Who has the greatest forehand in tennis history?

Make your choice

  • Nadal

    Votes: 59 28.5%
  • Federer

    Votes: 108 52.2%
  • Sampras

    Votes: 6 2.9%
  • Delpo

    Votes: 14 6.8%
  • Gonzalez

    Votes: 7 3.4%
  • Any other

    Votes: 13 6.3%

  • Total voters
    207

NedStark

Professional
Federer's new FH with the bigger racquet was not the old FH, in that it lacked the power of the older one. But of course, the new racquet turned his game around, not just against Nadal, but just about against anyone else. Therefore, it showed that power was secondary to control.
Except that Federer started shanking the balls more after changing his FH. The old FH had more control AND power.
 

NedStark

Professional
Forehand type No.1 ranking:
1) Static FH:
- Inside out: Federer
- Inside in DTL: Federer
- Crosscourt on FH side: Sampras (agree with NonP here)
- DTL on FH side: Nadal

2) Running FH:
- Crosscourt: Sampras
- DTL: Nadal

3) Approach/Forecourt FH: Sampras, with Federer being the close second, only because Sampras DTL flat forehands suit net approaches better. OTOH, Federer made me scream multiple times with his crosscourt and especially I/O approaches.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Forehand type No.1 ranking:
1) Static FH:
- Inside out: Federer
- Inside in DTL: Federer
- Crosscourt on FH side: Sampras (agree with NonP here)
- DTL on FH side: Nadal

2) Running FH:
- Crosscourt: Sampras
- DTL: Nadal

3) Approach/Forecourt FH: Sampras, with Federer being the close second, only because Sampras DTL flat forehands suit net approaches better. OTOH, Federer made me scream multiple times with his crosscourt and especially I/O approaches.
Makes a lot of sense.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
True...

In the 90s most people never cared for Clay..... 1 wimbledon was more valuable than piling any number of french opens.

Clay became talked about after Rafael Nadal started piling slams and Federer so badly wanted to beat him there.
Not even at all lol. You make it sound like RG was treated like the AO prior to the mid-80’s. PETE himself went on record saying how he was working on trying to win it at least once.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Not even at all lol. You make it sound like RG was treated like the AO prior to the mid-80’s. PETE himself went on record saying how he was working on trying to win it at least once.

Pete for sure must have tried to win the 1 slam which he lacked but he would not have lost sleep over it, in that era a wimbledon was more precious than a US Open which was more precious than Clay which was more obviously worth more than AO. In 2000s all the slams became equal, the prestige of RG and AO improved with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic focussing on all the slams and winning these titles in plenty.
 

NedStark

Professional
Pete for sure must have tried to win the 1 slam which he lacked but he would not have lost sleep over it, in that era a wimbledon was more precious than a US Open which was more precious than Clay which was more obviously worth more than AO. In 2000s all the slams became equal, the prestige of RG and AO improved with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic focussing on all the slams.
Also, at Master level, those clay titles were clearly below the late-season indoor carpet events, especially 1990-1995 Paris Masters.

I mean, between say, Monte Carlo and say, Stockholm/Stuttgart Master, I would have chosen the latter if I was a non-clay specialist pro player.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Pete for sure must have tried to win the 1 slam which he lacked but he would not have lost sleep over it, in that era a wimbledon was more precious than a US Open which was more precious than Clay which was more obviously worth more than AO. In 2000s all the slams became equal, the prestige of RG and AO improved with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic focussing on all the slams and winning these titles in plenty.
It’s just his biggest regret in his career nbd.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Also, at Master level, those clay titles were clearly below the late-season indoor carpet events, especially 1990-1995 Paris Masters.

Yeah, carpets were an important surface, sadly they've removed it and done away with a lot of history. The players also say that those surfaces of those times were lighting fast but today it is lot slower, so we cannot even compare indoors of those times to what we have today, let alone wimbledon of the past to now, so much changes in 2000s.

It’s just his biggest regret in his career nbd.

He couldn't have won it. In that era the best players on Grass were bad on clay and vice versa too. Later 2000s onwards we had Fed and Nole making 4-5 finals at RG for fun losing to Rafa and also collecting Pete like wimbledon titles.... they've made a mockery of any court diversity that existed and probably even Pete looks like a fool for never having won RG...
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, carpets were an important surface, sadly they've removed it and done away with a lot of history. The players also say that those surfaces of those times were lighting fast but today it is lot slower, so we cannot even compare indoors of those times to what we have today, let alone wimbledon of the past to now, so much changes in 2000s.



He couldn't have won it. In that era the best players on Grass were bad on clay and vice versa too. Later in 2000s we had Fed and Nole making 4-5 finals at RG for fun losing to Rafa and also collecting Pete like wimbledon titles.... they've made a mockery of any court diversity that existed and probably even Pete looks like a fool for never having won RG...
He absolutely could have won it. Agassi pulled it off. Edberg and Courier made all 4 GS Fs. PETE was better than all those guys. NO EXCUSES! NUFF SAID!
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
He absolutely could have won it. Agassi pulled it off. Edberg and Courier made all 4 GS Fs. PETE was better than all those guys. NO EXCUSES! NUFF SAID!

Pete had stamina issues due to his blood disease ..... his ways of serve and volley did not work on Clay. I guess he didn't have any other option because of his fitness problems. Plus the 1990s had a few mini Nadals in the draw, individually they were beatable but if you had to beat 2 of them back to back or 3 of them then it would be a problem, at least for Pete.
 

Quaichang

Professional
My vote goes to Federer for its versality, its power and precision especially during his prime. He could do basically anything with it and it was a shot that worked on every single surface. Nadal & Delpo close behind.

Alcaraz can make it into the conversation with the players above... we'll have to see how his career pans out. Maybe Sinner will have a say in it eventually too?

As for Djokovic I find it hard placing him correctly. His forehand is incredibly consistent but lacks the magic of the very best ones imo.

A top 10 list below:

Need to add Lendl to the list.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Pete had stamina issues due to his blood disease ..... his ways of serve and volley did not work on Clay. I guess he didn't have any other option because of his fitness problems. Plus the 1990s had a few mini Nadals in the draw, individually they were beatable but if you had to beat 2 of them back to back or 3 of them then it would be a problem, at least for Pete.
PETE won plenty of lengthy matches that taxed his stamina that’s just an excuse. There was no one even remotely on RAFA’s level on clay back then lol. And it’s not like they were playing each other all in a row. Muster didn’t face Courier or Bruguera to win his lone title (he actually lost early more often than not and to S&Vers too). Bruguera and Courier played each other twice at RG. Once in the F in 93 and the SF in 94. Courier and Muster played 2x in 92-93 but Muster chronically underperformed there. Muster and Bruguera never played there. So it’s a myth that these guys were having to play each other over and over again or having to go multiple “mini Nadals” per title run.
 
Last edited:

NAS

Hall of Fame
I think I've only ever seen Nadal fans dismiss the serve as an important shot.
May be but I have never seen atg winning so much on every surface with such a bad serve, may be Connors but even he never dominated his peers like Rafa
 

RS

Bionic Poster
May be but I have never seen atg winning so much on every surface with such a bad serve, may be Connors but even he never dominated his peers like Rafa
I wasn't actually saying the serve wasn't important. You got my point though.

Obvious Fed is good few tiers ahead of Nadal when it comes to serving. Sure we all agree on this.
 

jl809

Legend
I think the peak of Nadal’s FH might be THE overall FH peak - something like 2010 or 2013 where it held up well indoors and could deal with being attacked CC at pace.

In 2013 he still had a mid serve and his footspeed had declined a bit, and yet he had that run on outdoor HC and clay where he barely got broken at all, and I think that was down to his FH being completely utterly ridiculous. He could rip it DTL or I/O with such ease in that year, plus he still had the mindbending passing shots

Having said that, the answer overall across career and surfaces is Federer’s by a mile, and Sampras’ is also up there with Nadal’s overall
 

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
this includes 2003-12 federer FH and 2017-onwards as well. even in 11, djokovic feared federer fh more than nadal fh looked like.
13/16 injury affected years don't factor in too much. a little bit down due to 14-15 FH yes.

I didn't like the Fed FH beyond 2013 as much as what came before. Still super effective but weaker than it used to be
Became a bit too "whippy" and lost some bite when he finished his swing over the shoulder - might have been injuries and slightly slower footspeed that forced him to move away from the windshield wiper motion that was prevalent in the peak years
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
I think the peak of Nadal’s FH might be THE overall FH peak - something like 2010 or 2013 where it held up well indoors and could deal with being attacked CC at pace.

In 2013 he still had a mid serve and his footspeed had declined a bit, and yet he had that run on outdoor HC and clay where he barely got broken at all, and I think that was down to his FH being completely utterly ridiculous. He could rip it DTL or I/O with such ease in that year, plus he still had the mindbending passing shots

Having said that, the answer overall across career and surfaces is Federer’s by a mile, and Sampras’ is also up there with Nadal’s overall
2010 was fantastic, slams WTF the year he changed his strings i think. Apart from these 2 year 2012 was great from AO to whole clay season it's just cut short.
 

