PDA

View Full Version : federer's backhand - broken down yet again


rod99
08-12-2007, 03:59 PM
this match was yet another example of a match federer lost primarily due to his backhand. everytime i see a thread on this board claiming that federer has one of the (or the best) best backhands in the game i laugh. sure, he's got a lot of variety and can hit some amazing shots with it, but it simply won't hold up against weapons like nadal's forehand or djokovic's fh/bh. he'll eventually make an error or drop the ball short. federer doesn't even have a top 10 backhand in the world. anyone who argues that statement hasn't watched enough of federer's matches.

AM28143
08-12-2007, 04:05 PM
At times it is very good and at times it very bad. However, I must say late in slams (except for the French) rarely does one see Federer's backhand lose him matches. In Australia it was impeccable and during Wimbledon it was pretty good. It is just in this smaller tournaments that one sees Federer's backhand completely fall apart. It is obviously his weaker side however, I it is still top 10.

kabob
08-12-2007, 04:06 PM
Oh, it's not in the top 10, eh? So name just 7 other players with a better, more consistent backhand if you're so sure of that :roll: Every time Feds loses, you Chicken Littles come out of the woodwork hollering that the sky is falling. Give it a rest, he'll do what he always does against a loss from someone not named Nadal: analyze it, internalize it, then win next week.

rod99
08-12-2007, 04:11 PM
i'm a federer fan but there are plenty of players with better backhands. he's got a good backhand but certainly not great. it's the rest of his game (forehand, movement, serve) that allows him to hide his weaker side and win almost everytime. as far as one-handers, gasquet, haas, ljubicic, gaudio (before his career went away), and youzhny all have superior backhands. for 2-handers, safin, nalbandian, stepanek, hewitt, and djokovic are all superior. that's just off the top of my head.

Chopin
08-12-2007, 04:24 PM
i'm a federer fan but there are plenty of players with better backhands. he's got a good backhand but certainly not great. it's the rest of his game (forehand, movement, serve) that allows him to hide his weaker side and win almost everytime. as far as one-handers, gasquet, haas, ljubicic, gaudio (before his career went away), and youzhny all have superior backhands. for 2-handers, safin, nalbandian, stepanek, hewitt, and djokovic are all superior. that's just off the top of my head.

Federer's backhand is better than every player on that list with the exception of Nadal's on clay.

BreakPoint
08-12-2007, 04:24 PM
I don't think it was just his backhand that was off today. His forehand was also off. In fact, everything was off. And Djokovic just played a very smart and great match so all credit to Djokovic for giving Federer a very competitive match.

rod99
08-12-2007, 04:26 PM
Federer's backhand is better than every player on that list with the exception of Nadal's on clay.

uh, no it's not. not even close.

tennispro11
08-12-2007, 04:33 PM
uh, no it's not. not even close.

Dude you must be on crack. How many of those guys with better backhands have a grand slam to their name? I know that there are 3 guys on that list who have won them. How many between them do they have? 5 So you are telling me that the guys with the better backhands can beat Federer head to head in a backhand rally. Some can do it when they are playing well but not on a consistent basis. In four years Federer has 21 losses to his name. So yeah I think your point is way off the mark.

joe sch
08-12-2007, 04:39 PM
The loss was really just a mental defeat.
Federer has been fearing a close match with the joker like this one and that is why he was claiming that he was not impressed with his game because he did not know how to play the "big" points. Big point are TB minibreaks, and its not too ironic that the joker dominated both TB's in this win. How sweet is fate and eating your words. Now the joker has defeated Federer's mental challenge and a slam will follow in the future.

samster
08-12-2007, 04:42 PM
At least tennis is interesting and competitive to watch again.

rod99
08-12-2007, 04:46 PM
Dude you must be on crack. How many of those guys with better backhands have a grand slam to their name? I know that there are 3 guys on that list who have won them. How many between them do they have? 5 So you are telling me that the guys with the better backhands can beat Federer head to head in a backhand rally. Some can do it when they are playing well but not on a consistent basis. In four years Federer has 21 losses to his name. So yeah I think your point is way off the mark.

