These are the three categories so far: Discuss

Greatest Shots in Tennis History


Last Modified: 12/11/2007 12:06:08 AM Adjust Font Size:
Printer-Friendly
Email


The Serve: Pete Sampras



What are the greatest shots in tennis history? We pick out the game’s most fearsome weapons stroke by stroke, concentrating on the Open Era (since 1968).

By Joel Drucker

Part I: The Serve

Final Pick
Pete Sampras

Shortlist
Pete Sampras
Goran Ivanisevic
Pancho Gonzalez
Roscoe Tanner
John McEnroe
John Newcombe
Jack Kramer
Ellsworth Vines
Bill Tilden

Venus Williams
Steffi Graf
Serena Williams
Brenda Schultz-McCarthy
Martina Navratilova
Margaret Court
Althea Gibson

Contemporary Picks
Ivo Karlovic
John Isner
Andy Roddick
— TENNIS.com

The Pete Sampras serve. Deadly, fast, accurate, versatile – the leading weapon that opened up a superb arsenal. And best of all, reliable.
Recreational players rarely ace one another, so there is a tendency to discount the profound impact of an ace. But to be a pro on Andre Agassi’s level and find yourself unable to even touch the ball on a big point – that is exceptionally demoralizing. As Sampras once said, “I love getting out there and stepping on the gas.” Let others open the match with a few groundstrokes. Sampras favored the 126 mph ace straight down the T – a lead-off home run that let the opponent know it was only the start of a relentless assault. His second serve was also the most feared on the circuit, so opponents had little respite even when he missed his first delivery.

Certainly there have been other serves rivaling Sampras. Though they couldn’t back it up as effectively, southpaws like Goran Ivanisevic and Roscoe Tanner could strike every corner. Though he couldn’t hit it as hard, John McEnroe’s lefty delivery was terrifying.

Other champions such as John Newcombe, Pancho Gonzales and Jack Kramer were powerful and accurate too, particularly when the chips were down. Way back in the early ‘30s, there was Ellsworth Vines, a man whose motion was quite similar to Sampras’. And one of Bill Tilden’s many strengths was a first-rate serve.

Recently, a new breed of giants like Ivo Karlovic and John Isner have begun carving their own legends with this stroke – though not with much else. Andy Roddick's record-setting delivery is the current bar at the top of the men's game.

But with apologies to all, none consistently sent down such high-quality serves as Sampras. Bless the hearts of Vines and Tilden, but they were often playing the club president in the first round and Biff from Yale in the second. Well into the ‘80s, most backhand returns were chipped rather than ripped. For all the talk about power serves over the last two decades, it turned out to be the service return that revolutionized the court, everything from the two-handed backhand to slower courts and heavier balls tipping the odds more in the receiver’s direction.

Little of that fazed Sampras. Under the guidance of his coach, Pete Fischer, he built an exemplary motion, a fully-coordinated lucid blend of legs, hips, shoulders and arms that was magnificently relaxed, well-disguised and powerful. No one nicked more corners with a serve than Sampras. Given all his accomplishments, the Sampras serve might well be the most single devastating shot in tennis history.

Joel Drucker is a contributing editor at TENNIS magazine. The author is grateful for the assistance of many experts and former pros, including Brent Abel, John Barrett, Steve Flink, Mary Carillo, Trey Waltke, Chris Lewis, John Newcombe, Owen Davidson, Fred

The Return of Serve: Jimmy Connors


What are the greatest shots in tennis history? We pick out the game’s most fearsome weapons stroke by stroke, concentrating on the Open Era (since 1968).

By Joel Drucker

Part II: The Return of Serve


Final Pick
Jimmy Connors

Shortlist
Andre Agassi
Lleyton Hewitt
Roger Federer

Monica Seles
Lindsay Davenport
Martina Hingis

Contemporary Picks
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Lleyton Hewitt
David Ferrer
David Nalbandian
Jonas Bjorkman
Marat Safin

Lindsay Davenport
Serena Williams
— TENNIS.com

Lest the server think holding the balls and stepping up to serve is the best way to take control of a point, imagine serving to Monica Seles. Tempting as it is to call her double-handed return risky, ramming hard, deep, forceful returns was second nature to her. Rarely content to merely get the ball in play, Seles instead treated a great many serves as short balls. After all, the serve was bouncing short of the service line, so why not pounce on it? That mindset makes Seles owner of one of the game's finest returns of serve.

