Who has the best forehand-backhand combination in history?

Who has the best forehand-backhand combination in history?

  • Connors

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Borg

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Lendl

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Agassi

    Votes: 24 23.1%

  • Federer

    Votes: 9 8.7%

  • Nadal

    Votes: 13 12.5%

  • Djokovic

    Votes: 39 37.5%

  • Wawrinka

    Votes: 4 3.8%

  • Sinner

    Votes: 10 9.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Total voters
    104
Winner Sinner

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
I say Djokovic but Sinner going forward could have the best combination in history in the two fundamentals from the baseline.
 
jm1972 said:
Not Sinner.
Click to expand...
GXCIw2oXQAAvJk8
 
As usual, distinctions should be made, because obviously the two fundamentals also include manual strokes and not just baseline dribbling.

If it's pure baseline dribbling, for me Djokovic is still untouchable.

If we also take into account weapons such as forehand or backhand slices, the ability to generate a short ball, the same net play, but also the same response, in short the whole repertoire that the two fundamentals can guarantee, then it's clear that players like Federer and Nadal, or even Alcaraz himself, also come into play.

However, I was referring more to baseline shots, and here if Agassi was the heir of Lendl, Djokovic the heir of Agassi himself, Sinner is the heir of Djokovic.

PS
Wawrinka on days of maximum inspiration in the two baseline fundamentals was unattainable.
The George Foreman of tennis for baseline brutality.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Going with Agassi but he has not played in this era of heavy topspin. When he played Fed, he was still staying on baseline and dictating.

Today it's more difficult.
Click to expand...
Limiting ourselves to groundstrokes, given that Djokovic is almost unanimously recognized as having the best backhand in history, Agassi must have a significant advantage over Djokovic in the combination.
Do you think he had it?
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Going with Agassi but he has not played in this era of heavy topspin. When he played Fed, he was still staying on baseline and dictating.

Today it's more difficult.
Click to expand...

No. Because agassi dictated points from the return. I don't think djokovic does. Djok has a great return in terms of being good in both departments of defensive and aggressive returns, but agassi put his stock in offensive returns.

Imo it's djokovic, agassi and safin. None of them had technical weaknesses.

But djokovic has to win this because his movement was the best out of the three and his movement allowed him to be great from everywhere.
 
Winner Sinner said:
Limiting ourselves to groundstrokes, given that Djokovic is almost unanimously recognized as having the best backhand in history, Agassi must have a significant advantage over Djokovic in the combination.
Do you think he had it?
Click to expand...
Djokovic backhand may not be the best in history if Agassi has best combo and I am fine with that.

Djokovic backhand though had to go against Nadal and other crazy topspin shots that Andre rarely would need to handle. His stats do not back him to have best backhand ever. He has best defensive backhand for sure. Andre would stay on the baseline and take the ball early on both wings.
Forehand I go with Djokovic no doubt. He is far better on clay than Andre. Thanks to his forehand.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Djokovic backhand may not be the best in history if Agassi has best combo and I am fine with that.

Djokovic backhand though had to go against Nadal and other crazy topspin shots that Andre rarely would need to handle. His stats do not back him to have best backhand ever. He has best defensive backhand for sure. Andre would stay on the baseline and take the ball early on both wings.
Forehand I go with Djokovic no doubt. He is far better on clay than Andre. Thanks to his forehand.
Click to expand...

I am correct. Agassi, djokovic and safin are equal from the wings. But djokovic has the movement which allows him to be better from everywhere
 
MasterSlice74 said:
Prime Wawrinka hit through prime Djokovic from the baseline at grand slams multiple times. His groundstrokes were a battering ram
Click to expand...
Wawrinka FH is very heavy, just like Thiem/Berrettini.
they all can average 80+ mph on clay with huge spin.

Clayrinka deserves respect. Outside when rushed, nope.
 
Tennis abstract has a forehand and backhand potency stat which looks at the number of fh/bh points won by match or every 100 shots. Agassi and Borg were the clear winners if you combine them both.
 
Raz11 said:
Tennis abstract has a forehand and backhand potency stat which looks at the number of fh/bh points won by match or every 100 shots. Agassi and Borg were the clear winners if you combine them both.
Click to expand...
"Forehand potency" and "backhand potency" are subjectively determined criteria that are completely irrelevant to actual official match results. People who are claiming that andre agassi has the "best" forehand/backhand combination are completely wrong because even pete sampras himself as a serve-volleyer could consistently defeat andre agassi at his own baseline game. The only two possible best answers to who has the best forehand/backhand combination ever are either rafael nadal or novak djokovic the GOAT given they have had the most career success with baseline-oriented games. Now between rafael nadal and novak djokovic the GOAT, one must choose rafael nadal as the GOAT of baselining with the best forehand/backhand combination ever because NO ONE wins FOURTEEN roland garros titles without being the best from the baseline and if you take away the serve advantage from novak djokovic, then rafael nadal would have the edge against novak djokovic in pure baseline battles across all surfaces on average.
 
Total bs above

This is like saying fed could beat nadal from baseline. Of course some of the time he could. But fed game revolved around huge +1 forehand and early advantage. Pete even more so.
 
Tennis Devolution said:
"Forehand potency" and "backhand potency" are subjectively determined criteria that are completely irrelevant to actual official match results. People who are claiming that andre agassi has the "best" forehand/backhand combination are completely wrong because even pete sampras himself as a serve-volleyer could consistently defeat andre agassi at his own baseline game. The only two possible best answers to who has the best forehand/backhand combination ever are either rafael nadal or novak djokovic the GOAT given they have had the most career success with baseline-oriented games. Now between rafael nadal and novak djokovic the GOAT, one must choose rafael nadal as the GOAT of baselining with the best forehand/backhand combination ever because NO ONE wins FOURTEEN roland garros titles without being the best from the baseline and if you take away the serve advantage from novak djokovic, then rafael nadal would have the edge against novak djokovic in pure baseline battles across all surfaces on average.
Click to expand...
No
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Total bs above

This is like saying fed could beat nadal from baseline. Of course some of the time he could. But fed game revolved around huge +1 forehand and early advantage. Pete even more so.
Click to expand...

I actually think Pete would fayre better from the baseline against Nadal than Federer. Sampras was a tactical genius. He would know his FH is bigger and aim to dominate with that. Of course Nadal will have other ideas, but Sampras can hang from the baseline. His other game is what he specialised in.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Total bs above

This is like saying fed could beat nadal from baseline. Of course some of the time he could. But fed game revolved around huge +1 forehand and early advantage. Pete even more so.
Click to expand...
LOL the only complete total BS is the one you always spout. Andre agassi could not even consistently handle a SERVE-VOLLEYER like pete sampras from the baseline even when pete sampras was retuning andre agassi's serve so the idea of andre agassi who only won a mere eight grand slams as having the "best" baseline capabilites is completely wrong and beyond absurd. Rafael nadal has had the most success out of anyone in history on baseline-oriented surfaces since NO ONE can argue against FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS titles!
 
Last edited:
Winner Sinner said:
Limiting ourselves to groundstrokes, given that Djokovic is almost unanimously recognized as having the best backhand in history, Agassi must have a significant advantage over Djokovic in the combination.
Do you think he had it?
Click to expand...
Andre agassi as absolutely NO advantage in any stroke when compared to Novak Djokovic which is exactly why andre agassi won only eight grand slams and novak djokovic the GOAT on the other hand won TWENTY-FOUR GRAND SLAMS!
 
Tennis Devolution said:
Andre agassi as absolutely NO advantage in any stroke when compared to Novak Djokovic which is exactly why andre agassi won only eight grand slams and novak djokovic the GOAT on the other hand won TWENTY-FOUR GRAND SLAMS!
Click to expand...

yes, actually, agassi does.