you're totally missing my point. federer's movement and forehand are so great that they allow him to run around his backhand and use his real weapons most of the time. if there was a backhand to backhand rally where you couldn't run around your backhand, i believe federer would lose to those guys more often than not. obviously federer's career is far and away better than the guys mentioned in my post b/c the rest of his game is so much better than any of them. people don't understand that you can be one of the all-time greats without every one of your shots being great (look at sampras with his backhand, mcenroe with his groundstrokes, connors with his serve, agassi with his net game, etc). you just have to have the weapons to protect the weaker areas of your game, and that's what federer has.

gonzo2000
08-12-2007, 04:52 PM
At least tennis is interesting and competitive to watch again.

Hallelujah. What happened today is good for tennis. Fed's BH let him down today, big time.

tennispro11
08-12-2007, 04:53 PM
you're totally missing my point. federer's movement and forehand are so great that they allow him to run around his backhand and use his real weapons most of the time. if there was a backhand to backhand rally where you couldn't run around your backhand, i believe federer would lose to those guys more often than not. obviously federer's career is far and away better than the guys mentioned in my post b/c the rest of his game is so much better than any of them. people don't understand that you can be one of the all-time greats without every one of your shots being great (look at sampras with his backhand, mcenroe with his groundstrokes, connors with his serve, agassi with his net game, etc). you just have to have the weapons to protect the weaker areas of your game, and that's what federer has.

I agree with some of what you say. But on a good day when all the bells and whistles are blowing, Federer's backhand is amazing. I think that he could beat any of those guys that you listed easily, except for maybe Safin when he wasn't screwed up in the head. So yeah I agree with you a little bit but Federer has a more well-rounded game than Sampras or McEnroe or Connors. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that he is the most well rounded player on the tour today. But Djokovic will give him a run for his money in a year or two.

Mad iX
08-12-2007, 04:56 PM
His bh is easily Top 10. It's just not as consistent as his forehand.
Against some players it can be a weakness, especially Nadal when he's abusing it with his forehand.
It is definitely a Top 10 backhand. When it's on, it's easily Top 2.

rod99
08-12-2007, 05:08 PM
His bh is easily Top 10. It's just not as consistent as his forehand.
Against some players it can be a weakness, especially Nadal when he's abusing it with his forehand.
It is definitely a Top 10 backhand. When it's on, it's easily Top 2.

incorrect. he has the variety and shotmaking but not the power or consistency of the top backhands in the game.

AM28143
08-12-2007, 05:09 PM
Rod99 just admit you are wrong.

tennispro11
08-12-2007, 05:10 PM
Rod99 just admit you are wrong.

Well said.

rod99
08-12-2007, 05:13 PM
opinions are opinions and i certainly won't admit my opinion is wrong. i'm a federer fan but some of you people think that everyone of his strokes are the best in the game. it's just not the case. i stand by my comment that if you took away the serve and forehand (basically drop feeding the start of the point and playing a backhand on both sides, assuming both backhands are equal), then federer would be outside the top 10.

tennispro11
08-12-2007, 05:16 PM
opinions are opinions and i certainly won't admit my opinion is wrong. i'm a federer fan but some of you people think that everyone of his strokes are the best in the game. it's just not the case. i stand by my comment that if you took away the serve and forehand (basically drop feeding the start of the point and playing a backhand on both sides, assuming both backhands are equal), then federer would be outside the top 10.

Wow all that deserves is a ................LOL.........................

akv89
08-12-2007, 05:31 PM
Federer's backhand is like Safin. It's amazing, but can get inconsistent. He does have one of the best backhands in the game when his backhand is working consistently. I've seen him do things with his backhand that looked impossible.

