrei in '95 was when Pistol could barely hold serve following that ankle sprain at MC early in the CC season:

Hence his godawful (by his standards) 75.0% of SGW that season (plus he struggled with his 1st-serve % all year long, as you may recall). That said IC that he actually had a pretty good 8% and 9% in winners and UFEs respectively vs. a prime-ish Andrei, so much of his 15% UFE average on dirt must be due to that '96 RG SF where he hit just 2 FH winners (3%) but 13 UFEs (a whopping 20%). Also despite its lopsided scoreline the '94 Rome SF wasn't actually one of Pete's best in terms of FHP with 5 winners (7%) to 10 UFEs (13%), though he did make up for it with 7 FEs (9%).

But we're getting off track. As you can see Pistol's %s on clay weren't that bad at all even in Ls outside those outliers like the '95/96 flameouts at RG. There's really not much of a skew here. His overall FHP would be over 8.0 no matter what.

I don't think 95 Tokyo is uber important, but that was in agassi's peak year and not in Courier's prime. worth mentioning still no?
Courier didn't win most of them in 91-92. He won ALL of them. 5 of em. didn't lose even 1. that is a significant thing.
how much of a favorite was Courier in IW 91 and RG 91 anyways. Not by that much.
and YEC 91?

C'mon, 1 match is just 1 match. Plus they didn't meet each other at all in '93-94 so '91-95 was misleading to say the least.

And I wasn't necessarily going by betting odds at the time (though Moose is welcome to dig 'em up). Jim at least during his prime was the better slow-courter and closer to his peak than Dre to boot, hence the Ws. The '91 YEC SF is one exception and that's indeed a great W for Jim.

all of them with better serves than Bjorkman or much better. So yeah, will agree to disagree.

How is any of 'em better than prime Bjorkman - let alone "much better" - who was ranked as high as 4th before his doubles career began rolling in '98? Furthest any of 'em got at any major is 4R, as opposed to 2 SFs and 5 QFs for Jonas. Not even close.

BTW I forgot to add Feli, who split half of his 8 matches with Sod. Of course Judy's love interest was a tougher nut to crack - 4 Slam QFs for one, and the biggest weapon among this bunch (yes, Feli's lefty serve > Sod's FH) - but that should give anyone some pause, no?

Med would have to to through Henman, Ljubicic, Nalby AND Ferrero in USO 03 in Roddick's place
don't see it.
and Haas, Blake, young Roddick, Kafel and Sampras in USO 01 in Hewitt's place.
don't see it.
grass at Wim, Med is going to lose to Henman for sure (loss to Schalken also very possible)

everything did fall into place for Med in USO 21. cakewalk to the final and a sh*t Djokovic (worst slam final). He held his nerves till about the last few games. that's the credit I can give him.

Med's not winning anything on grass, no argument there. Just meant to say he wouldn't be facing prime A-Rod or Rusty in this scenario.

Also you're ignoring how much of a roll Med was on that summer. The last upstart I had a similar feeling would go all the way at Flushing was... '09 Delpo, and guess what, both did manage to deliver.

And sh*t Djoker or not Med still posted the highest USO DR (you know, the very stat y'all have a fetish for) in the modern era:

Medvedev has posted the highest dominance ratio in a USO title run in the ATP era

Top 10: 2021 Medvedev - 1.71 1998 Rafter - 1.66 2010 Nadal - 1.65 1993 Sampras - 1.64 2017 Nadal - 1.64 1991 Edberg - 1.62 2013 Nadal - 1.60 2006 Federer - 1.59 2003 Roddick - 1.57 2007 Federer - 1.54 (The lowest figure belongs unsurprisingly to 2016 Wawrinka at 1.19.) What it tells us...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

That's to go along with 62.3% of GW (TBs included) that summer season from the Os to the USO. Not too shabby.

sod removed atleast 3 fricking stumbling blocks in RG 09 (ferrer, nadal, gonzo) and 2 of em in RG 10 (fed, berdych) (yeah, I know RG and not USO, but still)
sod obviously had to face well playing federer, federer, nadal, federer in Wim/USO in 09/10.

gonzo obviously removed stumbling block in nadal in AO 07 easily. mowed through Haas in the semi with an absolutely frightening performance. just had to face peakest of peak fed in the final. and obviously 5-setter vs peak ferrero in RG 03 (only one to take a set off) and 5-setter vs peak Sod in RG 09.

med could easily be slamless if he had to face decent competition. definitely would be if he had to face something like sod's above or gonzo above.

