1h_backhand
New User
I'd also vote for Lendl's forehand if it was in the poll! One of the fastest and most beautiful strokes we've seen so far 
Single greatest shot in men's tennis history
- Thread starter Start da Game
- Start date
dominikk1985
Legend
I agree. those are the 3 most dominant shots in tennis history. (nadals FH on clay and feds FH on faster surfaces)
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Backed by statistics (which I've looked at, see earlier post), I would concur.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
A guy at 2 meter (6'7) or more is hardly ever gonna be as coordinated as the guy who's 6'1 (Sampras, Federer, Nadal).
But I still don't see why this is the case: "When asking about a particular shot you also have to make it an even playing field"
Aren't we talking about what's the best shot = the one that does the most damage/is the most effective/hurts the opponents the most?
We're not talking who's got the most fluid motion on the serve, the forehand, the volley and what not. We're talking what's working.
And here, Karlovic and Isner - and soon Raonic will join them - are above Goran, Pete etc.
And yes, they are aided by their height. Just as Pete is aided by his in his ability to move around the court.
If Raonic keeps it up, he can eventually reach and surpass Isner in ranking the best servers in my opinion. I don't see him (or anyone) reaching Karlovic though.
I think it is very reasonable to make the comparisons and the difference in statistics is so great that it makes minor things such as opponents and surfaces unimportant. I actually think Karlovic's and Isner's serves would have been even more dominant in the 90s on the faster surfaces.
In my opinion, Karlovic's game outside of his serve is around a 5.5 level. I have seen him up close practicing a few times. He can hit a very hard ball, but struggles a lot with his consistency. He can hardly hit 3 balls in a row in the court. I have played with some very good 5.5 level players that I think would beat Karlovic in baseline games to 21.
I think this is taking it a little bit too far to say that Roddick and Federer's serves are better servers than Goran. I think you could make a case for Roddick, but Federer is clearly not at that same level. Federer has a great serve, better than the vast majority of players, but it is his all around game that made him so great. His serve was not as good as Goran, Roddick, Sampras, etc in my opinion.
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
The thing about isolating for a single shot, especially the serve, is that you need to consider how it holds up in the toughest matches, at the biggest tournaments, and against the best opponents in tight situations. That's why I rate the Sampras serve better than say the serves of Karlovic, Isner, and Raonic. It's one thing to bomb aces in early round matches at non-majors, yet it's much more difficult to hit great serves when it's crunch time against all time greats at Wimbledon or another major. The same thing applies to all tennis shots.
This is a fair point, and I do agree that it is important to a degree. However, I do not think it can compensate for such an extreme discrepancy in the stats. Karlovic averaged twice as many aces per match as Sampras, and he did this while playing in an era with slower surfaces and while playing a lower percentage of his matches in best of 5 format.
borg number one
Legend
I hear you Steve. It's something to consider, that big gap in aces per match. What about the second serve too though, where you don't hit many aces, but force a ton of errors? Sampras had a stellar second serve that 90% of the Tour today would die for as a first serve. Also, look at Isner. The stats for aces/match I'm sure are very impressive, but what happens when he faces Nadal or Djokovic in a tiebreaker or late in a third/fifth set? His serve is suddenly not quite the same, but still very tough. That's my impression anyway, but I haven't really poured over those numbers that can be difficult to isolate. It's more of a feel I have when I watch some of those guys. See Raonic versus Nadal in the Toronto final. He looked like a different server in that match compared to the rest of that week. It's tough to really test this of course because the not so great players have fewer opportunities to play in big matches, so these are difficult comparisons to make.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/tenni...hes_out_against_great_nadal_in_final_cox.html
Well you can argue that Karlovic has pressure holding his serve because of his inferior game has limitation on breaking his opponents unlike an all around great player like Sampras. When Karlovic gets broken, he's sure to lose a set. So many of his set won(or lost) were tie-breaker.
However there's a reason why Sampras stats are below Karlovic. He played more matches in deeper in round unlike Karlovic who flamed out early round more often. By going deeper and play higher ranked players, it's harder to stack up good serve stats because of the quality players. But then again, Karlovic is playing in an era that the courts are slower, the conditions that enhance for returners. That's canceled out.
Well for one, Karlovic had a higher first serve percentage, 65% vs. 59% for Sampras. The fact that he had to hit a second serve less often is a positive for Karlovic.
Sampras did have the edge in 2nd serve points won, 53% to 52% for Karlovic. Given Sampras' much better all around game to back up that second serve, I would have expected that difference to be greater if Sampras had the better overall second serve.
Another important factor to look at in rating second serves is the percentage of times a player hits an ace or double fault on the second serve only, but I can only figure out how to track double faults on a per match basis. They both double fault approximately 3 times per match though, so I don't see a clear edge one way or the other here.
I do not think that 90% of the tour would really want Sampras' second serve as their first serve, that is simply an exaggeration. Sampras won 53% of his second serve points, which would be a low percentage for a first serve.
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
Karlovic has that kind of pressure because the rest of his game is relatively weak and he can't rely on much else, that's true. Sampras has extra pressure because he is expected to win every match where he steps on the court. Karlovic does not face that kind of external pressure. That extra pressure Sampras faces in all tournaments and in the majors is unlike anything Karlovic has had to deal with. It's one reason why players like Raonic, Karlovic, and Isner fold in the biggest matches. There is the sheer step up in quality of play from the opponent, but there's also a different mental dynamic you are facing players like Djokovic or Nadal. You have to come up with more right then, at key stages. It's what causes many stat machines to suddenly start looking very ordinary.
Last edited:
rockandroll
Banned
There is no point even having any shot before 1995 on a poll on this forum sadly. I would say the Sampras serve as the serve is the most important shot in tennis.
L
Laurie
Guest
The discussion about the greatest server is interesting. I've mentioned in other threads that Isner and Karlovic do not make it far enough in tournaments including Masters and Slams . To be considered the best you have to hit the shot consistently against the best so the stats for Karlovic and Isner are almost meaningless in this discussion as they hardly ever play and beat the best.
Remember its the greatest shots of all time, not the greatest stats which in this case would be against mainly journeymen and top 50 players not top notch players.
Remember its the greatest shots of all time, not the greatest stats which in this case would be against mainly journeymen and top 50 players not top notch players.
Consistently making deeper round you must have a complete package. That's the problem with Ivo and Isner. Great serve alone is not good enough, and half of the time you are in the receiving end. Given that Sampras, Goran with Ivo's serve, they would have accomplished more.
President
Legend
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but do you think that someone like Sampras or Becker would amass the stats Karlovic and Isner do even if they played the same weaker players the latter two face on a regular basis? I doubt it. For me, Sampras' serve is the best shot of all time because of how it fit into his game and complimented it (such a powerful serve on a player only 6 feet tall and lightening quick is unheard of), but as a pure shot I don't think the Sampras serve could do what Karlovic did for years, despite the weaker opposition.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
It's not entirely about "this forum". It's also about the evolution in technology. All these are great options, but I picked Federer's FH, but also, Federer doesn't have the explosiveness on his FH and the ability to finish points from anywhere if not for the technology advancement.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Monfils once beat Karlovic, getting aced Zero time
chandler bing
Rookie
Yep, totally agree. This is what makes the Sampras serve the best.
M
monfed
Guest
Fed leads by almost 50% with 9 other options. Doesn't get more unanimous than that. Sorry haters, try again. :lol:
rockandroll
Banned
Yes but shouldnt the evolution and technological and chronological advances (which are natural in all sports thus far) be factored in to peoples assessments. After all someone like Mardy Fish at his best could probably hit most shots better than Rod Laver just looking at them on video, but it would be proposterous to imply Fish is the better tennis player.
llodra_fan
Professional
My pick without any order:
Edberg's backhand volley.
Sampras' overhead.
Federer's forehand.
I consider serves as a completely different shot compared to the rest.
Edberg's backhand volley.
Sampras' overhead.
Federer's forehand.
I consider serves as a completely different shot compared to the rest.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, it probably should. The problem with that is that it's hard to quantify by exactly how much technology has improved strokes. In order to compare fairly in a perfect world, every player would have to use the same racquet with the same strings.
It's a bit like saying Wawrinka's BH is better than Federer's (which it is IMO), but Federer is the vastly more successful player.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
federer's forehand is overrated imo......his running forehand is not that great and even his down the line is susceptible......he's brilliant only with the inside out and inside in......in most of the victories djokovic scored over fed since 2011, he took it forehand to forehand against him and kept him honest......fed's competition in 2004-2006 just blindly targeted his backhand which is what federer wanted too......you could figure that from his court position - always waiting on the backhand side to pounce on a short ball with inside-out or inside-in forehand, the two shots which he far better at compared to forehand on the run or the cross court forehand......