NoBadMojo
08-12-2007, 05:32 PM
Fed's problems today were far more about the 2nd serve than his backhand. But most of his problems were having to do with Joker who is very hard to exploit and break down and whose game is still ramping up....Fed may have peaked.

rod99
08-12-2007, 05:34 PM
Federer's backhand is like Safin. It's amazing, but can get inconsistent. He does have one of the best backhands in the game when his backhand is working consistently. I've seen him do things with his backhand that looked impossible.

that's what i'm saying. he can hit some amazing shots with his backhand and b/c they are so amazing, that's what sticks in people's heads. people forget about the numerous errors, shanks, and short balls that his backhand gives up when it is attacked with a good shot.

travlerajm
08-12-2007, 05:38 PM
I agree with Rod99.

netman
08-12-2007, 05:53 PM
Come on folks. Just admit Fed is human. Rafa always breaks Fed's cool at the FO and he almost broke Fed down mentally at Wimbledon. Djokovic did break through Fed's cool today. The Joker had nothing to lose today and stayed strong when it mattered.

As it was well said earlier, men's tennis is getting interesting again.

ShcMad
08-12-2007, 05:56 PM
What surprised me about Djokovic was the fact that he didn't play "out of his mind" today, but rather, he played within himself and within his own capabilities, yet he ended up victorious. Usually, in order to beat Federer, one has to play out of his mind and go for broke and hope the ball lands in. Djokovic played his usual game, and didn't overdo anything.

NadalandFedererfan
08-12-2007, 06:16 PM
So Federer loses 1 match and suddenly he does not have a top 10 backhand. ROTFL! Nitwit trolls like rod99 just wait for his opportunity to pounce and somehow think they can push forward their ridiculous arguments which pretty much nobody agrees with.

rod99
08-12-2007, 06:18 PM
So Federer loses 1 match and suddenly he does not have a top 10 backhand. ROTFL! Nitwit trolls like rod99 just wait for his opportunity to pounce and somehow think they can push forward their ridiculous arguments which pretty much nobody agrees with.

it was only a matter of time b/f this clown jumped on here spewing his ignorance.

NadalandFedererfan
08-12-2007, 06:19 PM
This message is hidden because rod99 is on your ignore list.

Try it people. It works wonderfully. :)

tennispro11
08-12-2007, 06:21 PM
it was only a matter of time b/f this clown jumped on here spewing his ignorance.

I like what you said. Don't put me on your ignore list. LOL! :p

NoBadMojo
08-12-2007, 06:23 PM
What surprised me about Djokovic was the fact that he didn't play "out of his mind" today, but rather, he played within himself and within his own capabilities, yet he ended up victorious. Usually, in order to beat Federer, one has to play out of his mind and go for broke and hope the ball lands in. Djokovic played his usual game, and didn't overdo anything.


Good point. Joker played very smart tennis especially for a 20 year old (is that how old he is?). He hit comfortably within himslef and mixed up the pace and got some UE's out of Fed just by hitting routione groundies, and he picked his places to rip really well

As a followup to my earlier post, i checked the stats and fed only won 42% of his 2nd serves while Joker won 58% of his. To me, this was the difference in the match. The old adage "You're only as good as your second serve" couldnt be more true today. fed was clearly having troubles there and his MPH was really low on his 2nds at times..he usually has a much better second than that especially on a faster court. He was either not confident or has an injury.

NadalandFedererfan
08-12-2007, 06:25 PM
Djokovic had a great tournament. He beat the #1 and #2 and #4 (will be #4 when new rankings comes out that is) all in a row to win the event. Give him applause and full credit for that. Federer was by far the closest to beating him of any of them, and probably was outwilled and outnerved more then anything else today.

Moose Malloy
08-12-2007, 06:26 PM
good lord, now he's 'NadalandFedererfan.' I think half of all the posters here may be the same person.

tennispro11
08-12-2007, 06:28 PM
good lord, now he's 'NadalandFedererfan.' I think half of all the posters here may be the same person.

