1. "This also reveals why Federer had difficulty against Nadal: as a righty with a single-hander, it was hard—too hard, usually—to flatten out his backhand off the Nadal forehand." Will this scenario be an issue for every right-handed one-handed backhand player because where Fed had this issue I don't remember Wawrinka, Blake or Thiem having this problem unless I recalled wrong and if so is this problem of flattening out Nadal's ultra heavy forehand at you towards his forehand always going to be a critical issue for a right-hand one-handed BH player? How could they combat this problem?.
2. Thanks to you and Matt Willis' "Sliderman" you recommended I have come to understand the prominence especially on the backhand side of sliding, recovering and just movement in general and how at it's extremes Novak's displays on his BH can be superlative. However Novak is a wielder of the two-handed backhand, is the stuff he does with his two-handed backhand both technique-wise and movement/recovery/sliding-wise possible to translate to a one-handed backhand? Is anyone doing or did what Novak does with his two-hander with their one-hander on the tour right now or back then and if not how would you direct such a person wishing to nuance their one-hander in such ways?
3. I know from your last piece and you mentioned it here that you are working on the topic of lag/lack thereof and I was wondering if in that piece you would cover the following. Why is it that even if you have a large crop of forehands following the "Ferris wheel" approach you get variations of why some do well on some court surfaces and some not??? Always surprised me after finding your thread and reading "the death of the forehand part 1" for the first time why someone like Wawrinka struggles on the grass but Federer not at all yet Wawrinka exploits the clay and hard courts so much better than Fed could (maybe not hard court but clay court definitely)?. Or why such a large "WTA style" takeback in the hands of Robin Soderling made so much damage on the clay despite a "large takeback" but a shorter compact swing like Fognini's is almost unheard of getting him to the semis or quarters (aside from his 2011 run) in Roland Garros?. Where is the line drawn where the "Ferris wheel" forehand stops becoming an aid with its more quieter swing and less moving parts and now a "personal deviation" is more of the factor that top dogs like Roddick or Sampras consistently made Wimbledon finals where Wawrinka hasn't made one Wimbledon final despite him having a devastating forehand and vice-versa with Roddick and Sampras not ever making Roland Garros final but Wawrinka winning one?. Are Djokovic and Agassi's forehands maybe the best in terms of surface versatility (slam wins on every surface/consistent threat on every surface all the time and not a one-time luck win like Federer Roland Garros 2009) and if so why if they all had the Ferris wheel forehand?.
1. Against high heavy topspin this will usually be an issue for 1HBH when trying to attack. I don't think Thiem/Wawrinka had much more success, but Blake's very aggressive court positioning and flatter backhand did hold up honourably against a very young Nadal.
2. Thiem at his best was starting to slide with open-stance backhands. Matt actually touches on that in his piece if you read it again. But certainly harder as a single-hander.
3. Death of a Forehand is just a theory; it is overly simplistic to say "this swing matches this court speed". other factors (like the rest of their game, what surface they grew up on etc.) play a large role in all this. Wawrinka, for example, grew up on clay, but so did Federer? What's the difference? Well we could look at their grips and see that Stan has more extreme grip changes, so he needs a little more time and bounce for ideal hitting. Additionally, Stan didn't use his slice or come forward as much which is effective on grass and also had an inferior serve. Those differences are huge. But I don't think Wawrinka was better on clay than Federer anyway (Federer made lots of finals at Roland Garros/Masters 1000. Wawrinka not so much).
It's too long for a comment here, but basically, it's complicated. Racquet setups, surface preferences, overall skill/talent level, athleticism etc. etc. All play huge roles. Yes I am zoid!
No doubt Hugh will offer analyses a thousand times more illuminating than what I'm about to say, but as far as The Fog goes...
"... shorter compact swing like Fognini's is almost unheard of getting him to the semis or quarters (aside from his 2011 run) in Roland Garros?"
I've seen enough of Fognini's match to answer this one with of course my opinion -- a player is more than the sum of his shots. Fabio can hit the tar off the ball and I've seen him plenty of times absolutely be in the zone and be able to beat anyone including the Big 3...for a set. (FYI, I just looked this up -- 0-4 against Fed, 0-8 against Djoker, 4-14 against Rafa. Against Fed he almost beat him in 2014, losing 7-6 (4) in the third. Against Novak he's won 2 sets, at Indian Wells and the Olympics.)
But then after winning that set with total authority, I've seen him make one poor shot choice after another...mind-bogglingly terrible choices. Which is why he's never gotten that far. But still, he got to #7 in the world and even has a Masters title (2019, Monte Carlo). Not a bad career at all. :)
I no doubt share the same sentiment that Fognini's forehand is an absolute sight to watch especially when he's "on". But this also then leads to the issue of him being on his game. His regulation forehand he must hit as a pro player week in week out, tournament to tournament, slam to slam sometimes leaves a lot to be desired at some points with his purple patch performances (Him vs Rafa USO 2015 for example) making us forget his slumps sometimes. What intrigues me about his forehand in particular is for his height and shorter limbs (to the more taller players) he does not produce a massive takeback needed for better pace generation yet he can absolutely crank the forehand and even his backhand likewise. He also quite weirdly seems to have his best slam runs at AUS/RG and US open, with one of the slams (French Open) where you have a bit more "borrowed time" due to the slower surface to unwind (Think Wawrinka, Soderling and Gonzalez) but he could not produce even better results on courts that on paper you'd think would pair so well with such a minimalist take back and swing on faster surfaces? (Wimbledon being the fastest and weirdly being his worst of his slam runs compared to the other 3 where he had made 4th round on all slams apart from Wimbledon). Really weird then comparing his FH to Del Potro who has a big unwind/takeback on his forehand and has better slam runs than Fognini on every slam even though some slams should cause that big takeback of his discomfort? Apparently not for Del Potro.
I do agree there is more to players than just one shot obviously but it's interesting to see this stereotype of "shorter swing/shorter tackback means less to undo" on a fast court stereotype being shattered with Del Potro who is the opposite in terms of what is recommended technical adjustments for the faster courts (Even Gonzalez and Soderling had better results if I recall correctly).
That's a very interesting observation indeed. Maybe his stroke is so short and violent that if his timing is just a little bit off, it causes more havoc than if you have a longer stroke? But then again, having a long stroke probably means you have more chances of something going wrong...
Maybe this is just tennis, vexing as always. It's why we love to play and watch. :)
I do think Fabio's mental aspects (and his temperament) do so much damage that no matter what kind of a stroke he has, he's doomed to failure against the elite of the elite.
One thing to keep in mind when looking at swings is the racquet: what is the balance and swingweight? You can almost get a sense of balance when watching by looking at how long their swing is and what kind of shots they can produce with short/long swings. Fognini's sticks have a balance around 337mm. a lot of weight in the head...this helps explain how so much power can come from a short swing. Go back to death of a forehand and observe racquet balances and then vizualize who has the long swings (shapovalov, evans, medvedev, gonzalez, del potro, etc.) and then check their racquet balance.
Good point. Shapovalov, Evans, Medvedev and Del Potro all have a common theme going on with their setups: 95 square inch heads, higher static weight to swing weight ratio and the balance is all between the 32.5cm - 30.0cm mark (5 - 10 points head light). Also when they were developing juniors they all used a form of the Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 whether they still use it under paint jobs or switched to another brand. (Could not find anything for Gonzalez his specs are a mystery until today.)
No, I would actually think if your stroke was longer (Ferris wheel technique) it usually tends to be smoother and quieter meaning a more predictable, well-timed stroke with less moving parts (less can go wrong). Longer strokes however are a bit problematic on faster courts due to the need to unwind to make the shot work predictably but the ball moves towards you quick so your prep time is cut short. But yes perhaps his more compact violent stroke might be of detriment when timing is wonky because you're speeding through the contact so you better make sure the target you have is wider or else you got an unpredictable launch off the string bed, then again that's if his timing is wonky. Yeah his mentality will always be his achilles heel on the bigger stages (like Safin, Rios, Kyrgios etc.).
Wondeful analysis as always and great conclusion to the series overall.
One question to make sure I understood this piece and other ones good. That comparison between Sampras’s, Fed’s and Novak’s footwork reminded me of Alcaraz’s movement between Roland Garros and Wimbledon. At the french (and on outdoor HC for now) from your piece he was looking closer to Fed’s and at Wimb way closer to Nole’s. Given the added moving part that constitutes his inverted head start that can make a cocktail for running FH errors but when he cleaned his footwork that’s when he put on his best performance from that side.
If so, given the fact Djokovic uses it on all courts and it’s becoming a norm, don’t you think Alcaraz would be able to make the change on all surfaces too? That would make his FH the perfect tradeoff and goat in the making imo. Perfect combination of lag and control (with his ferris wheel and extended wrist he already has a deadly combo as unlike shapo’s for example, he can attack and absorb relentlessly unless you REALLY stretch him).
Anyway, even with those small efficiencies (that + the setup on his backhand) I think it ain’t enough to consistently exploit as Wimbledon was a reminder imo. He has 4 great patterns.
PS: Also loved the addition of a meme to illustrate your point. As you said many times, the greats adapt.
I think Alcaraz will go down as having one of the all-time great forehands when all is said and done. Will be interesting to see how it evolves—footwork or otherwise—over the years.
Fantastic read Hugh. I was wondering would you have any recommendations for any books related to tennis technique and the mechanics involved? I'm a novice when it comes to tennis but I'm interested in learning more.
Hi Cameron, thanks for the kind words. Here are some I've read:
- Biomechanical Principles of Tennis Technique - by Duane Knudson
- Tennisplayer.net is a really great online resource with a lot of tennis footage, articles, biomechanical explanations. Well worth a month's subscription to read up on a lot of great content.
Interesting that you didn't touch on straight vs bent arm forehands in the big 3. Is it fair to say Novak's bent-arm forehand lends itself to being more of a shield?
Yeah perhaps that helps him have a little more margin in timing the ball. Federer often does hit with a bent arm also though. Rafa is the one who rarely hits with a bent arm, but he also has a deeper court position.
Hugh, awesome series and excellent piece to cap it off! Felt like a walk through time reading through and understanding the evolutions in movement. A couple questions if you will:
- On the point about how Djokovic starved Nadal of shots from the Deuce court, can elaborate on what exactly made Nadal so dangerous from that position?
- Is there anything to note from a technical perspective for hitting an effective “off” backhand?
Cannot wait to to see the piece on lag, keep them coming!
1) well most players are more dangerous from the inside-out position. They can generate more speed/spin with their forehand and when hit from the backhand corner, they can hit it crosscourt (i.e., over the low part of the net and the long part of the court) into the opponent's backhand now, so it helps a player dictate. They can usually change direction better with their forehand from this inside position compared to their backhand (easier to hit your forehand inside-in than to hit your backhand down the line).
2) I would think the "locked wrist" follow through I touched on in the Korda v Djokovic piece would be something that might help. Korda, Fritz, Djokovic, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc. tend to have this feature.
Can you really argue with a straight face that Sampras had a great forehand? It was flashy for sure, but it as a shot in isolation is leagues below the best as I see it. It's implausible that one of the best 4-5 serves ever with a GOAT level forehand was regularly getting bounced on clay. It's more that the relative weakness of the shot got exposed with longer point when he couldn't lean on his serve as I see it
Hard to tease apart clay performances and put it down purely to his forehand. If anything it was the backhand that was such a liability on clay; he couldn't hide it with the slice as well.
It's by no means any gospel of truth, but tennis abstract's "forehand potency" stat has Pete right up there.
The list for players with at least 100 of their matches statted:
That methodology seems extraordinarily arbitrary in how they score “potentcy” of the forehand. I agree his backhand was arguably below average, but I don’t get anyone pointing to his forehand as a standout shot. When he had to play longer points it seems like it was a shot often prone to breaking down. When he wasn’t serving great, he was vulnerable for to a lot more 2nd and 3rd tier players on clay trying to trade from the baseline. That’s inconsistent with having a truly transcendental forehand to me.
To me Sampras cobbled his game together in a rather odd way for an all time great. His extraordinary serve allowed him play less consistent in other areas. I see his FH hit height reel shots, but not one that really controlled the point the way great ones do.
Would love to see a column sometime about the notable technical “warts” in the games of some of the greats!
Hmmm, I just don't think you win 14 majors with just a serve and bits cobbled together. The forehand wasn't the most consistent, but that wasn't his style nor the style of the era. 90s was fast, natural gut tennis. Conditions varied a lot. On indoors and quick hard I'd say it was *the* best of that whole generation. Sure Agassi, Courier probably better on clay, but Pete's athleticism and ability on the run was stand-alone.
It's a hard stat to come up with when trying to assess groundstrokes, but I actually give the methodology some merit for getting a rough idea of how much "damage" (or potency, I guess) it is doing. This isn't to say potency means best, either. As I mention, there are no stats for consistency really, but anyway, how it is measured:
"It adds, roughly, one point for a winner and one half point for the shot before a winner, and subtracts one point for an unforced error."
Many past payers attribute it as one of the greats (Cahill, Kafelnikov, Gilbert):
Great analysis as usual, few questions.
1. "This also reveals why Federer had difficulty against Nadal: as a righty with a single-hander, it was hard—too hard, usually—to flatten out his backhand off the Nadal forehand." Will this scenario be an issue for every right-handed one-handed backhand player because where Fed had this issue I don't remember Wawrinka, Blake or Thiem having this problem unless I recalled wrong and if so is this problem of flattening out Nadal's ultra heavy forehand at you towards his forehand always going to be a critical issue for a right-hand one-handed BH player? How could they combat this problem?.
2. Thanks to you and Matt Willis' "Sliderman" you recommended I have come to understand the prominence especially on the backhand side of sliding, recovering and just movement in general and how at it's extremes Novak's displays on his BH can be superlative. However Novak is a wielder of the two-handed backhand, is the stuff he does with his two-handed backhand both technique-wise and movement/recovery/sliding-wise possible to translate to a one-handed backhand? Is anyone doing or did what Novak does with his two-hander with their one-hander on the tour right now or back then and if not how would you direct such a person wishing to nuance their one-hander in such ways?
3. I know from your last piece and you mentioned it here that you are working on the topic of lag/lack thereof and I was wondering if in that piece you would cover the following. Why is it that even if you have a large crop of forehands following the "Ferris wheel" approach you get variations of why some do well on some court surfaces and some not??? Always surprised me after finding your thread and reading "the death of the forehand part 1" for the first time why someone like Wawrinka struggles on the grass but Federer not at all yet Wawrinka exploits the clay and hard courts so much better than Fed could (maybe not hard court but clay court definitely)?. Or why such a large "WTA style" takeback in the hands of Robin Soderling made so much damage on the clay despite a "large takeback" but a shorter compact swing like Fognini's is almost unheard of getting him to the semis or quarters (aside from his 2011 run) in Roland Garros?. Where is the line drawn where the "Ferris wheel" forehand stops becoming an aid with its more quieter swing and less moving parts and now a "personal deviation" is more of the factor that top dogs like Roddick or Sampras consistently made Wimbledon finals where Wawrinka hasn't made one Wimbledon final despite him having a devastating forehand and vice-versa with Roddick and Sampras not ever making Roland Garros final but Wawrinka winning one?. Are Djokovic and Agassi's forehands maybe the best in terms of surface versatility (slam wins on every surface/consistent threat on every surface all the time and not a one-time luck win like Federer Roland Garros 2009) and if so why if they all had the Ferris wheel forehand?.
