Holmes
Hall of Fame
Before some of our reactive friends endanger themselves note that we all know his forehand side forehand was great. The question is whether considering how his inside out is easily one of the 5 best in history, if his deuce court forehand is "just" a great shot. Didn't opponents avoid that side out of fear of the reputation the inside out had built? It seemed like when other great forehands were willing to go after that side, like Agassi and Novak (and yes, Novak's is great even if not ATG) they could draw errors or short balls especially if they got him off balance to his right. This pattern was especially visible in Fedovic matches from 2011 onwards. Even Nadal with his backhand succeeded in this way.
My personal opinion is that Sampras, Agassi, Del Potro, and Nadal all had better forehand side forehands than Roger. They had the kinds of forehands (Nadal to a lesser extent) that could break down the opponent's strength and crush the spirit, but not quite as good at exploiting the weakness as Roger. Roger's whole package, centering around the inside out, was better.
Do you think his deuce court forehand was relatively weak compared to not only his inside out, but the deuce court forehands of other great forehands? Why or why not?
My personal opinion is that Sampras, Agassi, Del Potro, and Nadal all had better forehand side forehands than Roger. They had the kinds of forehands (Nadal to a lesser extent) that could break down the opponent's strength and crush the spirit, but not quite as good at exploiting the weakness as Roger. Roger's whole package, centering around the inside out, was better.
Do you think his deuce court forehand was relatively weak compared to not only his inside out, but the deuce court forehands of other great forehands? Why or why not?
Last edited: