AngryBirds
Semi-Pro
Putting a James Blake above Sampras loses all credibility, although I doubt that there is any credibility in the first place.
Top Ten...Forehands (all-time)
- Thread starter captainbryce
- Start date
Bender
G.O.A.T.
The issue isn't that it's a top ten candidate. It could get there by the time he retires. The issue is that it's ranked above Nadal's. That and whether it is so surely a top ten when he hasn't been around that long OR achieved that much with it, injury or no injury.
I can't put it in the top ten so comfortably for now based on a handful of notable performances. This is supposed to be a Top Ten ALL TIME list, not a Top Ten Single Peak Performance list. And whilst I'm not comparing Nadal's injuries to Delpo's, that has absolutely no bearing with how I'm approaching this. Both of them had injuries that took them out of the game. Said time-offs affect their claim to certain accomplishments regardless of the difference in their injuries and severity. I don't give credit to Nadal for having an ATG year-to-year consistency when he doesn't, just because I think he could have but for injury. At best it's a 'what-if'. So assuming Delpo continues the path he's been going and injures some body part or another in every other tournament and ultimately amounts to nothing more than what he already is now--why then should I assume so quickly that Delpo's FH will be an easy top ten all time just because he had notable injuries throughout his career? What that'd be doing is taking his peak level and extrapolating that he would have performed the same way if he were healthy, but we know that it's easy to peak once in a while (e.g. Wawrinka), but very tough to even have a high-level FH clicking day in, day out.
If Roddick got injured in 2004 and 2005 and never recovered, many of us will be here arguing that his FH was on track to be one of the greatest all time. Knowing what actually happened, some of us would no longer make that claim, even if his old FH was around for long enough and did enough with it in that time to warrant being in this top ten. We could still use that same 'what if' line of thinking to put him near the top if we so choose ('what if he never changed his fh') as well. Kyrgios has an awesome booming FH too but it's not considered stupid to not have him up there for now. Same goes for Gonzalez or Blake, unless you're OP apparently.
So Delpo's FH could be a top ten contender, but he hasn't achieved nearly enough or played enough to be an obvious pick. It's likely that it'd be indisputably a top ten FH if he weren't injured so often, but that's still a hypothetical. There are too many ATGs with amazing FHs for me to put a one-slam, no-masters, glass cannon player with a handful of incredible FH appearances into an all-time top ten list instead, on the basis of what 'could have been'. We can do that if Delpo goes on a tear shortly or after he retires.
Last edited:
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
oh you're talking about the list posted in OP? Don't sweat too much about that, it's a joke besides #1
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah but with Delpo whenever he has been healthy 09, 12/13, and now, his FH has been a consistent weapon and the main reason for the success he has had, which has been quite considerable considering all he has overcome. It's not a few matches here and there, it's been a consistent force whenever he's been healthy.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
I think if we include the likes of Borg, Lendl, and Roddick, and then female players as well, we don't have nearly enough space to include someone like Delpo, at least not yet. He's met considerable success all things considered, but as stated before there are players who would be in that list even without taking into account extenuating circumstances. So it doesn't quite make sense to take them out just to put Delpo in.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
It's underrated, but saying it's as good as Federer's or Nadal's is overrating it, and by a lot.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
How can any female player be on a top 10 list? Besides maybe Navratilova's volleys or Graf's slice.
And I got all those guys besides Roddick, who you could sneak in at #10 anyways instead of Gonzo. Of course I didn't include pre-open era players.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
I've got...
- Federer
- Nadal
- Borg
- Sampras
- Lendl
- Djokovic
- Agassi
- Courier
- Roddick
- Becker / Safin / Delpo
abmk
Bionic Poster
Bender
G.O.A.T.
From around number 4 onwards, the order is generally pretty flexible to me.
abmk
Bionic Poster
in reality it isn't. djoko is borderline top 10 at best. Agassi and Courier forehands are simply clearly superior ..
Lendl is also quite clearly superior to sampras fh wise. Similar on fast surfaces, lendl better on slow hard and considerably better on clay ..
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic's FH isn't borderline top ten. It's a boring shot and I don't like it much either, but it's a definite modest top ten contender. He can hit some insane angles off that wing, and takes the ball very early as well. Also great depth control. Agassi hit the ball just as early if not earlier and on faster surfaces as well, but he hit the ball a lot flatter, which reduces the angles he could create risk free, not to mention Djokovic's defence with his FH is nothing to scoff at either.