Agassi is 5"8. This little guy played the game big. He hit the cover off the ball, was the best offensive returner ever (only Blake comes close but he was inconsistent AF and Nalbandian was too busy dunking for doughnuts). He absolutely has a claim to have the best strokes about. I have taken meth and all the drugs under the sun - I can tell you now it does nothing positive for the body. Agassi not only abused his body, but his withstood time and was hanging with the best at 34/35. That is unreal. He never had a big serve or an all-round game. What he did have, was strong core strength, and an unreal FH/BH.


It's only until you play tennis you realise how good Agassi was with being able to hit as hard as he could off any given ball from the baseline. It's only until you branch out into other sports where you realise height is a major factor. I will always rate Agassi and Hewitt for being able to accomplish what they did due to their inferior height.


Agassi only won 8 slams (lol), yes, but he won all four slams when the surfaces played radically different. Completely different. Anyone who thinks Federer, Nadal or Djokovic's collection of slams is just as impressive is truly mentally gone from life and should retreat to a retirement home. The only achievement which rivals Agassi's 4 slams since, is Djokovic holding all four slams just for the sake of winning all four slams.


If you ask me, Agassi's career grand slam is the most impressive achievement I have seen. I don't think people realise how different the slams played and the threats that were around on each different surface, not to mention the guy was a meth head for part of his life.


The only people who truly respect are people who have either played tennis or combat sports to notice how height makes a massive difference. Agassi was 35, and was going toe to toe with Federer at the US Open in his absolute prime.

Some virgin birth defect slugd!ick on the internet cannot change my opinion on this.
 
Donkus_Reborn said:
yes, actually, agassi does.


Agassi is 5"8. This little guy played the game big. He hit the cover off the ball, was the best offensive returner ever (only Blake comes close but he was inconsistent AF and Nalbandian was too busy dunking for doughnuts). He absolutely has a claim to have the best strokes about. I have taken meth and all the drugs under the sun - I can tell you now it does nothing positive for the body. Agassi not only abused his body, but his withstood time and was hanging with the best at 34/35. That is unreal. He never had a big serve or an all-round game. What he did have, was strong core strength, and an unreal FH/BH.


It's only until you play tennis you realise how good Agassi was with being able to hit as hard as he could off any given ball from the baseline. It's only until you branch out into other sports where you realise height is a major factor. I will always rate Agassi and Hewitt for being able to accomplish what they did due to their inferior height.


Agassi only won 8 slams (lol), yes, but he won all four slams when the surfaces played radically different. Completely different. Anyone who thinks Federer, Nadal or Djokovic's collection of slams is just as impressive is truly mentally gone from life and should retreat to a retirement home. The only achievement which rivals Agassi's 4 slams since, is Djokovic holding all four slams just for the sake of winning all four slams.


If you ask me, Agassi's career grand slam is the most impressive achievement I have seen. I don't think people realise how different the slams played and the threats that were around on each different surface, not to mention the guy was a meth head for part of his life.


The only people who truly respect are people who have either played tennis or combat sports to notice how height makes a massive difference. Agassi was 35, and was going toe to toe with Federer at the US Open in his absolute prime.

Some virgin birth defect slugd!ick on the internet cannot change my opinion on this.
Click to expand...
Another complete load of completely argumentless delusional irrational nonsensical BS excuses from you as expected. Yes, no completely delusional irrational argumentless nonsensical virgin internet troll like yourself and anyone else can argue against the OFFICIAL MATHEMATICAL RESULT of FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES for Rafael Nadal so Rafael Nadal is the GOAT of baselining with novak djokovic coming in as a close second, CASE CLOSED!
 
Tennis Devolution said:
Another complete load of completely argumentless delusional irrational nonsense BS from you as expected. Yes, no completely delusional irrational argumentless nonsensical virgin internet troll like yourself and anyone else can argue against the OFFICIAL MATHEMATICAL RESULT of FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS titles for Rafael Nadal so rafael nadal is the GOAT of baselining with novak djokovic coming in as a close second, CASE CLOSED!
Click to expand...

I've given you rational reasons why Agassi is in contention - he dominated the baseline being 5"8 with a weaker serve and weaker movement than Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. What do you not understand about this?


there is no correlation between baseline play and clay court success. Otherwise Wawrinka is just as good of a baseliner as Agassi. Lol.
 