PS: Are you Zoid from Talk Tennis?.
1. Against high heavy topspin this will usually be an issue for 1HBH when trying to attack. I don't think Thiem/Wawrinka had much more success, but Blake's very aggressive court positioning and flatter backhand did hold up honourably against a very young Nadal.
2. Thiem at his best was starting to slide with open-stance backhands. Matt actually touches on that in his piece if you read it again. But certainly harder as a single-hander.
3. Death of a Forehand is just a theory; it is overly simplistic to say "this swing matches this court speed". other factors (like the rest of their game, what surface they grew up on etc.) play a large role in all this. Wawrinka, for example, grew up on clay, but so did Federer? What's the difference? Well we could look at their grips and see that Stan has more extreme grip changes, so he needs a little more time and bounce for ideal hitting. Additionally, Stan didn't use his slice or come forward as much which is effective on grass and also had an inferior serve. Those differences are huge. But I don't think Wawrinka was better on clay than Federer anyway (Federer made lots of finals at Roland Garros/Masters 1000. Wawrinka not so much).
It's too long for a comment here, but basically, it's complicated. Racquet setups, surface preferences, overall skill/talent level, athleticism etc. etc. All play huge roles. Yes I am zoid!
No doubt Hugh will offer analyses a thousand times more illuminating than what I'm about to say, but as far as The Fog goes...
"... shorter compact swing like Fognini's is almost unheard of getting him to the semis or quarters (aside from his 2011 run) in Roland Garros?"
I've seen enough of Fognini's match to answer this one with of course my opinion -- a player is more than the sum of his shots. Fabio can hit the tar off the ball and I've seen him plenty of times absolutely be in the zone and be able to beat anyone including the Big 3...for a set. (FYI, I just looked this up -- 0-4 against Fed, 0-8 against Djoker, 4-14 against Rafa. Against Fed he almost beat him in 2014, losing 7-6 (4) in the third. Against Novak he's won 2 sets, at Indian Wells and the Olympics.)
But then after winning that set with total authority, I've seen him make one poor shot choice after another...mind-bogglingly terrible choices. Which is why he's never gotten that far. But still, he got to #7 in the world and even has a Masters title (2019, Monte Carlo). Not a bad career at all. :)
I no doubt share the same sentiment that Fognini's forehand is an absolute sight to watch especially when he's "on". But this also then leads to the issue of him being on his game. His regulation forehand he must hit as a pro player week in week out, tournament to tournament, slam to slam sometimes leaves a lot to be desired at some points with his purple patch performances (Him vs Rafa USO 2015 for example) making us forget his slumps sometimes. What intrigues me about his forehand in particular is for his height and shorter limbs (to the more taller players) he does not produce a massive takeback needed for better pace generation yet he can absolutely crank the forehand and even his backhand likewise. He also quite weirdly seems to have his best slam runs at AUS/RG and US open, with one of the slams (French Open) where you have a bit more "borrowed time" due to the slower surface to unwind (Think Wawrinka, Soderling and Gonzalez) but he could not produce even better results on courts that on paper you'd think would pair so well with such a minimalist take back and swing on faster surfaces? (Wimbledon being the fastest and weirdly being his worst of his slam runs compared to the other 3 where he had made 4th round on all slams apart from Wimbledon). Really weird then comparing his FH to Del Potro who has a big unwind/takeback on his forehand and has better slam runs than Fognini on every slam even though some slams should cause that big takeback of his discomfort? Apparently not for Del Potro.
I do agree there is more to players than just one shot obviously but it's interesting to see this stereotype of "shorter swing/shorter tackback means less to undo" on a fast court stereotype being shattered with Del Potro who is the opposite in terms of what is recommended technical adjustments for the faster courts (Even Gonzalez and Soderling had better results if I recall correctly).
That's a very interesting observation indeed. Maybe his stroke is so short and violent that if his timing is just a little bit off, it causes more havoc than if you have a longer stroke? But then again, having a long stroke probably means you have more chances of something going wrong...
Maybe this is just tennis, vexing as always. It's why we love to play and watch. :)
I do think Fabio's mental aspects (and his temperament) do so much damage that no matter what kind of a stroke he has, he's doomed to failure against the elite of the elite.
One thing to keep in mind when looking at swings is the racquet: what is the balance and swingweight? You can almost get a sense of balance when watching by looking at how long their swing is and what kind of shots they can produce with short/long swings. Fognini's sticks have a balance around 337mm. a lot of weight in the head...this helps explain how so much power can come from a short swing. Go back to death of a forehand and observe racquet balances and then vizualize who has the long swings (shapovalov, evans, medvedev, gonzalez, del potro, etc.) and then check their racquet balance.
Good point. Shapovalov, Evans, Medvedev and Del Potro all have a common theme going on with their setups: 95 square inch heads, higher static weight to swing weight ratio and the balance is all between the 32.5cm - 30.0cm mark (5 - 10 points head light). Also when they were developing juniors they all used a form of the Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 whether they still use it under paint jobs or switched to another brand. (Could not find anything for Gonzalez his specs are a mystery until today.)
No, I would actually think if your stroke was longer (Ferris wheel technique) it usually tends to be smoother and quieter meaning a more predictable, well-timed stroke with less moving parts (less can go wrong). Longer strokes however are a bit problematic on faster courts due to the need to unwind to make the shot work predictably but the ball moves towards you quick so your prep time is cut short. But yes perhaps his more compact violent stroke might be of detriment when timing is wonky because you're speeding through the contact so you better make sure the target you have is wider or else you got an unpredictable launch off the string bed, then again that's if his timing is wonky. Yeah his mentality will always be his achilles heel on the bigger stages (like Safin, Rios, Kyrgios etc.).
Hi Hugh,
Wondeful analysis as always and great conclusion to the series overall.
One question to make sure I understood this piece and other ones good. That comparison between Sampras’s, Fed’s and Novak’s footwork reminded me of Alcaraz’s movement between Roland Garros and Wimbledon. At the french (and on outdoor HC for now) from your piece he was looking closer to Fed’s and at Wimb way closer to Nole’s. Given the added moving part that constitutes his inverted head start that can make a cocktail for running FH errors but when he cleaned his footwork that’s when he put on his best performance from that side.
If so, given the fact Djokovic uses it on all courts and it’s becoming a norm, don’t you think Alcaraz would be able to make the change on all surfaces too? That would make his FH the perfect tradeoff and goat in the making imo. Perfect combination of lag and control (with his ferris wheel and extended wrist he already has a deadly combo as unlike shapo’s for example, he can attack and absorb relentlessly unless you REALLY stretch him).
Anyway, even with those small efficiencies (that + the setup on his backhand) I think it ain’t enough to consistently exploit as Wimbledon was a reminder imo. He has 4 great patterns.
PS: Also loved the addition of a meme to illustrate your point. As you said many times, the greats adapt.
I think Alcaraz will go down as having one of the all-time great forehands when all is said and done. Will be interesting to see how it evolves—footwork or otherwise—over the years.
Fantastic read Hugh. I was wondering would you have any recommendations for any books related to tennis technique and the mechanics involved? I'm a novice when it comes to tennis but I'm interested in learning more.
Thanks!
Hi Cameron, thanks for the kind words. Here are some I've read:
- Biomechanical Principles of Tennis Technique - by Duane Knudson
- Tennisplayer.net is a really great online resource with a lot of tennis footage, articles, biomechanical explanations. Well worth a month's subscription to read up on a lot of great content.
- Technical Tennis: Racquets, Strings, Balls, Courts, Spin, and Bounce (more equipment physics).
Thank you!
