Which shot of his is better?

[6-3 6-0]

Talking about Federer, which shot has been better throughout his career - His serve or his forehand?

After watching today's match, its obvious that his serve is much underrated for a guy who is 6'1.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

His serve has stayed with him, while his forehand has regressed over time. I'm gonna say his serve..

Serves aren't always about power either, although he does have plenty of it. He just knows exactly where to place his serve as well, which makes it extremely deadly on all surfaces..

 

[Russeljones]

The serve, easily. It's his 'get out of jail' card. The forehand has suffered a lot from his loss of mobility. When I say loss of mobility, I mean that floating movement that enabled him to execute inside-out forehands at will vs everyone and anyone. With age, his serve can remain a dependable tool, while the forehand, while still one of the best in the business, just won't give him as many easy points.

 

[SpinToWin]

His serve is his more dependable shot, so I would go for that, though earlier in his career his serve had to catch up to the level of his forehand.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

The serve, easily. It's his 'get out of jail' card. The forehand has suffered a lot from his loss of mobility. When I say loss of mobility, I mean that floating movement that enabled him to execute inside-out forehands at will vs everyone and anyone. With age, his serve can remain a dependable tool, while the forehand, while still one of the best in the business, just won't give him as many easy points.

I heard Murray being interviewed after he beat Fed at the Aussie in 13. He was asked whether Federer was declining and he said no. His reasoning was that his serve was still fully on and that the serve was usually the first thing to go. That at least was Murray's two cents at the time.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

His serve has stayed with him, while his forehand has regressed over time.

are you suggesting his forehand is a bandwagoner ?

 

[Russeljones]

I heard Murray being interviewed after he beat Fed at the Aussie in 13. He was asked whether Federer was declining and he said no. His reasoning was that his serve was still fully on and that the serve was usually the first thing to go. That at least was Murray's two cents at the time.

Of course, he wanted it to seem like he had defeated a very good Federer in his first reverse of fortunes vs the great man in a Slam. The whole world saw what Federer's level was in 2013.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Of course, he wanted it to seem like he had defeated a very good Federer in his first reverse of fortunes vs the great man in a Slam. The whole world saw what Federer's level was in 2013.

It's an observation about the serve, not any need to read much more into it...