Donkus_Reborn said:
I've given you rational reasons why Agassi is in contention - he dominated the baseline being 5"8 with a weaker serve and weaker movement than Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. What do you not understand about this?


there is no correlation between baseline play and clay court success. Otherwise Wawrinka is just as good of a baseliner as Agassi. Lol.
Click to expand...
LOL completely wrong again as expected, wawrinka is obviously most potent as a baseliner so that is why wawrinka thrived the most on clay out of all other surfaces but obviously andre agassi won more slams on baseline-oriented surfaces than wawrinka so agassi is obviously still the better baseliner compared to wawrinka. Also, andre agassi could not even dominate a SERVE-VOLLEYER like pete sampras from the baseline so completely falsely asserting that andre agassi in his wildest dreams could go toe to toe from just the baseline with rafael nadal the winner of FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES is completely WRONG and ABSURD. You clearly have not played tennis enough because the baseline battle is the MOST IMPORTANT on clay out of all surfaces because there are much less cheap points won directly by just the serve DUH. Once again, you or anyone else CANNOT argue against the official mathematical result of the FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES of rafael nadal which is NO FLUKE and makes Rafael Nadal the GOAT of baselining!
 
Last edited:
Tennis Devolution said:
LOL completely wrong again as expected, wawrinka is obviously most potent as a baseliner so that is why wawrinka thrived the most on clay out of all other surfaces but obviously andre agassi won more slams on baseline-oriented surfaces than wawrinka so agassi is obviously still the better baseliner compared to wawrinka. Also, andre agassi could not even dominate a SERVE-VOLLEYER like pete sampras from the baseline so completely falsely asserting that andre agassi in his wildest dreams could go toe to toe from just the baseline with rafael nadal the winner of FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES is completely WRONG and ABSURD. You clearly have not played tennis enough because the baseline battle is the MOST IMPORTANT on clay out of all surfaces because there are much less cheap points won directly by just the serve DUH. Once again, you or anyone else CANNOT argue against the official mathematical result of the FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES of rafael nadal which is NO FLUKE and makes Rafael Nadal the GOAT of baselining!
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me that only the FO is a barometer of baseline play? Are you trying to tell me that AO, W and US Open is not won by baseline tennis in the modern game?

Agassi won all four slams, 8 in total, from the baseline. He wasn't Borg who changed his game according to the surface. Agassi won on all surfaces - slow, fast, low bouncing, high bouncing playing the same style.

Wawrinka has no transition from defence to offence. He cannot take the ball early on the defence from the BH side. Agassi did. No matter what anyone gave him, he would give it back.

Wawrinka didn't thrive most on clay than other surfaces, he has two slams on hard and one slam on clay. Agassi couldn't dominate Sampras because 70% of the time the surface favoured Sampras.


We are talking strokes. Agassi at 5"8 was going toe to toe with the best players who ever lived (minus Djokovic) on all four surfaces and still won all four slams when they played radically different. I don't see how people are getting offended by this. Agassi's career grand slam is the most impressive considering he played one style of play, across surfaces that played completely different, being at a disadvantage at 5"8, whilst wrecking his body with meth. It's a no brainer.
 
Donkus_Reborn said:
I actually think Pete would fayre better from the baseline against Nadal than Federer. Sampras was a tactical genius. He would know his FH is bigger and aim to dominate with that. Of course Nadal will have other ideas, but Sampras can hang from the baseline. His other game is what he specialised in.
Click to expand...
For no reason should you believe that.
 
Tennis Devolution said:
LOL the only complete total BS is the one you always spout. Andre agassi could not even consistently handle a SERVE-VOLLEYER like pete sampras from the baseline even when pete sampras was retuning andre agassi's serve so the idea of andre agassi who only won a mere eight grand slams as having the "best" baseline capabilites is completely wrong and beyond absurd. Rafael nadal has had the most success out of anyone in history on baseline-oriented surfaces since NO ONE can argue against FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS titles!
Click to expand...
How many times did Pete beat Andre on clay or even ao.