Interesting that you didn't touch on straight vs bent arm forehands in the big 3. Is it fair to say Novak's bent-arm forehand lends itself to being more of a shield?
Yeah perhaps that helps him have a little more margin in timing the ball. Federer often does hit with a bent arm also though. Rafa is the one who rarely hits with a bent arm, but he also has a deeper court position.
Hugh, awesome series and excellent piece to cap it off! Felt like a walk through time reading through and understanding the evolutions in movement. A couple questions if you will:
- On the point about how Djokovic starved Nadal of shots from the Deuce court, can elaborate on what exactly made Nadal so dangerous from that position?
- Is there anything to note from a technical perspective for hitting an effective “off” backhand?
Cannot wait to to see the piece on lag, keep them coming!
1) well most players are more dangerous from the inside-out position. They can generate more speed/spin with their forehand and when hit from the backhand corner, they can hit it crosscourt (i.e., over the low part of the net and the long part of the court) into the opponent's backhand now, so it helps a player dictate. They can usually change direction better with their forehand from this inside position compared to their backhand (easier to hit your forehand inside-in than to hit your backhand down the line).
2) I would think the "locked wrist" follow through I touched on in the Korda v Djokovic piece would be something that might help. Korda, Fritz, Djokovic, Agassi, Kafelnikov etc. tend to have this feature.
https://hughclarke.substack.com/p/djokovic-v-korda-adelaide-final-analysis
Can you really argue with a straight face that Sampras had a great forehand? It was flashy for sure, but it as a shot in isolation is leagues below the best as I see it. It's implausible that one of the best 4-5 serves ever with a GOAT level forehand was regularly getting bounced on clay. It's more that the relative weakness of the shot got exposed with longer point when he couldn't lean on his serve as I see it
Hard to tease apart clay performances and put it down purely to his forehand. If anything it was the backhand that was such a liability on clay; he couldn't hide it with the slice as well.
It's by no means any gospel of truth, but tennis abstract's "forehand potency" stat has Pete right up there.
The list for players with at least 100 of their matches statted:
Rublev
Agassi
Gonzalez
Nadal
Ruud
del Potro
Sampras
Federer
https://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_rally_men_career.html
That methodology seems extraordinarily arbitrary in how they score “potentcy” of the forehand. I agree his backhand was arguably below average, but I don’t get anyone pointing to his forehand as a standout shot. When he had to play longer points it seems like it was a shot often prone to breaking down. When he wasn’t serving great, he was vulnerable for to a lot more 2nd and 3rd tier players on clay trying to trade from the baseline. That’s inconsistent with having a truly transcendental forehand to me.
To me Sampras cobbled his game together in a rather odd way for an all time great. His extraordinary serve allowed him play less consistent in other areas. I see his FH hit height reel shots, but not one that really controlled the point the way great ones do.
Would love to see a column sometime about the notable technical “warts” in the games of some of the greats!
Hmmm, I just don't think you win 14 majors with just a serve and bits cobbled together. The forehand wasn't the most consistent, but that wasn't his style nor the style of the era. 90s was fast, natural gut tennis. Conditions varied a lot. On indoors and quick hard I'd say it was *the* best of that whole generation. Sure Agassi, Courier probably better on clay, but Pete's athleticism and ability on the run was stand-alone.
It's a hard stat to come up with when trying to assess groundstrokes, but I actually give the methodology some merit for getting a rough idea of how much "damage" (or potency, I guess) it is doing. This isn't to say potency means best, either. As I mention, there are no stats for consistency really, but anyway, how it is measured:
"It adds, roughly, one point for a winner and one half point for the shot before a winner, and subtracts one point for an unforced error."
Many past payers attribute it as one of the greats (Cahill, Kafelnikov, Gilbert):
https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-nadal-federer-del-potro-big-list-contenders-brad-gilbert-andy-roddick-yevgeny-kafelnikov-discuss-biggest-forehands-all-time
But obviously there is no real answer, just opinions.