But even in relative terms, there have been far more big servers in the men’s game. So how to evaluate the best returners? Andre Agassi could punish a weak second serve off both sides like no other man. In today’s game, Lleyton Hewitt and Roger Federer are excellent at spitting rough deliveries back. But then again, these two know they are rarely playing the kind of volleyers who can take advantage of floating returns.

And so the award for best return goes to Jimmy Connors. He had built his game around the counterattack, on flinging back the aggression of netrushers – and doing so on fast surfaces. Connors not only denied tons of aces, he shot the ball back like a laser often for a winner and just about always down low in ways that would make life quite tough for the netrushers of his day. If not as punishing in commencing a baseline rally as Agassi, Connors’ spitback rate was significantly higher. What also made Connors’ return intimidating was the threat of forward movement. An incoming netrusher would know that once Connors got the return down, he was likely charging forward, possibly to take the first volley out of the air or step in and drill a passing shot. The doubt planted by Connors’ insistent opportunism only made it that much more dreadful to serve to him.

Joel Drucker is a contributing editor at TENNIS magazine. The author is grateful for the assistance of many experts and former pros, including Brent Abel, John Barrett, Steve Flink, Mary Carillo, Trey Waltke, Chris Lewis, John Newcombe, Owen Davidson, Fred Stolle and Brian Gottfried.

The Forehand: Roger Federer


What are the greatest shots in tennis history? We pick out the game’s most fearsome weapons stroke by stroke, concentrating on the Open Era (since 1968).

By Joel Drucker

Part III: The Forehand



Final Pick
Roger Federer

Shortlist
Roger Federer
Pete Sampras
Ivan Lendl
Andre Agassi
John Newcombe
Jack Kramer
Fred Perry

Steffi Graf



Contemporary Picks
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Andy Roddick
Fernando Gonzalez

Justine Henin
Ana Ivanovic
Sania Mirza
— TENNIS.com

Next to the serve, no shot is more terminal than the forehand – i.e., no single shot is best-poised to end a point more emphatically than a forehand. With increasing frequency since the days of Ivan Lendl, the big forehand has replaced the first volley as a primary offensive shot.

And no one has done more to demonstrate everything you’d ever want in a forehand than Roger Federer. In one sense, his forehand is utterly 21st century. Taking full advantage of his string mix of Luxilon and gut, Federer’s drive is lively, heavy, deep and just about always struck on his terms.

When pressed in a baseline rally, he can roll the ball with enough topspin for margin – and attain impressive depth. Should an opponent dare come to net against Federer’s forehand, his preparation is so good it seems that he always has the widest possible range of options. And at the other end, lay one in short – and the point is over, Federer able to flatten it out, or lace it with topspin, the ball exceptionally heavy and often unreturnable. Though perfectly content to drive his share of backhands, he is wise at using his backhand – such as when he slices it and forces opponents into awkward positions – to set up his forehand.
But as contemporary as Federer’s forehand is, it’s also a remarkable amalgamation of many great forehands from prior years – from the powerful topspin of Andre Agassi to the crackling penetration of Pete Sampras, or back to the forceful discipline of John Newcombe, the opportunism of Jack Kramer and even the flexibility of Fred Perry.

Able to change his grip to adjust with bounces – even when forced able to slice the old-school squash shot with underspin – Federer’s mechanics are at once austere and elegant. His head is always balanced, his eyes tracking the ball keenly, his feet rarely out of position. As any recreational player knows, the forehand’s very range of options make it easy to become lax. Never is this the case with Federer.

The best women's forehand surely belonged to Steffi Graf – often terminal like Federer, usually struck with offense in mind and quite adept at whipping boldly from comprised court positions.