I will concede your point about Lendl's FH though, since I completely forgot how useless Sampras' FH was on clay. I only thought about the running FH and general offensive capabilities he had on that wing.
abmk
Bionic Poster
agassi's was more offensive, more of a kill shot than djokovic's and more reliable than djokovic's , which has broken down quite a few times. Also agassi took it earlier than djokovic clearly. He could create insane angles with his fh as well ...
as the commentator says, "how do you get an angle from there "?
djokovic's is borderline top 10 at best IMO behind those of federer, lendl, nadal, agassi, courier, borg, sampras, delpo, gonzo,moya
thank you !
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
You think Moya had a clearly better forehand than Ferrero?
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'd give the edge to Moya, thought not by a big amount. Atleast ferrero had a pretty good BH.
AngryBirds
Semi-Pro
Ferrero deserves a mention. It's a pity that he just disappeared from 2004 onward. He was strong off both wings and very fast, too. The guy should have won more slams if he just didn't disappear.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Ferrero was really coming into his own before he became injured at the beginning of 2004. One of the many casualties of Federer's generation.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
Ferrero was "good enough" everywhere for a clay courter, but I don't think Top Ten all time good at anything. Except maybe movement. When he was at his peak, that was his real strength.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
I think the idea that Lendl and Sampras had FH's that were "similar on fast courts" grotesquely undersells Sampras's. Pete's had nothing like the consistency of Lendl's, but it wasn't designed to. It wasn't designed as a rally stroke, per se. But nonetheless, was designed and implemented in such a way that it was almost as critical to his fast court success as his serve was. The difference was just in the way he used it.
Pete's was a FH designed to go for winners on fast courts. And he used it to bludgeon opponents. While his serve and net game made him perilously hard to crack when he served, his go-for-broke Howitzer FH made it almost impossible to hold every game in a set against him on courts that wouldn't let a big eastern FH sit up after the bounce.
It's not a strategy that gets used any more (since fast courts are extinct), or appreciated by newer viewers, since the idea of inconsistency as a weapon seems patently absurd in world of Djokovics and Murrays. But Pete's results on fast courts (7 Wimbledons in the fast court era) and medium courts (5 U.S. Opens) speak for themselves.
The US in particular (when it was still a little faster than it is today) was an excellent showcase for all kinds of strategies. Clay courters like Wilander, power baseliners like Lendl, and flat out attackers like Pete could all gain traction there. But on true fast courts, Lendl and his array of weapons never even broke through once. Doesn't mean he was inept there -- he was very good at Wimbledon. But he certainly wasn't great. And we're comparing him to the greatest fast court player of all time, and a guy whose FH was a devastating weapon on that surface.
I'd say Pete's FH was as much bigger a weapon on fast courts than Lendl's, as Lend's was over Pete's on clay. On medium, they had pretty even results.
Pete, of course, had a little more success overall than Lendl did on each of their preferred surfaces. But then, Lendl's forehand was a much bigger percentage of his overall arsenal.
I'd call it a push, all in all.
No doubt at all that Lendl's would look better on today's tour, however.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
For obvious reasons!
Nope! Same reason no Wawrinka, Roddick, Courier, etc. And that's based on the question of: "If I could pick a forehand to have borrowed from any professional player, who would I pick". I'd pick those ten before considering Djokovic (even though Djokovic has a good forehand).
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Because....HE IS!
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Strongly disagree, but I appreciate your opinion. I actually think Murray has one of the worst forehands among top ten players.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I once did a thread about the greatest returners ever and I forgot Agassi!! Lol!Because....HE IS!
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oops, my apologies.Because....HE IS!
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Probably because I haven't seen him play enough
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
I strongly considered him for the 9th or 10th spot
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Opinions that are criticisms without context are worthless. Produce an alternative list and justify it with a reasoned argument. Or provide specific criticisms of the choices made. But telling me that it's terrible on its own just means you disagree and aren't willing to elaborate why.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
"Flashy" isn't the same as "Good"For obvious reasons!
