Top 10 movers

[skaj]

I see many best forehand/backhand/serve lists here, but to me movement is as important. Here is the ranking I came up with(Open Era only), with descriptions:

1. Borg – His movement combined precise footwork with Olympic-like foot speed, also good anticipation, excellent agility and great stamina – everything needed for maneuvering around the tennis court effectively. Gliding left and right, forward and backward, he was always in the right spot for the ball, regardless of the surface.
2. Mecir – Using his large balanced step, uncanny court sense and ability to read the game, Miloslav was efficiently covering the entire court with an easy gait. The quick acceleration to fast sprints was there when necessary with the strong, flexible lower body securing an effortless recovery. His positioning at the net was as great as it was along the baseline, whilst in the unpopular mid-court he was “the lord of the no man’s land”.
3. Federer – Roger’s floating footwork produces some of the best lateral movement we have seen. The transition to the net is sublime, timing ideal, and foot speed considerable although not put to use often since he anticipates so well.
4. Laver & Rosewall – Quickness and technical excellence in every part of the court, on every surface, in every stage of the match.
5. Chang – The tier I footwork and the tier I foot speed, along with the swift direction changes were getting the impossible balls back for Michel, he was everywhere.
6. Nadal – Explosive, tremendous speed, tenacious court coverage, excellent adjustments when off-balance, exceptional endurance. On clay his mobility is second to none.
7. Djokovic – Terrific at moving side to side, covers the ground extremely well, amazing defensive stretches on all court types, supreme fitness.
8. Rios – Nimble-footed, effortless, economic, with perfect coordination, astounding anticipation, well-positioned for every shot... He moved like a cat out there.
9. Sampras & Edberg – The best at moving forward and around the net, but also very comfortable in the baseline area. Both with model footwork, both remarkable athletes, always stable, well-coordinated, fast over the first few steps.
10. Monfils – Physically, the most gifted mover - the fastest, most athletic, super flexible, acrobatic. Gael “flies” around the court getting to balls no other player can, both horizontally and vertically. His improvisations are unmatched.

Honorable mentions: Okker, Gerulaitis, Hewitt, Coria, Murray, De Minaur.
Notable women: Graf, Clijsters, Henin, Venus, Hingis, Navratilova, Myskina.

Your top 10(5/20..)?

 

[skaj]

It was not easy for me to rank them(also to include all the great movers, therefore a couple of ties), I think it’s mostly a matter of nuance between them. For example, when I compare Sampras and Djokovic, Pete is the more natural mover with an all-court cat-like mobility, positioning, but on the other hand on clay he wasn’t that effective, his defense is not quite as great as Novak’s and Djoko worked much more on his fitness, so I have ranked him higher. Similarly, Monfils, the finest physical specimen, ended up last because his style, unlike Federer’s or Mecir’s for example, demands great endurance yet his fitness is not always on the right level, plus his footwork is not as disciplined as the other players’ in the list.
Also, comparing eras is always problematic, of course.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I distinguish speed from movers, to me they are two different categories. And footwork is an entirely different category as well. Edberg was a tremendous mover, but his raw speed wasn't insane. Chang was probably the fastest of them all, but his movement to his FH was slightly diminished compared to his overall movement. But I agree, Borg should be #1 and Mecir #2 if you combine speed with footwork.

 

[The Guru]

Borg was just a superhuman athlete. Him and Nadal are probably the most physically amazing forces tennis has seen.

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

I see many best forehand/backhand/serve lists here, but to me movement is as important. Here is the ranking I came up with(Open Era only), with descriptions:

1. Borg – His movement combined precise footwork with Olympic-like foot speed, also good anticipation, excellent agility and great stamina – everything needed for maneuvering around the tennis court effectively. Gliding left and right, forward and backward, he was always in the right spot for the ball, regardless of the surface.
2. Mecir – Using his large balanced step, uncanny court sense and ability to read the game, Miloslav was efficiently covering the entire court with an easy gait. The quick acceleration to fast sprints was there when necessary with the strong, flexible lower body securing an effortless recovery. His positioning at the net was as great as it was along the baseline, whilst in the unpopular mid-court he was “the lord of the no man’s land”.
3. Federer – Roger’s floating footwork produces some of the best lateral movement we have seen. The transition to the net is sublime, timing ideal, and foot speed considerable although not put to use often since he anticipates so well.
4. Laver & Rosewall – Quickness and technical excellence in every part of the court, on every surface, in every stage of the match.
5. Chang – The tier I footwork and the tier I foot speed, along with the swift direction changes were getting the impossible balls back for Michel, he was everywhere.
6. Nadal – Explosive, tremendous speed, tenacious court coverage, excellent adjustments when off-balance, exceptional endurance. On clay his mobility is second to none.
7. Djokovic – Terrific at moving side to side, covers the ground extremely well, amazing defensive stretches on all court types, supreme fitness.
8. Rios – Nimble-footed, effortless, economic, with perfect coordination, astounding anticipation, well-positioned for every shot... He moved like a cat out there.
9. Sampras & Edberg – The best at moving forward and around the net, but also very comfortable in the baseline area. Both with model footwork, both remarkable athletes, always stable, well-coordinated, fast over the first few steps.
10. Monfils – Physically, the most gifted mover - the fastest, most athletic, super flexible, acrobatic. Gael “flies” around the court getting to balls no other player can, both horizontally and vertically. His improvisations are unmatched.

Honorable mentions: Okker, Gerulaitis, Hewitt, Coria, Murray, De Minaur.
Notable women: Graf, Clijsters, Henin, Venus, Hingis, Navratilova, Myskina.

Your top 10(5/20..)?

Haven't watched enough old-school WTA to make a judgment there.
As for ATP, I've gotta put Novak right at the top, closely followed by Gaël and Rafa. As graceful as Mecir, Rios, and Federer are, they just didn't have the raw speed and athletic ability to fly around the court like the Djoker. He has the whole package - court sense, lightning foot speed, Godlike flexibility, perfect balance while sliding into shots the way he does. And the most stunning part is that he does it all without ever injuring himself, unlike Monfils and Nadal who are out of action every other week. Djokovic is the most naturally gifted mover I've ever seen on a tennis court.

Chang was a true roadrunner too, and Borg was definitely the best athlete of his time.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Mecir, Rios, Monfils = overrated.

 

[The Blond Blur]

I have RAFA as the GOAT mover

Bias included

 

[metsman]

Mecir, Rios, Monfils = overrated.

Yeah they don't even belong in the top 20. I'd take Safin, Blake, pre-fatbandian, Davydenko, Rafter, Murray, Coria, Hewitt, Wilander, Mac, and probably Agassi/Courier too over them.

Wilander and Hewitt are both easy top 10.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yeah they don't even belong in the top 20.

Wilander and Hewitt are both easy top 10.

skaj doesn't belong in top 50 decent posters, stands to reason his rankings don't belong in the top 9000.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Good list, with some really terrific names.
Some possible additions:

Men: Kriek, Nastase
Women: Goolagong

...will have to think more - good stuff.

 

[metsman]

skaj doesn't belong in top 50 decent posters, stands to reason his rankings don't belong in the top 9000.

Borg 1, Federer 3, I'll let him slide.

 

[skaj]

Haven't watched enough old-school WTA to make a judgment there.
As for ATP, I've gotta put Novak right at the top, closely followed by Gaël and Rafa. As graceful as Mecir, Rios, and Federer are, they just didn't have the raw speed and athletic ability to fly around the court like the Djoker. He has the whole package - court sense, lightning foot speed, Godlike flexibility, perfect balance while sliding into shots the way he does. And the most stunning part is that he does it all without ever injuring himself, unlike Monfils and Nadal who are out of action every other week. Djokovic is the most naturally gifted mover I've ever seen on a tennis court.

Chang was a true roadrunner too, and Borg was definitely the best athlete of his time.

Mecir had plenty of raw foot speed, he just did not use it that much simply because he did not need to - his anticipation, sense of court and footwork were positioning him without too much sprinting most of the time. Plus he was very flexible, never off balance, just a fantastic athlete up there with the best of them. Federer not quite as fast as Miloslav, but he has similar qualities and is certainly not slow. Same goes for Rios who was also very quick( ≠ fast).

Djokovic has many great qualities as a mover, especially along the baseline, I mentioned the main ones in the original post but also holes in his movement - his forward/backward movement is not that great, he is balanced when down low but like many players with his build(slender, tall with long limbs) he's not very stable in general, loses his balance more often then an elite mover should, and his vertical mobility is pretty limited(except for getting low with his slides and stretches, of course).

 

[skaj]

skaj doesn't belong in top 50 decent posters, stands to reason his rankings don't belong in the top 9000.

Ad hominem comments in the lack of arguments, now that's new...

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Ad hominem comments in the lack of arguments, now that's new...