Thiem as well due to his big final under-performances, even if he's a better player than Med.

you don't seem to realise/want to admit how much of a joke/weak competition this inflation era is for most part, even more so after COVID struck.

Sod's not winning anything on grass either so that's moot. And I don't see Gonzo and Bird as these uber-studs on dirt.

Gonzo's '07 AO run was indeed legit, but are you seriously calling '07 Bull a major stumbling block on hard? And his BH is too weak for a fluke RG anyway.

This CIE business has gotten stale for a while now. I mean it's debatable whether Med and to a lesser extent Thiem even belong to the same so-called NextGen as Kei, Milos, Grigor and their cohort, and many of the current NextGen are still in their early to mid-20s.

And, of course, we've got an exciting superstar in the making in Carlitos. Sinner has yet to deliver but the kid is still just 21. Let's give these youngsters some time before we dump 'em in the all-encompassing NextGen purgatory, shall we?

 

[NonP]

err, what?
Kuerten had won Monte Carlo and Rome in 99 before RG. came through comfortably in first 4 matches at RG (losing 1 set total).
Andrei wasn't an easy matchup + the windy conditions in that match helped him that day. But he still had to execute at a high enough level.

That was the beginning of prime Kuerten, still a little rough around the edges. Andrei's own run was legit but he doesn't get past '00/01 Guga.

but Andrei had his opportunities earlier as well - RG 93/94 - lost both to Bruguera
possibly could have won 94 without him. (93 still loses to Courier)
and we're talking about getting 1 slam with some luck, not multiple. definitely possible with weaker competition/more luck, especially in inflation era.

But what happened to AMed between '94 and '99? Exactly.

Like I said 1 Slam ain't impossible for most of these talented RUs. Just saying the odds are stacked against them. I mean Jo's got a whopping 15 QFs or better (5 SFs, 1 F) which has gotta be up there with any non-Slammer's record - I see Roscoe has 1 de jure W, 1 F, 4 SFs and 5 QFs, so a damn impressive 11 in total for his era - but he still made the F only once. Ditto Bird with 17 (6 SFs, 1F). And of course your beloved Davy made at least the QF 10 times without getting past the SF once!

That's how tough it is to clear that one last hurdle. If you've got a huge weapon or two a la Krajicek you can still overcome the odds despite a major flaw, but that can't be said for pretty much every RU. I single out Tanner and Tsonga cuz Roscoe's groundies and net game, while not elite, weren't liabilities and Jo, likewise no speed demon himself, wasn't as flat-footed as Bird or Sod.

And there's Jo's 1-2 punch which should override his suspect BH... which could well be a deal-breaker. Winning a major is TOUGH.

 

[NatF]

Nadal number 1.

Not when the most effective strategy against him has been to rob him of time with pace and depth to the forehand lol.

 

[RS]

Not when the most effective strategy against him has been to rob him of time with pace and depth to the forehand lol.

By the same token Fed's FH has also lost him several matches as well as Nadal's

 

[Third Serve]

By the same token Fed's FH has also lost him several matches as well as Nadal's

It was never the most effective strategy against him though, not on any surface. The effective strategy was simply avoiding the FH.

On faster courts, taking time away from his FH is absolutely the strategy against Nadal. Would never work on a slow court but on faster courts he does have that relative weakness.

 

[mike danny]

If you don’t overthink it there’s only one right answer to this question and I’ll give you 3 guesses who I’ll nominate next and the first 2 don’t count.

Nadal’s FH has been amazing over his career to the tune of 14 RG titles and Djokovic’s is probably underrated tbh, but Federer’s is the best or most effective or whatever you want to call it.

Every ATG has a FH that fits into their game from an effectiveness standpoint. Federer had the most deadly plus one coupled with the serve. Nadal’s has heavy topspin that helps on clay, Djokovic uses the angles of the court very well with his FH to pull opponents off court, and in a cross era comparison I would say Sampras followed his FH into the net so to me all that is basically a wash. All really effective all in different ways.

And as far as Nadal’s FH having better longevity than Federer’s goes, I would counter by saying that most of that is a function of style and the surfaces both have been most successful on. Nadal having heavy topspin is naturally going to make less errors, but the trade off is less winners. An efficient trade off in the baseline era to be sure, but the whole thing is akin to saying Nadal is a better volleyer because he’s 100% successful at net and I won’t waste my time explaining the problem with that “logic.”

From a standstill is a different argument altogether but it’s like @TheFifthSet says it might be Agassi as one example, but why penalize someone with exceptional footwork?