Nope! Same reason no Wawrinka, Roddick, Courier, etc. And that's based on the question of: "If I could pick a forehand to have borrowed from any professional player, who would I pick". I'd pick those ten before considering Djokovic (even though Djokovic has a good forehand).
Djokovic's forehand is a big reason why he has 12 Slams and a bunch of guys on your list don't. He would win most forehand to forehand exchanges against guys like Kyrgios and Sock
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
No. I'm old enough to know a d-bag when I read comments from one though
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
wut ?
Lendl was great on the fast indoor courts -- 5 Year Ending Championships, 9 finals in a row. and even other events on fast indoor courts.
Him not winning at wimbledon didn't have much to do with Fh not being very good there. Had to do with returning issues ( more so BH), lack of that finesse, not being the finest mover or finest volleyer etc ...
Last edited:
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Good riddance. We like open discussion here, where everyone is entitled to an opinion; not attitudes of superiority.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Not necessary (as I'm already quite familiar with it). Learn how to actually debate a topic before offering criticism if you want to be taken seriously in the future.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
I could. But I'm not going to.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
I agree. But would you have considered it top ten?
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Probably somewhere on your list (if you ever produced one).
And players like Ashe and McEnroe introduced big serving to the game. But neither of them would be considered the greatest server of all time (or even in the top ten).
See...everyone is entitled to an opinion...no matter how ridiculous they sound.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Can't compare women to men. Well, suppose you technically could, but I choose not to.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
I wasn't debating. I was just pointing out your idiocy.Not necessary (as I'm already quite familiar with it). Learn how to actually debate a topic before offering criticism if you want to be taken seriously in the future.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
If I may say you should have quoted the whole message, rather than the headline part of it, as the justification I provided was omitted.
no but hs 2003 forehand would be very close, top 20 for sure
Last edited:
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Any list without Lendl is a clear joke. Just as the Djoker fans are a joke weighing in on this issue. He isn't in the top 20 of great FH's of the game and never will be or remotely close to being. His BH and ROS are ATG shots, content yourselves with that and that is HUGE.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm a dirtbag because I asked how old you were when you left out legends of the game Borg and Lendl for greatest forehands and instead put on the list players like the incredible legends of the game James Blake, Nick Kyrgios, Robin Soderling and Jack Sock instead?
Go jump buddy. Don't blame other people if you don't know much about tennis history.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
If you can't reply without childish insults, then this probably isn't the place for you. There are teen forums out there which may be more commensurate to your level of maturity. Just do a quick google search!
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Your opinion is noted (and summarily dismissed). Having a different OPINION than yourself doesn't address one's credibility (unless of course you're an egotistical d-bag). The fact of the matter is, this is a question of which stroke is rather have as a tennis player. And I honestly believe that Blake has a better forehead technique (marginally), and capable of forcing more errors and hitting more winners from a mid court position than Sampras. Sampras has a better forehand on the run and a solid cross court as well. But Blake has a better cross court and inside out in my opinion.
PS instead of stating how much you disagree (in the most douchy way possible), why don't you actually make a point and support it with a reasoned argument. Or just find another thread (one that you agree with 100%) so that you can engage in a mutual masturbation session with the op.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Apology accepted.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
YES!
This isn't a popularity contest or a legends rankings. It is an opinion based discussion of ONE stroke technique between all players. Perhaps you should have actually read the title of the thread FIRST before deciding that "legendary status" might have been a relevant criteria.
Don't make up red-herrings arguments because you ignorantly assumed the thread was about something other than what it was. For the record, I'm well aware that Borg and Lendl were considered to have great forehands for their day. But when it comes to physicality and technology, the greatest forehands from the 80s would get crushed by average forehands from the 2010s. And in a forehand to forehand rally, I honestly believe that Blake would hit more winners and force more errors against either Borg or Lendl. You disagreeing with my opinion doesn't mean that I am ignorant of tennis history, it just means that you are incapable of using logic and reason to argue a different point.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
In this case, yes it does.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
Hell, forget about historical context for a minute. Even if you accept the premise that modern power baseline tennis is about nothing but serves and forehands, you still can't justify having a third of your list being comprised of guys who've never made it out of the quarters of any slam in their careers. If your biggest weapon never works better than that, it's not that big a weapon.
Lendl had one big weapon, and he made it to 19 slam finals.
Lendl had one big weapon, and he made it to 19 slam finals.