Joel Drucker is a contributing editor at TENNIS magazine. The author is grateful for the assistance of many experts and former pros, including Brent Abel, John Barrett, Steve Flink, Mary Carillo, Trey Waltke, Chris Lewis, John Newcombe, Owen Davidson, Fred Stolle and Brian Gottf


The other categories to come over the next days

http://www.tennis.com/index.aspx

I agree with Sampras serve although i think Federer should have been on the shortlist.

They should keep women's seperate where Serena would win for serve.

Jimmy Connors was of course a great returner but I still think Agassi was better and Serena for the womans.

Forehand Federer is spot on IMO although why they added Henin and Mirza on that list I do not know. Not many woman have reat forehands....Graf would win obviously, Ivanovic then Lindsay probably.

Nope, I disagree with those. Big names does not automatcally translate in best shots.

We know who has the best serve and he does not even make the short list. Only in the contemporary picks?!?! (what a feable way of dismissing the real best serve of all time thus far). When one comes up with stats like Karlo has over the last 3/4 years, there is no much point arguing the "best serve" ever. he has it. Now if the writers meant the best servers amongst multiple slam winners, then, yes, Sampras would have a good shot at it. But this is not what he talks about as far as I could read.

Returners Connors? Don't get me started with this one. Yes at the time he was known to be a good returner but since then many have raised the bar a few yards up. He struggled with McEnroe, Borg and Lendl serves. I would say again, Federer is probably the one that sees the ball better than anyone out there and his record against the best servers in the world simply puts him in contention in this department.

Forehand? What is Agassi doing in this short list? Why isn't Nadal's there?

This is again an American view of tennis but not really an objective one it seems.

Tenez, I think what they are talking about is the greatest shots in history, as opposed to the best technical shots in history.

I've seen Ivo's serve close up at Wimbledon and Roddick's serve close up at Queens. Roddick's serves register at faster speeds but Ivo's serves are really incredible and heavy, even the spectators at the back on court 13 trying to avoid the missiles coming their way, I was one of them initially before I got a seat.

But what these guys are talking about is doing it under pressure. We don't know how Ivo's serve will hold up in the semifinal of either a Grand Slam tournament or even the semi final of Key Biscayne because he's never in these scenarios.

I remember Sampras hitting a second serve ace on the line to win the 2nd set in the 1995 US Open final. Hitting a second serve ace at matchpoint in the 1999 Wimbledon final. Saving those 3 break points in a row at 3:3 in the Wimbledon final with 3 first serves and changing the whole course of the match. That's what they are talking about, doing it with the whole world watching you in a pressure moment, not how technically good Karlovic's serve is.

Jimmy Connors? I heard he was good, I have no arguments. I wonder if Edberg or McEnroe will win the volley category, backhand category will be interesting too.

Agree with Federer Williams, it would have been nice if the women had their own categories.

The Backhand: Ken Rosewall


What are the greatest shots in tennis history? We pick out the game’s most fearsome weapons stroke by stroke, concentrating on the Open Era (since 1968).

By Joel Drucker

Part IV: The Backhand



Final Pick
Ken Rosewall

Shortlist
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Jimmy Connors
Andre Agassi
Tony Trabert
Don Budge
Bill Tilden

Chris Evert
Evonne Goolagong
Gabriela Sabatini
Justine Henin
Serena Williams
Martina Hingis



Contemporary Picks
Roger Federer
David Nalbandian
Richard Gasquet
Mikhail Youzhny
Andrei Pavel
Gustavo Kuerten
Gaston Gaudio
Marat Safin

Justine Henin
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Jelena Jankovic

Dare not impose the same demands on the backhand as a forehand. A forehand can end a point, but a backhand is almost always less about closure and more about creation.
Say hello to the diminutive man dubbed “Muscles,” Australian legend Ken Rosewall. His was a backhand of incomparable elegance and precision. The contemporary rap on Rosewall’s backhand is that it was a slice, lacking the dipping topspin of his rival Rod Laver or the penetrating flatness of Jimmy Connors’ superb drive.