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I think you nailed it. In terms of running forehand, there are plenty of guys who are better than Fed, such as Sampras, Lendl, and Nadal. Fed's inside-out forehand is probably the best, but his running forehand or cross-court forehand is not.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
sampras on the run used to shoot it so accurately even from positions way outside the court......nadal uses all possible spins to drop it inside the court......federer is somewhere between those two when he is pushed and forced to hit on the run......he rolls it cross court decently but it's normally not a winning shot......
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, wut ?
djokovic got burnt vs the federer fh when it was clicking in 11 - FO and nearly in USO. what he exposed in 11 was the now over-rated nadal fh
federer's fh CC is excellent. The only thing that is a slight and only slight deficiency is the running fh, which is very very good, but not among the very best, but anyways didn't need to use much when at his prime, as he was almost always in position ....
your description fits the gonzales fh, not the federer fh ....
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
sampras' running FH is one of the most over-rated shots ever. clearly behind nadal's and behind lendl's as well IMO. He used to hit some spectacular shots, but missed quite a few of them as well ...
L
Laurie
Guest
Overated, in your opinion, of course
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14e8um_pete-sampras-a-collection-of-running-banana-forehands_sport
abmk
Bionic Poster
Overated, in your opinion, of course
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14e8um_pete-sampras-a-collection-of-running-banana-forehands_sport
yes, over-rated because many people tend to remember only the flashy shots from sampras, not the misses, which were quite a few considering his blitzkrieg style. I don't deny that some of the ones like the ones in the AO 2000 semi vs agassi really stand out ....
but overall nadal's and lendl's quite clearly above his IMO ....
so yeah, when many people say sampras' running fh was the best ever, I'd have to say over-rated ... This is not to say that it wasn't a great shot. It was
L
Laurie
Guest
Yes in your opinion.
I don't know how to break this to you but...everyone misses shots when playing tennis matches :!:
kiki, Fine choice. An other candidate is Rosewall's backhand passing shot, another Segura's double-handed forehand...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I find a couple of choices here to be odd. First of all Laver's overhead, while excellent in his prime wasn't nearly close to being number one. There are many overheads superior to Laver's, like Yannick Noah's, Kramer's, Sampras'. Laver's backhead however does have a good argument to be the best backhand in history and if you had to put a stroke of Laver's as potentially the greatest in history it would be Laver's backhand.
Agassi's return, while superb I believe is extremely overrated. Sure he was impressive in hitting winners but he often was aced or failed to put the return in play when guys like Rosewall, Connors, Hewitt, Chang, Borg, Laver and others would perhaps get back into play. I've checked the stats and over the course of the nineties you could even argue Chang's return was about as good or better until injuries left Chang but a shadow of his former self the last few years of his career. I think for example Djokovic and Murray's return are very comparable to Agassi's.
Pancho Gonzalez's serve was the main ingredient in his game and that game was arguably the greatest in tennis history. Vic Braden said it was a serve that took almost nothing out of Gonzalez and he could be serving as hard in the first serve as in the later stages of a long match. Braden who does computer analysis on serves thought in the year 1998 that Gonzalez would serve regularly in the 140 mph range. That should be on the list.
The stroke that so many have called as the greatest single shot in history has been Pancho Segura's great two handed forehand. To give a proper comparison, many have compared it to the Jimmy Connors' backhand except that they thought the Segura forehand was clearly superior. Incidentally the Connors' backhand should be on the list also.
Greats like Kramer, Rosewall, Vines, Riggs have called Segura's forehand the greatest single shot in the history of tennis. Laver called Segura's forehand the best he ever faced and he faced Segura when Segura was already in his forties! Here's a description from Vines' book Tennis-Myth and Method about Segura's forehand-Two-fisted forehand is most outstanding stroke in the game's history; unbeatable unless opponent could avoid it.
Here's most later in the book-Segura could do much more with a forehand than any other player. His two-hand technique (developed in Ecuador as a child because he had rickets) allowed Segura to pull the ball across a net opponent at the last second, drive it down the line, hit a surprise lob, or knock it through him. He had tremendous power, remarkable deception, and he never seemed to miss.