Said someone who failed to present a single objective argument for his pretentious rankings. Baseless assertions welcome easy criticism.

 

[metsman]

Movement is a very subjective thing and totally dependent on your game. Basically all the greats have movement that suit their games very well and if you give Borg, Nadal, Novak, Sampras, or Fed any of the other 4's movements they will be worse off, guaranteed.

In terms of who I think had the best movement tools for basically any style I probably go for Pete, Borg, and Nadal since I think all three are more explosive over longer distances than Federer (which probably makes them better at moving laterally well behind the baseline), who is probably the best at recovery and explosive footwork in small spaces, which primarily benefits an offensive style where you are within and around the baseline. Of course on top of those two styles, Pete has elite S&V and net movement as well which none of the other 3 guys have so it's very easy to say that Pete was the most complete mover although Pete's movement peak was basically only a couple years because starting in late 94/95 he started to tone it down a bit.

In terms of forward movement, Mac, Edberg, and Rafter are as good as it gets.

Djokovic is as good as it gets behind the baseline on HC due to his length and flexibility, but he's not quite as comfortable on the natural surfaces and his offensive footwork is a bit below those 4 imo. But it's worth noting that he can cover more ground naturally without looking at speed than those guys because he's a bit taller with longer limbs and extremely flexible.

I also think very highly of Hewitt and Wilander's movement but of course they lacked some of the weaponry to really employ an offensive style of movement so who knows how good they were at it. Hewitt to me seemed to have better offensive footwork than Wilander or a Chang.

I think Blake had all the tools to be an amazing mover but most of his talent was unharnessed due to coaching and career arc, had the raw athleticism of a Monfils but actually knew how to move on a tennis court.

 

[Third Serve]

skaj doesn't belong in top 50 decent posters, stands to reason his rankings don't belong in the top 9000.

Isn’t that a little uncalled for?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Isn’t that a little uncalled for?

That's far from the first time, is it? At some point you have to confront bad contributors unless you're fine tolerating it forever.

 

[Third Serve]

That's far from the first time, is it? At some point you have to confront bad contributors unless you're fine tolerating it forever.

I mean, sure, but op doesn’t seem to be a bad contributor (unless having the “wrong” opinion is considered bad). I’d only use ad hominem if the other person has used it.

 

[The Guru]

That's far from the first time, is it? At some point you have to confront bad contributors unless you're fine tolerating it forever.

And who left you in charge of that lol? Why are you so aggressive and hostile all the time?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I mean, sure, but op doesn’t seem to be a bad contributor (unless having the “wrong” opinion is considered bad). I’d only use ad hominem if the other person has used it.

Sustained arrogance. This thread per se is irrelevant.

 

[skaj]

Said someone who failed to present a single objective argument for his pretentious rankings. Baseless assertions welcome easy criticism.

I suppose you've read only the parts in bold.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And who left you in charge of that lol? Why are you so aggressive and hostile all the time?

Why are many people so arrogant and disrespectful all the time, yes? Same answer?

What do you want me to do, shut up and swallow it, eh? Accept disrespectful attitudes as possibly right, and proper, and truthful? What's even the point then.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I suppose you've read only the parts in bold.

Oh come on. Those are descriptions, not arguments. They don't form a basis for an exact ranking. Disrespectful ranking at that, Rios and Monfils over Wilander and Hewitt? How do you explain the disparity in results then?

 

[Third Serve]

Why are many people so arrogant and disrespectful all the time, yes? Same answer?

What do you want me to do, shut up and swallow it, eh? Accept disrespectful attitudes as possibly right, and proper, and truthful? What's even the point then.

I think you might be overstating the amount of disrespect exhibited by some posters.

 

[President]

No love for Andy Murray?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think you might be overstating the amount of disrespect exhibited by some posters.

Likening Hewitt to an early blooming Ferrer thriving in a weak era is goddamn disrespectful.

 

[skaj]

Oh come on. Those are descriptions, not arguments. They don't form a basis for an exact ranking. Disrespectful ranking at that, Rios and Monfils over Wilander and Hewitt? How do you explain the disparity in results then?

Come on yourself. In the original post I have ranked players and gave descriptions (which by the way gave some explanation to why I have ranked the players the way I did). I wasn't arguing about anything so I did not give any "arguments". I gave more explanation in the second post. Some people gave their opinion about the ranking, with arguments. I replied, with arguments.
And I don't know which disparity and which results you are talking about.