But Rosewall’s backhand was no cut, no chop, no drifting hack like the kind we see at parks and clubs all over the world. His racket face was opened barely a scintilla, giving him just enough safety and, worst of all for his opponents, an extraordinary degree of bite and accuracy. So keenly prepared was Rosewall that against the game’s biggest servers he was able to let the ball come well into his hitting zone and then lash the ball sharply enough to compromise both netrushers and baseliners. Most deadly of all, in the true spirit of what a backhand should do, Rosewall used the shot with transitional genius, knowing that if did his job well, he could smoothly glide forward and further control the point.

A superb counterpuncher, Rosewall deployed his backhand with variety, spreading out his opponents with deadly lobs and pinpoint drop shots. Connors too had command of these shots, but in talking with dozens of players who competed against each, the general thinking is that while Rosewall’s drive was not as hard as Connors’, his diversity was exceptional.

Other honorable mentions go to the laser-like simplicity of Andre Agassi and Lindsay Davenport; and, of course, the unteachable élan of Justine Henin.

Joel Drucker is a contributing editor at TENNIS magazine. The author is grateful for the assistance of many experts and former pros, including Brent Abel, John Barrett, Steve Flink, Mary Carillo, Trey Waltke, Chris Lewis, John Newcombe, Owen Davidson, Fred Stolle and Brian Gottfried.

Ok....er....backhand and Stefan Edberg isn't on the list. Possibly the best backhand ever in my opinion. :angry:

I'm can't agree with Connors being over Agassi in the return department either. I'd go with Sampras for serve, but Karlovic should be on the main list of contenders for that too.

I do not agree with these selections either :tsk:
Serve yes Sampras had the best one after all he was the one to make the second serve a weapon too :bow: But surely Federer comes a very very close second ..I mean a serve does not just comprise of superb speeds..its the technicality that matters the most IMO..Federer's serves are impeccable because of the placements ..every time he bails himself out of trouble with those wicked serves..remember final set wimbey?

Return of serve..must and ought to go to Agassi.Connors above agassi seems hard to digest.Agassi could just return most of the big servers including boom boom becker

Forehand Surely Federer.But what about Nadal's heavy forehands? And what is Sania doing in the list :wacko: a close third may be Steffi 'fraulein' forehand

Backhand once again goes to federer or should it be Justine? Prejudiced here may be but it always has seemed that justine was born with the backhand. :bow:

It is surprising Edberg is not on the backhand shortlist.

Karlovic IS on the serve shortlist as a contemporary pick. But the greatest is about doing it under pressure.

I like Federer's first serve a lot but I think his second serve is attackable so maybe that's why he wasn't considered.

yep Edberg's BH was really great....

Hi Laurie - I think we have seen enough of Ivo's serve under pressure to see that he can cope with some of it anyway. When he won his first ATP tournies, they were certainly not Slams but to some extend they were the best he could get with the rest of his game so for him, it was pressure. he serves plenty of second serve aces as well. I agree that stats usually can't tell the whole story about a shot....except in fact for the serve where the opponent don't really affect those stats unlike a FH, BH or other shots. We are constantly saying that the balls are bigger, the courts slower, returners return better etc....so imagine the massacre someone like Ivo would have done 10 years ago as I don't think technology would have made his serve any slower.

I agree with Lalitha that fed's BH should be short listed. He showed at the last USO that it certainly can deliver under pressure to take the argument of the servers. Don't we remember this BH along the line in the USO 1st set final versus Djoko? or even Wimbledon's 06 final 1st set again, cross court this time?

And I still don't understand why they have this "contemporary pick" which sometimes make the short list and sometimes don't!

Anyway, i guess there is not much to talk about in this dead season. :shrug:

It's true, the season is dead Tenez,

I'm afraid I cannot agree about Federer and the backhand. Like a prime Pete sampras, he is capable of hitting fantastic backhand passes off low balls both down the line and crosscourt.

But many Tennis players can do that. Like Pete, his forehand is his main weapon and his backhand play is designed to set up his forehand more often than not, and when Nadal picks on that backhand, it can look a damned ugly shot.

I think players like Corretja, Kuerten, Gasquet have better one handers overall because their backhand is not going to break down after four or five shots to it.