SonnyT

Legend
Except that Federer started shanking the balls more after changing his FH. The old FH had more control AND power.
Federer started shanking FH's way before switching racquets. But the new racquet didn't have power of the old one. I guessed one of his coaches had the idea of switching.

The BH/FH combo worked much better with new racquet. Evidence: Fed overcame his Nadal ax.
 

NedStark

Professional
PETE won plenty of lengthy matches that taxed his stamina that’s just an excuse. There was no one even remotely on RAFA’s level on clay back then lol. And it’s not like they were playing each other all in a row. Muster didn’t face Courier or Bruguera to win his lone title (he actually lost early more often than not and to S&Vers too). Bruguera and Courier played each other twice at RG. Once in the F in 93 and the SF in 94. Courier and Muster played 2x in 92-93 but Muster chronically underperformed there. Muster and Bruguera never played there. So it’s a myth that these guys were having to play each other over and over again or having to go multiple “mini Nadals” per title run.
Pete definitely had to play a few of them, specifically Bruguera and Courier, in his deepest run.

And don’t forget that clay was *slower* during the 1990s.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
Pancho Segura, for sure should be on the list at least. For decades his two-handed FH was considered by many the best shot in the history of the game.

Tilden.
Vines.
Perry.
Budge.
Borg.
Lendl.
Safin.
 
Last edited:

NedStark

Professional
Federer started shanking FH's way before switching racquets. But the new racquet didn't have power of the old one. I guessed one of his coaches had the idea of switching.

The BH/FH combo worked much better with new racquet. Evidence: Fed overcame his Nadal ax.
Federer actually started changing his FH mechanic before changing his racquet, hence shanking began to happen, but he did not really try to half-volley his FHs until after racquet change.

The new racquet, on the contrary, had too much power, so Federer no longer felt comfortable swinging through the ball - hence the move towards half-volleying his FHs.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
Tbf Nalby would go to Fed’s FH to then get to his BH. Once Fed’s BH improved this was harder to do ofc. And Delpo famously out dueled Fed FH to FH in the USO 09 F. He could be hurt when forced to run to his FH side.

Juan Martin out slugged Federer a few times, and vice versa. About half their matches were pure FH power battles. USO 09, the Basel Matches over the years, the ATP Finals matches, IW 18. It could reach the level of an Ali-Frazier analogy for slugfest, save that fortunately they did not cause each other permanent, major physical damage.
 

GAS

Hall of Fame
Imagine thinking that Sampras had a better FH than Agassi or Lendl...

By far this is one of the worst threads I've ever read here.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Pete definitely had to play a few of them, specifically Bruguera and Courier, in his deepest run.

And don’t forget that clay was *slower* during the 1990s.
I’m talking about the guys who were actually good on clay. The “Big 3” on clay in the 90’s: Courier, Bruguera, and Muster aka the “mini Nadals” barely played against each other at RG. It wasn’t like they were all slugging it out at the same time making their draws tougher in the process. The 90’s clay field was basically a revolving door of guys who peaked for a year or two, but their peaks hardly overlapped. Besides, PETE lost to the first “mini Nadal” he ran into in 93-94. And in 96 both Courier and Bruguera were past their best days, especially Sergi who tore 2 ligaments in his right ankle in late 95. Clay played slower because poly wasn’t as wide spread back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS

FlyingSaucer

Semi-Pro
Juan Martin out slugged Federer a few times, and vice versa. About half their matches were pure FH power battles. USO 09, the Basel Matches over the years, the ATP Finals matches, IW 18. It could reach the level of an Ali-Frazier analogy for slugfest, save that fortunately they did not cause each other permanent, major physical damage.
Fed on his match-up with JMDP:

"We both know what the other is trying to do and we try to stop the other person from doing it... so it's basically like an arm wrestle the whole time and I think we enjoy that."
 
Pancho Segura, for sure should be on the list at least. For decades his two-handed FH was considered by many the best shot in the history of the game.

Tilden.
Vines.
Perry.
Budge.
Emerson.
Borg.
Lendl.
Safin.
not sure that Safin would ever belong on one of these lists (now if it was a backhand list, he could certainly have a case) - don't trust his motion and it leaked too many errors

also surprised by the Emerson inclusion - i've always heard the forehand conversation start and end with Newcombe for Australians around that time period, and i've also heard and felt that Emerson's backhand was solid while his forehand was iffy
Fernando, I assume?
yep
Clay played slower because poly wasn’t as wide spread back then.
a bit more favorable to net play than modern clay for the same reason!
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
also surprised by the Emerson inclusion

Yeah. I was thinking of his forehand volley - which is something different. My mistake, his FH groundstroke not that noteworthy. I don't think his backhand was anything special, either. But, in truth, I only have one full Emerson match in my DVD collection - 1967 AO Final vs Ashe. Maybe there are a couple more around or online.His serve is quirky, staccato. He is 31-years old in this match and runs like a gazelle, after an 83-game semifinal (and probably several pitchers of beer in the interim). He presses to the net constantly and perfect on the volley.