 

[Third Serve]

Likening Hewitt to an early blooming Ferrer thriving in a weak era is goddamn disrespectful.

Really, that’s what you mean by disrespect?

You’ve gotta be kidding me.

Are you seriously equating tennis player rankings to actual personal insults. You’d have a point if someone was calling a player “a weakling” or something like that, but none of this is present in this thread nor in any other I’ve seen OP make.

You’re better off just saying “hey, I seriously disagree with your rankings. Here’s why.” instead of saying “well, you’re not a good poster and this thread proves that”.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Come on yourself. In the original post I have ranked players and gave descriptions (which by the way gave some explanation to why I have ranked the players the way I did). I wasn't arguing about anything so I did not give any "arguments". I gave more explanation in the second post. Some people gave their opinion about the ranking, with arguments. I replied, with arguments.
And I don't know which disparity and which results you are talking about.

By results, Wilander >> Hewitt >(>) Rios >> Monfils. Why is that?

 

[skaj]

By results, Wilander >> Hewitt >(>) Rios >> Monfils. Why is that?

Movement ≠ results.

 

[ron schaap]

i think Goffin should be on the list. He has no particular strokes yet became top 10. Only because his fast footwork. i doubt Edberg. He has only one movement: the sprint to the net. Connors was fast on the fast slippery grass of Wimbledon i remember. He should be because he had a lousy serve.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Really, that’s what you mean by disrespect?

You’ve gotta be kidding me.

Are you seriously equating tennis player rankings to actual personal insults. You’d have a point if someone was calling a player “a weakling” or something like that, but none of this is present in this thread nor in any other I’ve seen OP make.

You’re better off just saying “hey, I seriously disagree with your rankings. Here’s why.” instead of saying “well, you’re not a good poster and this thread proves that”.

This thread carries little offence, it's just accumulated from past postings lol.

Underrating strong players unfairly may be worse than direct user-to-user insults. Why? Because the former is disrespecting actual achievements of significantly accomplished people, who thus deserve respect more strongly than us common mugs, unless of course you're doing something great in your life we don't know about.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Movement ≠ results.

Surely you wouldn't think Hewitt was a better ballstriker than Rios, now would you?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

i think Goffin should be on the list. He has no particular strokes yet became top 10. Only because his fast footwork. i doubt Edberg. He has only one movement: the sprint to the net. Connors was fast on the fast slippery grass of Wimbledon i remember. He should be because he had a lousy serve.

Such disrespect for Edberg, unbelievable

 

[skaj]

Surely you wouldn't think Hewitt was a better ballstriker than Rios, now would you?

Surely you wouldn't think Rios was mentally stronger than Hewitt, now would you?

 

[The Guru]

Really, that’s what you mean by disrespect?

You’ve gotta be kidding me.

Are you seriously equating tennis player rankings to actual personal insults. You’d have a point if someone was calling a player “a weakling” or something like that, but none of this is present in this thread nor in any other I’ve seen OP make.

You’re better off just saying “hey, I seriously disagree with your rankings. Here’s why.” instead of saying “well, you’re not a good poster and this thread proves that”.

Disrespect to him means not being a card carrying member of the cult of FedrGOAT. He's a Lew level troll he just disguises it better.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Surely you wouldn't think Rios was mentally stronger than Hewitt, now would you?

So you agree Rios is a mental mug, thanks for making this clear.

 

[Third Serve]

This thread carries little offence, it's just accumulated from past postings lol.

Underrating strong players unfairly may be worse than direct user-to-user insults. Why? Because the former is disrespecting actual achievements of significantly accomplished people, who thus deserve respect more strongly than us common mugs, unless of course you're doing something great in your life we don't know about.

Somehow, I don’t think these these posters believe they’re disrespecting other players. And I highly doubt that they intend to. If they are, then fire away by all means. But based on OP’s denials that he’s trying to disrespect other players, I think it’s fair to say that he doesn't mean to.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Disrespect to him means not being a card carrying member of the cult of FedrGOAT. He's a Lew level troll he just disguises it better.

Such disrespect for me, unbelievable

I'd already said to you that Djokodal overtaking career numbers ain't itself the problem sad as it is, it's the growing lack of appreciation for Fedr's peak.

 

[The Guru]

Somehow, I don’t think these these posters believe they’re disrespecting other players. And I highly doubt that they intend to. If they are, then fire away by all means. But based on OP’s denials that he’s trying to disrespect other players, I think it’s fair to say that he doesn't mean to.

Lol you're buying that? He denigrates players all the time. He trashes Murray/Lost Gen/Next Gen to crazy degrees. And of course that's totally fine. Nothing wrong with criticizing players. That's what we're here for. It's only wrong if it has negative implication for Lord Fedr.

 

[Third Serve]

Lol you're buying that? He denigrates players all the time. He trashes Murray/Lost Gen/Next Gen to crazy degrees. And of course that's totally fine. Nothing wrong with criticizing players. That's what we're here for. It's only wrong if it has negative implication for Lord Fedr.

I’m playing his game. I don’t agree at all with his premise, but I’m just going along with it.

 

[The Guru]

Such disrespect for me, unbelievable

I'd already said to you that Djokodal overtaking career numbers ain't itself the problem sad as it is, it's the growing lack of appreciation for Fedr's peak.

According to you. I appreciate Fedr's peak plenty. It's among the greatest peaks of all time. You think it stands in a class of it's own. I think that shows a lack of appreciation for Djokodal's peak among others.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Somehow, I don’t think these these posters believe they’re disrespecting other players. And I highly doubt that they intend to. If they are, then fire away by all means. But based on OP’s denials that he’s trying to disrespect other players, I think it’s fair to say that he doesn't mean to.

Nice point that may well be true. Wouldn't people who are disrespectful without realising it be the most difficult to deal with, though? (Sounds like a self-defeating argument??)

 

[ron schaap]

Such disrespect for Edberg, unbelievable

wel no but Edberg is a netrusher. each his strenght.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

According to you. I appreciate Fedr's peak plenty. It's among the greatest peaks of all time. You think it stands in a class of it's own. I think that shows a lack of appreciation for Djokodal's peak among others.

No it's not so much better as to be in a different class overall, can't be. A firm but modest difference in cumulative slam play. But indeed, when you said Djokovic might come close to peak Federer on grass/Wimbledon, of all surfaces/tournaments, that's just awful.

 

[The Guru]

No it's not so much better as to be in a different class overall, can't be. A firm but modest difference in cumulative slam play. But indeed, when you said Djokovic might come close to peak Federer on grass/Wimbledon, of all surfaces/tournaments, that's just awful.

I said that if peak Djokovic on grass played peak Fed on grass I'd expect him to get a win in 3 tries. I think there's a modest difference between Djokovic's slow hard peak and Fed's slow hard peak but I still think Fed would get a win in 3 tries. I don't think that's a particularly controversial opinion. I think the majority of the mainstream tennis analysts/journalists would agree with that. I just don't think the modest level gap and his matchup advantage means he would dominate peak Djokovic. That's hardly unreasonable. Djokovic is a 5 time Wimbledon champion after all. Also, I think Djokovic would have less of a matchup disadvantage against non-peak Fed because that match would be a lot more of the baseline play that Djokovic likes.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

wel no but Edberg is a netrusher. each his strenght.

He turned into a great defender when he felt he had to. Edberg's weakness was his suboptimal forehand technique making it prone to breaking down so he couldn't be consistently good at the baseline, but when FH worked decently Edberg's agility made him a tough customer in rallies too.

 

[Swingmaster]

Dolgopolov, among active players. Just trying to keep him in the conversation.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I said that if peak Djokovic on grass played peak Fed on grass I'd expect him to get a win in 3 tries. I think there's a modest difference between Djokovic's slow hard peak and Fed's slow hard peak but I still think Fed would get a win in 3 tries. I don't think that's a particularly controversial opinion. I think the majority of the mainstream tennis analysts/journalists would agree with that. I just don't think the modest level gap and his matchup advantage means he would dominate peak Djokovic. That's hardly unreasonable. Djokovic is a 5 time Wimbledon champion after all. Also, I think Djokovic would have less of a matchup disadvantage against non-peak Fed because that match would be a lot more of the baseline play that Djokovic likes.

How do you evaluate that? Prime to prime, comparing 2004-09 AO Federer to 2011-16 AO Djokovic, Federer should win once or twice (at least once when his peak 2004/07 version meets non-peak 2012-15 Djokovic). Comparing 2003-07 Wimberer to 2011-15 Wimbovic, can't see Djokovic winning unless it's 2015 vs 2004/07. Fed leads the serve-return complex on grass clearly, and Djok can't pin him to BH corner with Fed's superior grass movement and the deadly slice.

 

[JaoSousa]

Great List . I might switch some things around but overall a good footwork/speed list.