Kramer has also said that if the ball landed around midcourt or so Segura would inevitably put the ball away with his forehand.
Segura was arguably number one in the world several times and the main reason for that was his awesome forehand.
Agassi's return, while superb I believe is extremely overrated. Sure he was impressive in hitting winners but he often was aced or failed to put the return in play when guys like Rosewall, Connors, Hewitt, Chang, Borg, Laver and others would perhaps get back into play. I've checked the stats and over the course of the nineties you could even argue Chang's return was about as good or better until injuries left Chang but a shadow of his former self the last few years of his career. I think for example Djokovic and Murray's return are very comparable to Agassi's.
Pancho Gonzalez's serve was the main ingredient in his game and that game was arguably the greatest in tennis history. Vic Braden said it was a serve that took almost nothing out of Gonzalez and he could be serving as hard in the first serve as in the later stages of a long match. Braden who does computer analysis on serves thought in the year 1998 that Gonzalez would serve regularly in the 140 mph range. That should be on the list.
The stroke that so many have called as the greatest single shot in history has been Pancho Segura's great two handed forehand. To give a proper comparison, many have compared it to the Jimmy Connors' backhand except that they thought the Segura forehand was clearly superior. Incidentally the Connors' backhand should be on the list also.
Greats like Kramer, Rosewall, Vines, Riggs have called Segura's forehand the greatest single shot in the history of tennis. Laver called Segura's forehand the best he ever faced and he faced Segura when Segura was already in his forties! Here's a description from Vines' book Tennis-Myth and Method about Segura's forehand-Two-fisted forehand is most outstanding stroke in the game's history; unbeatable unless opponent could avoid it.
Here's most later in the book-Segura could do much more with a forehand than any other player. His two-hand technique (developed in Ecuador as a child because he had rickets) allowed Segura to pull the ball across a net opponent at the last second, drive it down the line, hit a surprise lob, or knock it through him. He had tremendous power, remarkable deception, and he never seemed to miss.
Kramer has also said that if the ball landed around midcourt or so Segura would inevitably put the ball away with his forehand.
Segura was arguably number one in the world several times and the main reason for that was his awesome forehand.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
of course its my opinion. Many a times, against the mainstream opinion ...
see another example for instance : many of those who keep on raving about sampras' wimbledon 99 final performance because of it being so widely publicized don't know what they are missing if they haven't seen his performance vs stich in wimbledon 92 & vs rafter in davis cup 97 ( how on earth did sampras lose that first set !? ) for instance ...
yeah, but the frequency of missing is what I'm talking about. I mean I could make a highlight reel of leconte's shots and on seeing you'd left wondering how the hell didn't he win a slam !?
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Why can't we just accept that Sampras was 6 ft 1 inches tall? It's such nonsense. And don't throw in a random photo of Sampras and Federer where Sampras looks shorter because I will just counter it with one of the many photos where Both of them are leveled. Your point still stands that Sampras could serve with the big guys, but repeating stuff like " he was only 6ft" sounds like such a cheap way to make an already amazing serve look more amazing.
It reminds me of when Federer was 29 and people here were saying " the guy is in this 30s" when he snapped Djokovic's streak
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
Too hard - too many great shots.
President
Legend
I always got the sense that Sampras was a bit under a true 6'1 (just like Nadal, who looks to be close to an inch shorter than Federer to my eyes) but you are probably right. Anyway, my point was that his serve was incredible for his height, and enabled him to retain an all-round game that was impossible for someone with a similar quality serve (Ivanesevic, Krajicek, Querrey, Isner, etc) because they were 6'4+. Roddick was about 6'2 and had a similar level serve, and it was an advantage for him as well, although he couldn't move anywhere near as well as Sampras (but still much better than servebots like Querrey and Raonic).
Last edited:
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Well, the thing with Sampras is that he has really bad posture.There are photos of him where he looks as tall as Agassi. Andre actually caused a stir early in their careers when he called Sampras a "monkey" because of his posture. :lol:
M
monfed
Guest
forzamilan90
Legend
That Fed forehand.. Fantastic.
forzamilan90
Legend
is that how the "chimp" nickname was born? I've heard it used a bit.
M
marcus2908
Guest
really? feds forehand better than nadals? cmon people
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
How long have you been watching tennis? Just wondering.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
A tennis fan since 2013 I presume?
Similar threads
- Poll