I find it quite odd that you would select those 3 because all three have major flaws with their forehands and that being their Archiles Heel whereas this is Federers strength.A bit of an unfair comparison there as they all have their backhands as their weapons ;) So its safe to say that they set up their backhand using their forehands ;)

I don't know who you are winking at young man. Actually I better stop this frivolity before it gets silly :D

No they were talking about the greatest backhand in the history of Tennis and these two were saying that Federer should be on the shortlist. I said I disagree with them. Ken Rosewall won the category by the way.

I do agree Edberg should have been on the shortlist. I also like Ivan Lendl's backhand.

:P

Agreed but you saying that theirs wont break down after 4 or 5 shots wheras Federers will which i think is an unfair statement and a bit untrue.Whilst it holds true against Nadal on clay its a pretty solid consistent backhand better than Petes.I have never seen Pete in a rally going after his backhand ferociously 4 or 5 shots that he outhits an opponent without slicing or moving the ball with the slice,Federer attacks his backhand a lot more I think.Also those guys that you mentioned are quite astute claycourters with major achievements,well not Gasquet as he is a major choker.

Yes Edberg should be on that shortlist without question.His topsin lobs of that wing was brilliant.Remember that one against Becker in the Wimbledon Final?Amazing!

In terms of Women's backhands... I know she couldn't drive through it for the life of her but, Novotna's slice was legendary, always able to dig herself out of a hole with clever deft touches, the ball would be centimetres above the net and be quite deep, she was great with the angles too with this shot.
In terms of contempory players... I think we know the outright winner here. Justine. Has a great slice and by far the best drive through the shot. I am amazed time and time again how she can generate that much power and precision.. especially on the off backhand. :bow:

Novotna did do the occasional roll there Trisco and she was quite good at it but she had to pick which ones she had to roll or it had to bounce a certain way for her to do it.I alwyas use to laugh at her overexagerrated serve.The high ball toss and heavy knee and back bend.I always thought she would bend totally over one day and break :lmaao:

I don't think I'm being unfair, whilst a nice shot, I don't consider Federer near anywhere the best backhand in history, or indeed should be on the shortlist. I also think Djoko and Nalbandian are also attacking his backhand with some success.

By the way, is anyone here able to comment on Rosewall's backhand? After all he won this category but I've never seen him to make a comment as he played so long ago.

I also dont agree its the best in history but you are making seem like its really bad or worse than Petes when its actually better.But yes he shouldnt be in there for the best backhand in History.I kinda fancy Henins shot also Irene Spirlea had a great single hander. :ok:

I have never seen Rosewell so I cant comment! :shrug:

I remember trying to serve like her for one full summer when I was young... the ball would end up on the bowling green on many occasion after clipping the frame as it was so hard to judge..
I was alittle obsessed by her style of play.. one good thing to come out of that though was I learnt a lot from her volleying.. I used to be able to pull off some great low and half volleys when I first started playing due to watching Novotna matches over and over..
I then, quite rightly (being as I am a bloke and not a Czech Lady :P ) got more into the men's side but didn't carry on with volleying too much.. became a bit more of a boring baseliner

Irina Spirlea? Umm.

Sabatini also had a nice backhand and Muaresmo should be there as well.

I'm not trying to make Roger's backhand seem worse than it is, plus Pete has nothing to do with that anyway, initially I said like Pete, he is capable of breathtaking bakhand passing shots crosscourt and down the line, but that's talent and great execution - nothing else.

Pioline also had a nice backhand, plus Sanchez Vicario is as solid as anyone on that wing.

Actually, another fantastic off backhand, on the mens side this time was Muster.. he could drive through that ball all day and very rarely broke down...
I'd possibly put his above Fed and Pete's

Spirlea did have a good one hander Laurie.Sanchez and her short swing open stance two hander was brilliant.Pioline also had a good backhand.

I think we'd all agree that the lists are a bit rubbish, but I can't agree with this stuff about Karlovic having the best serve ever. The most effective serve ever, possibly, but there's not a lot of skill to it. If he was 6 inches shorter I doubt we'd have even heard of the guy. And his serve always deserts him at the key moments anyway - he has a pretty atrocious Slam record.

If Karlovic had Sampras' serve, now that really would be a weapon. :yikes:

So was that you in the Wimbledon Final 93 pretending to be Novotna against Steffi when she served over the court? :shrug:

:lmaao:

:ok:

Why is Rusedski not in the serve shortlist? :rolleyes:

Seriously to put the likes of Mirza and the hit and miss Ivanovic above Pierces forehand is ludicrous :wacko: :angry:

I didn't have a problem with that. :P

I think to label Ana's forehand hit and miss is a little harsh, it's one of the biggest weapons on the WTA right now, and no shot is immune to breaking down occasionally. Having said that, I'm amazed it made it into the list, and Mirza's is even more astounding - with her, the ball's got just as much chance of ending up in the street as it has being a winner. Wouldn't worry too much about it though, the composer obviously doesn't really follow women's tennis... not that he appears to be an avid ATP follower either. :blink:

Actually Wise, this is a panel of experts making these decisions with names like John McEnroe and John Necwombe in it.

Maybe they just wanted to appeal to younger people,

Or, perhaps they are just astounded with what players can do now with the latest racquets. Either way, Mirza? Why not Kuznetsova in that case?

They should definitely not be so mean and had two categories, one for men and one for women. Having said that, USA is very PC isn't it and maybe they will get complaints if they have two separate categories in these days of equality etc (I'm speculating here, I don't understand their logic behind this)

Was it a panel who chose these people, or was it the author, having spoken to a variety of experts? I say that because of the sentence at the bottom of each article, i.e.:

To me, that implies he's got the opinions of a lot of experts, and then sort of melanged it into one big opinion, which obviously takes away from the individual sense behind each original opinion. I would suspect he's tried to get a healthy balance of old and new players in there, with an equally healthy bit of pro-American bias. :D

Yes, looks like you're right Wise.

I suppose these experts are happy for their names to be associated with this.

Yes but that to me is completely irrelevant. You might also say that Sampras had abnormally long arms (true!!!) which made his swings and FHs unfairly powerful. Once again, we are talking about the best (in the efficient way) shot, not the one that looks better or the "best serve amongs shorter people".

What has one got to do to win this best serve over Sampras??? If Ivo cannot get this title , then I'd love to see the guy who will? The problem here is that Sampras is lodge as an icon in our minds because he has won so many slams. That is where our objectivity fails.

BTW even Goran had a sweeter serve than Sampras. So yes we may argue that under pressure Sampras 2nd was better but maybe if we see how close those bloody tie-breaks were in those Wimbledon finals, we may also accept that chance came to it, like in snooker's run of the ball as you say wise. We know how a second serve ace can be so close from a double fault. There is paper thin margins between them but one thing that I have always granted Sampras for is his courage to try them under pressure. That was his real strength and with this he had some "reussite", unfiortunately an untranslatable word (maybe you can WIse). ;)

And the way Federer served himself out of trouble at 15/40 twice in the 5th set of his 5th Wimbledon final is simply amazing! He did it again in this Shanghai semi. Besides, I think he is facing better returners equipped with better strings and does serve with bigger balls so that makes in my view his serve (and 2nd serve) as good as Pete if not better. People don't hld their serves as easily as in the 90s, so someting must be considered here as well whenjudging the best server.

I think is one of those where we'll have to agree to disagree. I take your points about the Sampras serve, and I'm not sure I'd place it as the greatest serve of all time either.

However, for me Karlovic is just a useless hack who happens to be abnormally tall and I don't think he deserves to go down as having the best serve ever. It's not that he's not reaching Slam finals which is making me downplay his serve, it's the fact that he always goes out of Slams in the first couple of rounds in a 5 set thriller, during which his serve falters at the key moments. It's nowhere near as good under pressure as the Sampras or Federer serve, and I think we should include things like ability under pressure, technique and variety into a "best serve" argument, as opposed to just tallying up ace counts.

Sorry to jump in again here but I cannot agree in any way that Federer's 2nd serve is anywhere near as good as Sampras'. Federer's 2nd serve is more attackable as his serves often drop short in the service box. He excels in the 1st serve department. Besides, Pete was already facing returners using synthetic gut, remember Pete was probably in a minority one one (himself!) who was using natural gut from 1996 onwards. Everyone he was facing, Kuerten, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Rios etc etc etc etc from the mid to late 1990s onwards were using a mix of natural gut and syntheic gut - that argument doesn't hold any water at all.

Is absolutely impossible to even consider Federer has a better 2nd serve than Sampras, that for sure is a non starter.

Ok I see your point. He doesn't deserve to go down as the best server ever...but there is in my view little doubt that he has the best serve ever.

Having also the best stat of BP saved does tell us that his serving under pressure is very good. The bottom line is that probably 100% of players on the tour would rather have to return another serve than Ivo's. I can hardly imagine the damage he would have done in the 90s on faster surfaces and faster balls. Winning Wimbledon under the then condidtions is not a far fetch thought!

BTW, can you have a go at "reussite"? ;)

I'm not sure the BP stat is too conclusive either. Naturally, he's going to save a lot of break points with that serve, but when it really matters, i.e. at the business end of Slam matches, he never saves these break points. His serve always folds when he really needs it not to.

If we're talking about who's serve a player would least like to face in an average match, it'd probably be Karlovic's. But in the pressure of a GS final, I'd be a lot more bothered about trying to return the Sampras serve.

And is réussite not simply success? It looks like that'd work fine in the context you used it in.

Synthetic gut s are old but Luxilion strings (and the likes) are newer 2002 + I believe. Their adoption corresponded with Sampras post peak time so we will never know how Sampras woudl have cope with it. One thing for sure is that there is no SVers at the top nowadays and an efficient serve is not enough to get you in the top 5.

Ok, I disagree again, because guess what? No player from 1990 to 1999 in those "fast conditions" won Wimbledon with only a serve and no other technical ability or athleticism to their game. The same for the 1980s, 1970s, 1960s etc

1990 - Edberg
1991 - Stich
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Sampras
1994 - Sampras
1995 - Sampras
1996 - Krajicek
1997 - Sampras
1998 - Sampras
1999 - Sampras

1980 - Borg
1981 - McEnroe
1982 - Connors
1983 - McEnroe
1984 - McEnroe
1985 - Becker
1986 - Becker
1987 - Cash
1988 - Edberg
1989 - Becker

Only the best players win Wimbledon. Out of those players on that list, please point out who won Wimbledon with only a serve. Even Cash, Krajicek and Stich all have ecxellent volleys, superior athleticism and in Stich's case, an incredible backhand return. Karlovic would not have won Wimbledon under any conditions or under any circumstances. This fast grass is a bit of diversion talk sometimes. Because the players who win win Wimbledon usually also do well in New York and Melbourne too

Also, why not Ivo for the US Open or Australian Open? Or the French, he's won a clay tournament. They play 4 slams a year and big servers do well in US and Australia as well not just Wimbledon.

Karlovic is just not good enough now and certainly would not have been good enough 10 years ago or 20 years ago.

Yes but Roger still uses a combination of synthetic and natural gut in his racquet so I assume he's not the only one. Attacking the net takes courage as well and a lot of the guys don't have that because they were not brought up and trained to be bold like that. Even by the early 1990s the newer guys coming up were baseliners, the Costas, Moyas, Corretjas, Kuertens who all came through mid to late 1990s. The attacking players of the early 1990s who played throughout that decade all grew up as teenagers in the 1980s, including Becker who broke out extremely early.

I think we are picking him on Slam pressure because it seems the only unknown where we can possibly suggest a weakness on his serve. Yet there is no clear indication that he would falter at crucial times. Yes maybe....but maybe not. His holding nerves when he faced Hewitt, the best returner of his time in 2003 shows that he could if he had a more complete game r rather simply better movement. His loss in GSs might be due to the energy required to move his big body over longer matches. It is clearly going to affect him. A fast Wimbledon like in the 90s would have certainly saved him some energy!

Reussite: It is success but with a touch of luck! Like a Solitaire card game where the word originaly comes from. Need skills and luck. A second serve ace is just that, otherwise, the rate of second serve aces would be much higher.