Playing 50+% of serve points at the net should easily remove any claim that old goat can even hang with the best players for longer duration.

He holding his own for some times is not enough at all.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
For no reason should you believe that.
Click to expand...

you misunderstand me.

I'm not saying Sampras should be better from the baseline against Nadal than Federer. I am saying Sampras would be more self aware and he would go for it on the forehand more than Federer.

You see how roddick beat nadal at Miami 2010. he went for it from the baseline - the forehand. personally, i think Roddick's BH is actually better than Sampras', but Sampras has the better FH. He would understand he cannot craft points and angles like Nalbandian against Nadal, and he would be aware he would need to rip forehands in baseline exchanges. I'm not saying his baseline game is better than Fed's - it's not, but it's certainly less exploitable when you factor in you are returning Sampras' serve.

Federer does not have the power Sampras had from the baseline. Trust me, Sampras was tactically far superior to Federer.


Federer should be better than Sampras from the baseline against Nadal, but Federer took ages to figure out Nadal. I'm not making this up. Sampras' limitations are are help rather than a hindrance. Federer had too many options he sometimes didn't know what to do and I'll tell you what, at W06, 07 and 08 he played scared against Nadal. I've recently watched all of those matches. Nadal was nothing special. Sampras would have wiped Nadal out in straights at W06, wiped out in 4 at 07, and straights in 08. Nadal was not a special player on grass, Federer was just playing scared and had some kind of PTSD.

We saw it with Djokovic at W11, Djokovic manned up and dealt with him. Easy work.

Sampras was breaking the serves of Goran and others (he rarely needed tiebreaks to win sets), he's perfectly capable on slow grass of breaking Nadal.
 
Donkus_Reborn said:
Are you trying to tell me that only the FO is a barometer of baseline play? Are you trying to tell me that AO, W and US Open is not won by baseline tennis in the modern game?

Agassi won all four slams, 8 in total, from the baseline. He wasn't Borg who changed his game according to the surface. Agassi won on all surfaces - slow, fast, low bouncing, high bouncing playing the same style.

Wawrinka has no transition from defence to offence. He cannot take the ball early on the defence from the BH side. Agassi did. No matter what anyone gave him, he would give it back.

Wawrinka didn't thrive most on clay than other surfaces, he has two slams on hard and one slam on clay. Agassi couldn't dominate Sampras because 70% of the time the surface favoured Sampras.


We are talking strokes. Agassi at 5"8 was going toe to toe with the best players who ever lived (minus Djokovic) on all four surfaces and still won all four slams when they played radically different. I don't see how people are getting offended by this. Agassi's career grand slam is the most impressive considering he played one style of play, across surfaces that played completely different, being at a disadvantage at 5"8, whilst wrecking his body with meth. It's a no brainer.
Click to expand...
LOL once again you are completely WRONG as expected and no amount of completely nonsensical excuses that you make for little andre agassi like "buh buh buh agassi was short and slow and did meth and won when surfaces were less different" can counter the mathematical fact that rafael nadal the GOAT of baselining won FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS freaking titles. Once again, roland garros is the greatest determiner of baseline capability out of all the four slams with wimbledon being the least determiner of baseline capability because clay is the surface where the serve has the LEAST IMPACT out of all surfaces which makes baselining ability on clay the MOST IMPORTANT out of all surfaces. Once again, rafael nadal won all four slams TWICE with his GOAT baseline game which andre agassi could NEVER DO. Once again, andre agassi could not even consistently baseline better than A SERVE-VOLLEYER like pete sampras because andre agassi simply was NOT a good enough baseliner to outcompete even pete sampras the SERVE-VOLLEYER from the baseline so andre agassi has ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE against rafael nadal on the baseline who once again is the winner of FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS titles and never ever lost against andre agassi. I never said stanislas wawrinka had a better baseline game because I literally said andre agassi had a better baseline game than stanislas wawrinka since andre agassi has more hard court grand slam titles than wawrinka. Wawrinka himself said his best surface was clay and two out of the four grand slams finals that wawrinka played in were at just ROLAND GARROS which is the MOST out of any grand slam that wawrinka played in. The fact that wawrinka only won grand slams titles on hard and clay and never won a grand slam title on grass further proves the fact that baselining is MOST IMPORTANT on clay and hard compared to grass. Once again, since we are talking about baselining ability with the forehand and backhand, it is a complete NO-BRAINER that Rafael Nadal is the GOAT of baselining with the best forehand/backhand combination ever with novak djokovic coming in as a close second and anyone who thinks otherwise is mathematically and objectively COMPLETELY WRONG.
 