I edit the previous post, removing Emerson
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
and it leaked too many errors

You're right. It was also lethal as a FH could be. Was it too erratic to be included? I'll stick with it.
i've always heard the forehand conversation start and end with Newcombe for Australians

Lew Hoad. He had all the shots for sure. Probably a better FH than Newcombe. Aussies - Hewitt is close to be worthy of consideration. And, for that matter, for pure stroke equipment, Gentleman Jack had one of the great forehands.
 

Smecz

Professional
My list:
Nadal- The Best Top Spin Forehand(the most rpm and huge damage)
Federer-The Best Flat Forehand(clean,sharp and power)
Gonzalez-The Best powerful Forehand(big hitter)
Sampras- The Best Running Forehand(his business card)
Delpotro-The Best Crushing Balls Forehand
(crushing and finishing balls)

The rest:
Bjorn Borg-Creation Modern Forehand
Ivan Lend-The Atomic Bomb Forehand
Gael Monfils-The Best Tricks Forehand
Carlos Alcaraz-The Best Fire Forehand
Fernando Verdasco-The Best Suprised Shot Forehand
Grigor Dimitrov-The Best Fitness Forehand

And a lot of old school players like Rod Laver,John Mcenroe,Roy Emerson,Jack Kramer,Ilie Nastase,Bill Tilden,Lew Hoad,Pancho Gonzalez,who had a great forehand,but I won't write about them because the post would be too long.. :D
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I didn't like the Fed FH beyond 2013 as much as what came before. Still super effective but weaker than it used to be
Became a bit too "whippy" and lost some bite when he finished his swing over the shoulder - might have been injuries and slightly slower footspeed that forced him to move away from the windshield wiper motion that was prevalent in the peak years

I liked the 17-early 18 FH. more than the BH, the FH change from 14-15 helped fed IMO.
it did become more whippy after that.
 

mahatma

Hall of Fame
When more than 50% of shots played are forehands by 90% pros - it's the most important shot.

For some top 10 pros who have a very average backhand, forehand is the key to success. Be it players like Berretini, Del Potro, Roddick. Purely Forehands a lot more players enter conversation.

Most of the players in the list are ATGs with quite good backhand as well. So probably for a good forehand we need to look in a longer list
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
When more than 50% of shots played are forehands by 90% pros - it's the most important shot.

For some top 10 pros who have a very average backhand, forehand is the key to success. Be it players like Berretini, Del Potro, Roddick. Purely Forehands a lot more players enter conversation.

Most of the players in the list are ATGs with quite good backhand as well. So probably for a good forehand we need to look in a longer list
I agree to some extent.

If we take example of Djokovic, because of his backhand, he is centrally placed and is far less dependent on forehand to hit non attackable shots. He can still defend easily on his forehand due to being centrally placed..

While someone like Tsitsipas has to go the extra mile to be so devastating on his forehand that opponents won't be able to push him to that wing.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I’d say the same if we were choose a moment in time (ie peak Fed).

Over the course of their entire careers though, I’d say Nadal.

Del Potro if you go by three or four points in a 10 minute highlights video.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I’m talking about the guys who were actually good on clay. The “Big 3” on clay in the 90’s: Courier, Bruguera, and Muster aka the “mini Nadals” barely played against each other at RG. It wasn’t like they were all slugging it out at the same time making their draws tougher in the process. The 90’s clay field was basically a revolving door of guys who peaked for a year or two, but their peaks hardly overlapped. Besides, PETE lost to the first “mini Nadal” he ran into in 93-94. And in 96 both Courier and Bruguera were past their best days, especially Sergi who tore 2 ligaments in his right ankle in late 95. Clay played slower because poly wasn’t as wide spread back then.
Nadal would beat them much easier than he beat Fedovic not only is he miles better but he has the equipment advantage too.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I’d say the same if we were choose a moment in time (ie peak Fed).

Over the course of their entire careers though, I’d say Nadal.

Del Potro if you go by three or four points in a 10 minute highlights video.
Hard call for careers, as late as 2017 I would say Federer's forehand looked the better shot for HC/grass. On aggregate maybe you could say Nadal's better overall because it was just that good on clay. Federer's forehand seemed to decline pretty heavily with his movement in a way that Nadal's didn't. What are your thoughts on that?
 
Top