Federer’s has proven effective on all surfaces whereas Nadal has 0 YEC titles. I know Nadal fans hate that or at least they pretend like they don’t but they do, but it’s true.

And that’s why this debate isn’t really that difficult. Because you can’t look at a guy with an ineffectual FH on indoor HC, a guy with 0 titles at a “relatively” big event and tell me he has the most effective FH of all time. It’s just not possible unless you vastly overvalue clay as a singular surface and figure it balances out having 0 titles at another big event.

And to use a less results laden example let’s remember the strategy that Djokovic employed to beat Nadal in 2011 (and beyond). He went hard to the FH to induce a short ball and then went BH DTL (in simple terms).

That was never a strategy against Federer’s FH and most certainly not when he was 25 years old. The strat against Fed was avoid the FH at all costs and hit to the BH as often as possible. Nadal himself could tell you that.

Not to mention that Fed was able to dominate 2 different surfaces with his FH, while Nadal's dominance never extended beyond clay.

 

[NatF]

By the same token Fed's FH has also lost him several matches as well as Nadal's

We're not talking about bad days. The strategy with Fed has never been to go into his strength no matter the court or conditions.

 

[RS]

We're not talking about bad days. The strategy with Fed has never been to go into his strength no matter the court or conditions.

The thread is not excluding bad days though. According to Fed fans he would have had 100s of bad matches off the FH anyway.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Nadal's forehand is objectively the greatest shot in the history of the sport.

I'm gonna derail this argument and say that Steffi's forehand, objectively, is the greatest shot in the history of the sport. It was so dangerous that she forced her opponents to try to hit into one-quarter of the court just to avoid it.

 

[NatF]

The thread is not excluding bad days though.

Federer's forehand was a very consistent shot for the majority of his career so if this your argument then just lol.

 

[RS]

Federer's forehand was a very consistent shot for the majority of his career so if this your argument then just lol.

According to Fed fans forum the number of worse matches Fed played off the FH isn't going to be more matches than the other way round but a fair chunk played considering how much Federer fans have claimed that shot has lost him matches all over discussions.

 

[NedStark]

Also you're ignoring how much of a roll Med was on that summer. The last upstart I had a similar feeling would go all the way at Flushing was... '09 Delpo, and guess what, both did manage to deliver.

To be fair, Med would have had to play on 2001 USO Decoturf, which was extremely fast. Given his return and court positioning, I cannot see him going through Pete, even the final version - he is not going to hit passing shots and return winners from several feets behind the baseline on an extremely fast court without poly strings.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Nadal's forehand on clay is better than anyone's forehand on any surface at its best.

But while it's still great on HC and grass, it's not at the same level, and on indoor HC it can become very average.

So overall, I would take Federer, since it was a huge weapon everywhere at its best. Even on clay, Nadal avoided it like the plague.

1- Federer
2- Nadal
3- Sampras
4- Del Potro
5- Mmmm, Gonzalez? It's too hot and cold so I'm a bit hesitant to rank it so high, but when it's hot, damn...Maybe I'd go with Agassi then

 

[NatF]

According to Fed fans forum the number of worse matches Fed played off the FH isn't going to be more matches than the other way round but a fair chunk played considering how much Federer fans have claimed that shot has lost him matches all over discussions.

I don't care about your generalisations today. Make an actual point next time.

 

[RS]

I don't care about your generalisations today. Make an actual point next time.

You did respond to me here....

 

[Omega_7000]

Federer never demonstrated the versatility and lethality of Nadal's forehand.

Nadal's forehand is superior to Federer's in every meaningful category.

Spin = heaviness/ ability to put the opponent on the defensive
Reliability = extremely low UE prone
Versatility = ability to consistently hit heavy spin or flat shots

Nadal can create incredible angles and net clearance and then flatten his forehand for a winner from inconceivable court positions. Certainly without a doubt THE best running forehand ever (sorry Pete fanboys).

Federer's FH by comparison, while more aggressive in his approach was a much more unreliable shot. People only think it's "prettier" and equate that with "better".

On clay

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

I have been thinking about this today and can't get my mind set on one particular player. Which player would you all say has the most effective forehand on the tour. I know we all would like to have a Nadal esque forehand, but that would take quite a bit of muscle and overall energy to hit during a match. I would somehow choose a forehand like Ruud or Djokovic. Would love to know your thoughts

Federer obviously, but currently Nadal

 

[NatF]

You did respond to me here....