What are you talking about?

rosenstar
08-12-2007, 06:35 PM
Rod99-
I think you're measuring the ability of federer's BH incorrectly. In my opinion, the only way to truly measure the ability of a certain shot is to see how the player uses it in the rest of his game. this is why Fed's BH is sooooooooo good. All those names you mentioned are probably more likely to hit a winner off the BH than Federer is (on an average day). But none of them use the BH to set up the point like Fed does. If Fed's playing someone who doesn't like the net, he teases them with a slice BH, forces them to either take the net (which they don't want to do) or hit a weak shot that he can put away. He's done this countless times against Roddick, Davydinko, Hewitt, and many more. Sometimes he flattens out his BH, sometimes he rolls the ball at an incredible angle. although he doesn't always hit winners off that wing, it is more than effective than many other BH's and allows him to put himself in a position to win the point.

Agassi's serve is very similar. I've always thought that agassi's serve (especially toward the end of his career) was one of his strengths, and one of the best serves out there. he didn't step up to the line and hit aces, but he placed it/spun it so he could start off the point at an advantage. Federer's backhand is the same way.

If we were judging Fed's backhand purely on how many winners he can hit, then some of those you mentioned might be ahead of him, though in my opinion not many. but tennis isn't about hitting winners and you're allowed to hit more than just BH's, that's why your idea is completely ridiculous and has no truth to it.

Finally, you're judging fed's BH purely on his "bad" days. You find the best backhand Fed's ever hit, and I guarentee you it's a million times better than any of those clowns' you mentioned before.

tennispro11
08-12-2007, 06:37 PM
Rod99-
I think you're measuring the ability of federer's BH incorrectly. In my opinion, the only way to truly measure the ability of a certain shot is to see how the player uses it in the rest of his game. this is why Fed's BH is sooooooooo good. All those names you mentioned are probably more likely to hit a winner off the BH than Federer is (on an average day). But none of them use the BH to set up the point like Fed does. If Fed's playing someone who doesn't like the net, he teases them with a slice BH, forces them to either take the net (which they don't want to do) or hit a weak shot that he can put away. He's done this countless times against Roddick, Davydinko, Hewitt, and many more. Sometimes he flattens out his BH, sometimes he rolls the ball at an incredible angle. although he doesn't always hit winners off that wing, it is more than effective than many other BH's and allows him to put himself in a position to win the point.

Agassi's serve is very similar. I've always thought that agassi's serve (especially toward the end of his career) was one of his strengths, and one of the best serves out there. he didn't step up to the line and hit aces, but he placed it/spun it so he could start off the point at an advantage. Federer's backhand is the same way.

If we were judging Fed's backhand purely on how many winners he can hit, then some of those you mentioned might be ahead of him, though in my opinion not many. but tennis isn't about hitting winners and you're allowed to hit more than just BH's, that's why your idea is completely ridiculous and has no truth to it.

Finally, you're judging fed's BH purely on his "bad" days. You find the best backhand Fed's ever hit, and I guarentee you it's a million times better than any of those clowns' you mentioned before.

Nicely Done.

rod99
08-12-2007, 06:45 PM
Rod99-
I think you're measuring the ability of federer's BH incorrectly. In my opinion, the only way to truly measure the ability of a certain shot is to see how the player uses it in the rest of his game. this is why Fed's BH is sooooooooo good. All those names you mentioned are probably more likely to hit a winner off the BH than Federer is (on an average day). But none of them use the BH to set up the point like Fed does. If Fed's playing someone who doesn't like the net, he teases them with a slice BH, forces them to either take the net (which they don't want to do) or hit a weak shot that he can put away. He's done this countless times against Roddick, Davydinko, Hewitt, and many more. Sometimes he flattens out his BH, sometimes he rolls the ball at an incredible angle. although he doesn't always hit winners off that wing, it is more than effective than many other BH's and allows him to put himself in a position to win the point.

Agassi's serve is very similar. I've always thought that agassi's serve (especially toward the end of his career) was one of his strengths, and one of the best serves out there. he didn't step up to the line and hit aces, but he placed it/spun it so he could start off the point at an advantage. Federer's backhand is the same way.

If we were judging Fed's backhand purely on how many winners he can hit, then some of those you mentioned might be ahead of him, though in my opinion not many. but tennis isn't about hitting winners and you're allowed to hit more than just BH's, that's why your idea is completely ridiculous and has no truth to it.

Finally, you're judging fed's BH purely on his "bad" days. You find the best backhand Fed's ever hit, and I guarentee you it's a million times better than any of those clowns' you mentioned before.

i'm not judging federer's backhand simply on how many winners he hits. like i've said many times, federer has great variety on his backhand and has a "good" overall backhand. i've seen him hit it very well in matches and horribly in others. in averaging these all out, i still don't think it's top 10 in the world. federer runs around his backhand whenever he can b/c his forehand is so awesome and he's aware that his backhand is attackable. if any of the guys i mentioned in the original post got in a backhand to backhand rally with federer (where no forehands could be used), i'd put $ that federer would come up the loser more often than not. everytime djokovic started pounding federer's backhand deep, i knew that an error or short ball would be forced, which is what happened. this has happened to him many time in the past. however it's a testament to the other parts of his game which have only allowed him to lose so few times during the last 4 years.

volleyandfun
08-12-2007, 07:23 PM
Rod99-
I think you're measuring the ability of federer's BH incorrectly.


If we were judging Fed's backhand purely on how many winners he can hit, then some of those you mentioned might be ahead of him, though in my opinion not many. but tennis isn't about hitting winners and you're allowed to hit more than just BH's, that's why your idea is completely ridiculous and has no truth to it.



Ok, here is my $0.02, Federer's B/H today was good and bad, good in a way he played and set up his points, and I agree with rosenstar, but i also agree with rod99 because Joker made fed to commit awfully many UE off his B/H side, and this is no brainer, 2 hands are better than 1 when it comes to 2HBH on deep shots with lots of pace.

I used to play 1HBH and now I play 2HBH so I know this, depth and pace is not an issue for 2HBH but it is deadly for most, if not all 1HBH, and that's exactly what happened today with federer

Chopin
08-12-2007, 07:31 PM
Fed's problems today were far more about the 2nd serve than his backhand. But most of his problems were having to do with Joker who is very hard to exploit and break down and whose game is still ramping up....Fed may have peaked.

I agree, Federer served poorly when it counted (a rarity). But let's be honest, Federer did not play anywhere near his best tennis today, he squandered away the first set on errors when it appeared he was going to routinely win it. No ones perfect. Federer's form this week was great, I think he's still very much in his prime, I'd be surprised if Federer does not win the U.S. Open (the only thing left this year that truly matters to him).

Chopin
08-12-2007, 07:52 PM
Federer's backhand is probably the best backhand in the game when he's on. It has incredible variety, creates great angles, is an amazing defensive shot for when he's out of position (are some of you forgetting how many balls Federer returns from way of court with his backhand, and then is suddenly back in control of the point?), it's incredibly effective in returning serve (come on, he blocks back Roddick's serves like they're nothing!). Does anyone remember the '06 Wimbledon final in which Nadal's strategy of going at Federer's backhand failed largely because Federer was able to hit incredibly low slices on the grass? It's a truly great shot and one of the reasons Roger has been so effective at Wimbledon.

That being said, on clay, high balls to his backhand are difficult for Federer (Nadal's backhand is obviously much better on clay). And to the Joker's credit, he hit his backhand better than Federer did in the final. If Federer's backhand was "not top 10," there's no way he'd have dominated tennis the way he has, it's not like he runs around his forehand to avoid hitting his backhand like some hacker! When tennis junkies, coaches, legends and the like declare Federer the complete package with no real weaknesses, this includes his backhand which is a truly beautiful and effective stroke--a great stroke.

Here is an excellent instructional piece by Stan Smith highlighting why Federer's backhand is such a great and technically sound stroke:

http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/instructionarticles/backhand/backhand.aspx?id=38286

NoBadMojo
08-12-2007, 07:56 PM
I agree, Federer served poorly when it counted (a rarity). But let's be honest, Federer did not play anywhere near his best tennis today, he squandered away the first set on errors when it appeared he was going to routinely win it. No ones perfect. Federer's form this week was great, I think he's still very much in his prime, I'd be surprised if Federer does not win the U.S. Open (the only thing left this year that truly matters to him).