Tennis Devolution said:
LOL once again you are completely WRONG as expected and no amount of completely nonsensical excuses that you make for little andre agassi like "buh buh buh agassi was short and slow and did meth and won when surfaces were less different" can counter the mathematical fact that rafael nadal the GOAT of baselining won FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS freaking titles. Once again, roland garros is the greatest determiner of baseline capability out of all the four slams with wimbledon being the least determiner of baseline capability because clay is the surface where the serve has the LEAST IMPACT out of all surfaces which makes baselining ability on clay the MOST IMPORTANT out of all surfaces. Once again, rafael nadal won all four slams TWICE with his GOAT baseline game unlike andre agassi. Once again, andre agassi could not even consistently baseline better than A SERVE-VOLLEYER like pete sampras because andre agassi simply was NOT a good enough baseliner to outcompete even pete sampras the SERVE-VOLLEYER from the baseline so andre agassi has ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE against rafael nadal on the baseline who once again is the winner of FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS titles and never ever lost against andre agassi. I never said stanislas wawrinka had a better baseline game because I literally said andre agassi had a better baseline game than stanislas wawrinka since andre agassi has more hard court grand slam titles than wawrinka. Wawrinka himself said his best surface was clay and two out of the four grand slams finals that wawrinka played in were at just ROLAND GARROS which is the MOST out of any grand slam that wawrinka played in. The fact that wawrinka only won grand slams titles on hard and clay and never won a grand slam title on grass further proves the fact that baselining is MOST IMPORTANT on clay and hard compared to grass. Once again, since we are talking about baselining ability with the forehand and backhand, it is a complete NO-BRAINER that Rafael Nadal is the GOAT of baselining with the best forehand/backhand combination ever with novak djokovic coming in as a close second and anyone who thinks otherwise is mathematically and objectively COMPLETELY WRONG.
Click to expand...
Did Donald Trump write this?
 
nolefam_2024 said:
How many times did Pete beat Andre on clay or even ao.

Playing 50+% of serve points at the net should easily remove any claim that old goat can even hang with the best players for longer duration.

He holding his own for some times is not enough at all.
Click to expand...
Pete sampras won seven grand slam titles off of grass just like andre agassi and has the dominant head-to-head against andre agassi. Now andre agassi won a grand slam title on clay whereas pete sampras did not but the fact that andre agassi could not even win more baseline-oriented slams than pete sampras THE SERVE-VOLLEYER mathematically and objectively means andre agassi has ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE from the baseline against rafael nadal the winner of fricking FOURTEEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES who is the GOAT baseliner!
 
Tennis Devolution said:
Once again, rafael nadal won all four slams TWICE with his GOAT baseline game which andre agassi could NEVER DO. .
Click to expand...

Once again, Agassi won all four slams when the surfaces were completely different and played completely different. Normally, to compete on all four slams you would need to tailor your game. Agassi said no to that and his game held up. these are facts I submit to you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Best Lost Gen Player Combination
Replies
3
Views
293
Deleted member 307496
D
Aabye5
Sinner's forehand - the sweet sound of success
Replies
22
Views
693
Alcawrath
Alcawrath
N
Carlos weighs in on who is the best in history
2 3
Replies
125
Views
3K
messiahrobins
M
T
Which pro has the heaviest topspin two-handed backhand?
Replies
41
Views
7K
Ehh
E
NadalandFedererfan
  • Poll Poll
2nd best forehand in mens tennis today
2
Replies
65
Views
5K
127mph
1
Back
Top