Yeah and I made an actual argument which you've yet to makes a logical response to...

 

[RS]

Yeah and I made an actual argument which you've yet to makes a logical response to...

I gave a response on the first bit. You just didn't like it .

 

[NatF]

I gave a response on the first bit. You just didn't like it .

I said logical response lol.

 

[RS]

I said logical response lol.

Don't really see how we can move forward here if you didn't accept it as that.

 

[NatF]

Don't really see how we can move forward here if you didn't accept it as that.

We can't but then you're more interested in baiting than an actual exchange anyway...my point was that Nadal's forehand has a relative weakness that can be exploited, where as any weakness in Federer's is related more to other areas of his game rather than the forehand. Nadal's argument is longevity imo as it was an elite shot when he was 18 and then deep into his 30's. Whereas Federer's wasn't elite in his teens.

 

[RS]

We can't but then you're more interested in baiting than an actual exchange anyway...my point was that Nadal's forehand has a relative weakness that can be exploited, where as any weakness in Federer's is related more to other areas of his game rather than the forehand. Nadal's argument is longevity imo as it was an elite shot when he was 18 and then deep into his 30's. Whereas Federer's wasn't elite in his teens.

I didn't bait here in this exchange you just got a bit frustrated at the response here because you don't like the fact I said I thought Nadal's was the best I saw which is why you were dismissive of it.

Your 2nd bit which I just have seen now doesn't really add up with your original that's you basically saying that somebody could make a case for Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Federer and Nadal are roughly even IMHO both FH's are just made to do slightly different things.

Agree strongly about Fed's FH longevity being slightly underrated it was probably at least top 5 every year in 2003-2019 apart from 2013 and 2016 IMHO.

 

[NatF]

I didn't bait here in this exchange you just got a bit frustrated at the response here because you don't like the fact I said I thought Nadal's was the best I saw which is why you were dismissive of it.

Your 2nd bit which I just have seen now doesn't really add up with your original that's you basically saying that somebody could make a case for Nadal.

I was baiting before no? I do think peak and prime is Federer by some margin.

And I generally don't like responses which are non specific generalisations.

 

[mike danny]

Federer never demonstrated the versatility and lethality of Nadal's forehand.

Nadal's forehand is superior to Federer's in every meaningful category.

And yet his FH hasn't been good enough indoors and hasn't allowed him to dominate 2 surfaces like Fed's has.

 

[RS]

I was baiting before no? I do think peak and prime is Federer by some margin.

And I generally don't like responses which are non specific generalisations.

So you were baiting in a few the responses which you said I was and believe I was.

I don't think I generalized that much by saying Fed fans tend to agree he lost a lot of matches because of his FH because this stuff is all over thousands of threads. I didn't say it was all Federer fans that would be generalization.

 

[Start da Game]

tennis tv recently called del potro's forehand the biggest in history......i tend to agree......

 

[NatF]

So you were baiting in a few the responses which you said I was and believe I was.

I don't think I generalized that much by saying Fed fans tend to agree he lost a lot of matches because of his FH because this stuff is all over thousands of threads. I didn't say it was all Federer fans that would be generalization.

I was baiting when I proclaimed Federer's the indisputable best. Not the rest.

I think most would agree it wasn't the forehand as much as mental or physical factors.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Or maybe Gilles Simon?
Super flat.

 

[TheRed]

Clearly Federer's FH is the best of all time. Nadal on clay only.

I'm not even sure I'd take Nadal's forehand over Fed's on clay. Fed basically got to numerous finals and winning one because of that forehand. On clay, his backhand, especially the slice was useless and his serve or volley skills were blunted by clay. Nadal's advantage over Fed on clay came down to his forehand grinding down Fed's backhand and his pure genius on understanding angles and anticipation on clay.

 

[RS]

I was baiting when I proclaimed Federer's the indisputable best. Not the rest.

I think most would agree it wasn't the forehand as much as mental or physical factors.

Yeah it was probably a mix of all three. I will be honest it was probably a bit more than other 2 but the FH wasn't really a anomaly either in comparsion.

 

[Rosstour]

Yes. ^^
And If we go back to the strongest era and it was Agassi and Sampras. Sampras' running cross FH obliterated opponents on many occasions. That was defense to offense.

Strongest era lol. Pete shot so many ducks...c'mon

Pete never played another player on his level, Fedalovic each had to deal with 2 others.

 

[Rosstour]

I'm not even sure I'd take Nadal's forehand over Fed's on clay. Fed basically got to numerous finals and winning one because of that forehand. On clay, his backhand, especially the slice was useless and his serve or volley skills were blunted by clay. Nadal's advantage over Fed on clay came down to his forehand grinding down Fed's backhand and his pure genius on understanding angles and anticipation on clay.

Fed's BH was only "useless" vs Nadal, let's be real

 

[NatF]

Yeah it was probably a mix of all three. I will be honest it was probably a bit more than other 2 but the FH wasn't really a anomaly either in comparsion.

What area does Federer struggle in technically then? No one can make every ball. Federer misses more on average than Nadal but he also hits more winners etc...I just think his forehand is obviously more potent and versatile across all conditions on the whole primarily because he's more comfortable taking the ball on the rise and his forehand penetrates the court better. Look at how many matches Nadal has had with opponents teeing off on his shots compared to Federer...

I changed my mind, there is no debate

 

[NonP]

To be fair, Med would have had to play on 2001 USO Decoturf, which was extremely fast. Given his return and court positioning, I cannot see him going through Pete, even the final version - he is not going to hit passing shots and return winners from several feets behind the baseline on an extremely fast court without poly strings.

Looks like you already know about Pistol's fatigue in the '01 USO F, but I don't think you realize just how off his serve was that day (by his lofty standards, of course). You can check out the stats from his entire run here:

The 2001 US Open - Grand Slam Tennis - Official Site by IBM - Players

IBM presents the Official Site of the US Open. Learn about your favorite grand slam tennis players including Venus Williams, Marat Safin, Jennifer Capriati and Andre Agassi.

web.archive.org

And his average 1st-/2nd-serve speeds were as follows (let's ignore the funny business with radar for now):

F - 110/95 mph
SF - 116/102 mph
QF - 115/105 mph
4R - 120/103 mph
3R - 112/96 mph
2R - 115/97 mph
1R - 114/100 mph

See how he clearly brought extra heat to those marquee matches vs. Rafter, Agassi and Safin, as much as 10 mph higher than vs. Hewitt. Simply put he had nothing more left in the tank for the F.

Now this was Lleyton at his absolute peak and I still expect him to prevail regardless (though I insist Pistol would've gotten his revenge the following year had Rusty somehow survived Dre), but... like I've said before '21 Med was at that level, with a RoS almost as good. Your point about his court positioning is valid re: Pistol's relentless attacks, but there's that serve of his own which probably was THE difference maker during his summer run (89.4% hold rate from Tokyo to Flushing vs. career 85.1% on hard).

Also you're quite mistaken about '01 DecoTurf. Take a gander at this (I just updated the whole thing with an extra comparison chart by decade):

UTS Court Speed Ratings for Grand Slam Tournaments Since 1991

Many longtime regulars here already know I've long maintained that the court slowdown canard is a myth, or at least that whatever its effects have been more than offset by increases in service stats across the board and, in turn, elite S&Vers/net rushers of yore would still thrive today. (Check...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

As you can see the '01 USO was no faster or at least serve-friendlier than some of the more recent editions. And perhaps more importantly '21 was in fact the quickest USO ever! Doubt the courts would play such a crucial role in this (low-fuel) Pistol-Med matchup.

Your 2nd bit which I just have seen now doesn't really add up with your original that's you basically saying that somebody could make a case for Nadal.

One could make a legit case for any of the correct top 5 (Fraud/Bull/Ivan/Pistol/Dre). IMO Borg and Courier fall a hair short of those 5 cuz I can't think of a single thing they do better than anyone else (passing shots for Borg maybe?), but I remain open to counterarguments. Delpo is something of a wild card due to his limited mobility (see his net % for I-Os below)/history of injuries, but you could certainly argue the shot should be judged separately from the player himself.

BTW here's one thing I've noticed while perusing the TA database... your fav one-trick pony may well have the best inside-out FH ever! Let's take a closer look at my infallible OE top 10 FHs, with % of all FHs hit I-O followed by Winner/InduceFcd/UnfErr %s and a net % (Ws + IFEs - UFEs) for said I-O FHs:

Borg - 15.0% (384/2567), 8.6% (33)/6.5% (25)/7.8% (30), 7.3%
Lendl - 25.1% (1520/6049), 6.4% (98)/6.1% (93)/7.5% (114), 5.0%
Becker - 26.5% (662/2494), 7.7% (51)/8.8% (58)/11.0% (73), 5.5%
Agassi - 20.3% (1855/9124), 9.5% (177)/8.6% (159)/9.2% (171), 8.9%
Courier - 33.6% (1213/3609), 6.7% (81)/6.6% (80)/8.6% (104), 4.7%
Sampras - 25.0% (1358/5433), 12.2% (165)/10.6% (144)/11.8% (160), 11.0%
Federer - 23.7% (9796/41,374), 14.2% (1391)/9.1% (887)/12.1% (1190), 11.2%
Nadal - 19.7% (11,332/57,490), 14.0% (1589)/8.7% (989)/10.1% (1141), 12.6%(!)
Djokovic* - 24.2% (9289/38,371), 8.8% (816)/7.5% (694)/10.2% (941), 6.1%
del Potro - 27.6% (3104/11,233), 9.4% (293)/7.0% (218)/9.3% (288), 7.1%

*Novak's Winner/InduceFcd/UnfErr %s are based on a total of 9250 I-O FHs rather than the up-to-date 9289.

Obviously the changes in racquet/string tech make direct cross-era comparisons all but impossible - notice not only the increasing net %s but also how more induced FEs have turned into outright winners over the years due to poly - but as you can tell all of these studs' winner-UFE differentials don't deviate much from 1-2%... except for Pig-Pen's! Now how can this be? After all I-O isn't really your boy's specialty (Borg is the only one of these 10 who relied on that shot less often), so does that mean his net % is inflated by easier I-Os he presumably opted for?

I think not. Y'all have seen this running-backward corker countless times:

Not what we usually think of when we discuss I-O FHs, but it certainly qualifies and I bet a significant % of those winners came off that shot.

Now Courier certainly hit a lot more I-Os on average - he actually went I-O more often than CC (31.5%)! - which means his net % would likely see a sizable boost if he were to drop down to Bull's 20% frequency with today's sticks. But let's be real, he ain't touching your boy's net 12.6% no matter what. So one could well argue instead that he had to hit so many I-O FHs cuz his CCs especially on the run weren't nearly as strong.

I really don't wanna quibble too much cuz gawd knows Jim could use more support in these corners, but that's why I can't put his FH up there with my top 5's. I mean if even his trademark I-O isn't incontestably top 2-3 in the OE alone and two of his contemporaries were arguably better overall, then how can he be ranked in the all-time top 5? A truly ATG FH, for sure, but not quite A+.

BTW check out my own boy's net 11.0%. Just DAYUM! I've long thought Pistol's I-O was the one relative weakness in an otherwise super-duper weapon, and that while he actually outclasses Fraud when moving to the right Fed does have the edge elsewhere... but now I'm beginning to have 2nd thoughts! At the very least this shows Larsson knew what he was talking about when he (in '13) went with Pistol over Fraud for HCs.

Fed's BH was only "useless" vs Nadal, let's be real

Then try to explain away how his BH potency rating (winners + half winners aka shots before each winner - UFEs) barely breaks even:

Tennis Abstract: Match Charting Project: Men's Rally Leaders: Career

That's against every opponent, mind you, and in a huge sample (in fact the biggest by far among the TA database) of 630 career matches to boot. How the hell does a BH that supposedly breaks down only against a single opponent fare so badly then?

Now your boy's BH is actually a bit better than his BHP/100 (0.1) suggests cuz slices are excluded from these ratings (so mostly topspin/flat BHs), but this notion that his 1HBH is at least on par with Edberg's (2.9), Kuerten's (2.1) and even Becker's (2.7), let alone the ATG 2HBHs, just doesn't pass muster. No chance in hell any of those guys would be better off with Fed's BH.

 

[Rosstour]

Looks like you already know about Pistol's fatigue in the '01 USO F, but I don't think you realize just how off his serve was that day (by his lofty standards, of course). You can check out the stats from his entire run here:

The 2001 US Open - Grand Slam Tennis - Official Site by IBM - Players

IBM presents the Official Site of the US Open. Learn about your favorite grand slam tennis players including Venus Williams, Marat Safin, Jennifer Capriati and Andre Agassi.

web.archive.org

And his average 1st-/2nd-serve speeds (let's ignore the funny business with radar for now):

F - 110/95 mph
SF - 116/102 mph
QF - 115/105 mph
4R - 120/103 mph
3R - 112/96 mph
2R - 115/97 mph
1R - 114/100 mph

See how he cleary brought extra heat to those marquee matches vs. Rafter, Agassi and Safin, as much as 10 mph higher than vs. Hewitt. Simply put he had nothing more left in the tank for the F.

Now this was Lleyton at his absolute peak and I still expect him to prevail regardless (though I insist Pistol would've gotten his revenge the following year had Rusty somehow survived Dre), but... like I've said before '21 Med was at that level, with a RoS almost as good. Your point about his court positioning is valid re: Pistol's relentless attacks, but there's that serve of his own which probably was THE difference maker during his summer run (89.4% hold rate from Tokyo to Flushing vs. career 85.1% on hard).

Also you're quite mistaken about '01 DecoTurf. Take a gander at this (I just updated the whole thing with an extra comparison chart by decade):

UTS Court Speed Ratings for Grand Slam Tournaments Since 1991

Many longtime regulars here already know I've long maintained that the court slowdown canard is a myth, or at least that whatever its effects have been more than offset by increases in service stats across the board and, in turn, elite S&Vers/net rushers of yore would still thrive today. (Check...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

As you can see the '01 USO was no faster or at least serve-friendlier than some of the more recent editions. And perhaps more importantly '21 was in fact the quickest USO ever! Doubt the courts would play such a crucial role in this (low-fuel) Pistol-Med matchup.


One could make a legit case for any of the correct top 5 (Fraud/Bull/Ivan/Pistol/Dre). IMO Borg and Courier fall a hair short of those 5 cuz I can't think of a single thing they do better than anyone else (passing shots for Borg maybe?), but I remain open to counterarguments. Delpo is something of a wild card due to his limited mobility (see his net % for I-Os below)/history of injuries, but you could certainly argue the shot should be judged separately from the player himself.

BTW here's one thing I've noticed while perusing the TA database... your fav one-trick pony may well have the best inside-out FH ever! Let's take a closer look at my infallible OE top 10 FHs, with % of all FHs hit I-O followed by Winner/InduceFcd/UFE %s and a net % (Ws + IFs - UFEs) for said I-O FHs:

Borg - 15.0% (384/2567), 8.6% (33)/6.5% (25)/7.8% (30), 7.3%
Lendl - 25.1% (1520/6049), 6.4% (98)/6.1% (93)/7.5% (114), 5.0%
Becker - 26.5% (662/2494), 7.7% (51), 8.8% (58), 11.0% (73), 5.5%
Agassi - 20.3% (1855/9124), 9.5% (177), 8.6% (159), 9.2% (171), 8.9%
Courier - 33.6% (1213/3609), 6.7% (81), 6.6% (80), 8.6% (104), 4.7%
Sampras - 25.0% (1358/5433), 12.2% (165), 10.6% (144), 11.8% (160), 11.0%
Federer - 23.7% (9796/41,374), 14.2% (1391), 9.1% (887), 12.1% (1190), 11.2%
Nadal - 19.7% (11,332/57,490), 14.0% (1589), 8.7% (989), 10.1% (1141), 12.6%(!)
Djokovic* - 24.2% (9289/38,371), 8.8% (816), 7.5% (694), 10.2% (941), 6.1%
del Potro - 27.6% (3104/11,233), 9.4% (293), 7.0% (218), 9.3% (288), 7.1%

*Novak's Winner/InduceFcd/UFE %s are based on a total of 9250 I-O FHs rather than the up-to-date 9289.

Obviously the changes in racquet/string tech make direct cross-era comparisons all but impossible - notice not only the increasing net %s but also how more induced FEs have turned into outright winners over the years due to poly - but as you can tell all of these studs' winner-UFE differentials don't deviate much from 1-2%... except for Pig-Pen's! Now how can this be? After all I-O isn't really your boy's specialty (of these 10 only Borg relied on that shot less often), so does that mean his net % is inflated by easier I-Os he presumably had to hit?

I think not. Y'all have seen this running-backward corker countless times:

Not what we usually think of when we discuss I-O FHs, but it certainly qualifies and I bet a significant % of those winners came off that shot.

Now Courier certainly hit a lot more I-Os on average - he actually went I-O more often than CC (31.5%)! - which means his net % would likely see a big boost if he were to drop down to Bull's 20% frequency with today's sticks. But let's be real, he ain't touching your boy's net 12.6% no matter what. So one could well argue instead that he had to hit so many I-O FHs cuz his CCs especially on the run weren't nearly as strong.

I really don't wanna quibble too much cuz gawd knows Jim could use more support in these corners, but that's why I can't put his FH up there with my top 5's. I mean if even his trademark I-O isn't incontestably top 2-3 in the OE alone and two of his contemporaries were arguably better, then how can he be ranked in the all-time top 5? A truly ATG FH, for sure, but not quite up there.

BTW check out my own boy's net 11.0%. Just DAYUM! I've long thought Pistol's I-O was the one relative weakness in an otherwise super-duper weapon, and that while he actually outclasses Fraud when moving to the right Fed does have the edge elsewhere... but now I'm beginning to have 2nd thoughts! At the very least this shows Larsson knew what he was talking about when he (in '13) went with Pistol over Fraud for HCs.


Then try to explain away how his BH potency rating (winners + half winners aka shots before each winner - UFEs) barely breaks even:

Tennis Abstract: Match Charting Project: Men's Rally Leaders: Career

That's against every opponent, mind you, and in a huge sample (in fact the biggest by far among the TA database) of 630 career matches to boot. How the hell does a FH that supposedly breaks down only against a single opponent fare so badly then?

Now your boy's BH is a bit better than his BHP/100 (0.1) suggests cuz slices are excluded from these ratings (so mosty topspin/flat BHs), but this notion that his 1HBH is at least on par with Edberg's (2.9), Kuerten's (2.1) and even Becker's (2.7), let alone the ATG 2HBHs, just doesn't pass muster. No chance in hell any of those guys would be better off with Fed's BH.

First...just want to say I respect the effort/time you took breaking down numbers for that other guy. Wow

Second, ok. I don't dispute any of the numbers you posted. However, I really don't remember Fed's BH being a weakness against any other player besides Rafa. Even Djok didn't copy the playbook. So I agree that his BH isn't the greatest ever, although I do think it's the nicest looking. But, if it were as bad as ppl say, then a lot of other players would have been able to do what Rafa did.

 

[TheRed]

So you were baiting in a few the responses which you said I was and believe I was.

I don't think I generalized that much by saying Fed fans tend to agree he lost a lot of matches because of his FH because this stuff is all over thousands of threads. I didn't say it was all Federer fans that would be generalization..

Your original argument was that Fed's forehand has "lost him a couple of matches" but this doesn't really answer the original question, which was "which is most effective." If Fed's forehand helps him win 99.5% of matches, it would certainly be "most effective" but would still lose him a couple matches. Beyond that, it doesn't even hold up to comparisons to Nadal or Djokovic because especially in Nadal's case, he's lost more than a "couple matches" due to his forehand being exploited on faster courts. Except on clay, no serious argument can be made for why you wouldn't take Fed's forehand over Nadal's or practically anyone in his generation. Agassi hit it just as early(or earlier) but had nowhere near the angles and precision of Fed. Sampras had the same power but nowhere near the consistency. Djokovic had the same or better consistency but nowhere near the precision, power or spin on a consistent basis.

Fed's BH was only "useless" vs Nadal, let's be real

Agreed. Useless may have been a poor choice of word. I really meant that on clay, Fed's bh weapons like the slice and ability to hit early were somewhat neutralized so it was the forehand that gave him his biggest advantage and the excellent clay court results

 

[NedStark]

Now this was Lleyton at his absolute peak and I still expect him to prevail regardless (though I insist Pistol would've gotten his revenge the following year had Rusty somehow survived Dre), but... like I've said before '21 Med was at that level, with a RoS almost as good. Your point about his court positioning is valid re: Pistol's relentless attacks, but there's that serve of his own which probably was THE difference maker during his summer run (89.4% hold rate from Tokyo to Flushing vs. career 85.1% on hard).

Medvedev also had a meme pre-final USO draw, none of his pre-final opponents were as good as young Roddick (who was actually good in that event). He could have actually lost to Roddick in 2001.

His return against serve-and-volleyers is nowhere near Hewitt’s level, and his return positioning would have made the problem worse since his flat returns do not dip like Guga. And on top of that, he wouldn’t have poly strings, so a lot more of his returns/passes would be off the mark. Pete would have hold serves against Medvedev a lot more comfortably. On the return, well, Pete knows to block/chip back big serves and slice Medvedev to death.

Btw, I did see a comment saying that Pete’s +1 forehand benefited from his bomb serves. I feel that I must remind that poster that most of Pete’s +1 forehands occurred in second serves. His serve +1 FH was right up there with the best.

I would also prefer Pete’s approach forehand over Fed’s, since the latter is often loaded with too much topspin (that 40-15 point, remember that) , which is not good for an approach shot. Flat forehand approach is the way to go.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Check out Cerundulo's forehand. He hits it almost effortlessly and still generates a an impressive amount of speed and spin. I'd like that for myself. Saw it live at Båstad this year, it looks pretty good.