I too think Fed is in his prime. I just dont see him improving now the way nadal is or Joker is, and both play federer tough. Now that Joker has beaten Fed, that will perhaps cause some additional players to believe they can beat him as well..sometimes people think federer isnt human, and expect him to always play his best tennis..that just isnt possible

I've noticed that Fed never plays his best on windy days, and it was windy today out there <at least early on>, and was very windy at Key Biscayne this year where Fed didnt play his best tennis either.

volleyandfun
08-12-2007, 08:04 PM
Here is an excellent instructional piece by Stan Smith highlighting why Federer's backhand is such a great and technically sound stroke:

http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/instructionarticles/backhand/backhand.aspx?id=38286

Beautiful, very pretty, but the only problem is this preparation in this form occurs only when player has adequate time to set up. in many cases they resort to off balance, out of position and less perfect shots, as the ones you get when your opponent hits the ball hard and away from you, as was the case today

Everything is relevant to what your opponent throws at you

volleyandfun
08-12-2007, 08:07 PM
I too think Fed is in his prime. I just dont see him improving now the way nadal is or Joker is, and both play federer tough. Now that Joker has beaten Fed, that will perhaps cause some additional players to believe they can beat him as well..sometimes people think federer isnt human, and expect him to always play his best tennis..that just isnt possible

I've noticed that Fed never plays his best on windy days, and it was windy today out there <at least early on>, and was very windy at Key Biscayne this year where Fed didnt play his best tennis either.

Perhaps he should practise in Chicago for a while?

Andres
08-13-2007, 04:52 AM
A backhand that is pretty unknown, no one comments about it, but IMO, is one of the best in the game, is Hrbaty's two hander.

Powerful, damn solid, it doesn't break down, and he doesn't miss much off that wing (opposed to his forehand)

But it's not flashy like Safin's, and the guy doesn't get much recognition, but his backhand is VERY good

tennis_nerd22
08-13-2007, 05:07 AM
Dude you must be on crack. How many of those guys with better backhands have a grand slam to their name? I know that there are 3 guys on that list who have won them. How many between them do they have? 5 So you are telling me that the guys with the better backhands can beat Federer head to head in a backhand rally. Some can do it when they are playing well but not on a consistent basis. In four years Federer has 21 losses to his name. So yeah I think your point is way off the mark.

ever year tennis is 75% mental? federer is a smarter player than them. andy roddick has the hardest forehand on tour, harder than roger's. does that mean he can beat federer just because of one stroke? no. Just because federer's backhand is not that great compared to other top 10 or top 20 pro's, does that mean he'll lose? no. it just means that he's weaker there, but he can find ways around it.

So yeah I think your point is way off the mark.

my_forehand
08-13-2007, 05:09 AM
ever year tennis is 75% mental? federer is a smarter player than them. andy roddick has the hardest forehand on tour, harder than roger's. does that mean he can beat federer just because of one stroke? no. Just because federer's backhand is not that great compared to other top 10 or top 20 pro's, does that mean he'll lose? no. it just means that he's weaker there, but he can find ways around it.

So yeah I think your point is way off the mark.

roddicks also has a harder server

Netbudda
08-13-2007, 05:27 AM
I like Djokovic "No quit" attitude and his great play. Federer really played poorly with all those unforced errors ( I believe he almost had 50 UE on a 3 set match !!!! ). The third set tiebreak was particularly ugly with Federer shanking almost every point. ( Stunning !!!! ) Djokovic hit an ace on the first point and then the drop shot lob combination on match point the other 5 points Federer just blew chunks. Congrats to Djokovic taking out Roddick, Nadal and Federer.

rosenstar
08-13-2007, 07:46 AM
i'm not judging federer's backhand simply on how many winners he hits. like i've said many times, federer has great variety on his backhand and has a "good" overall backhand. i've seen him hit it very well in matches and horribly in others. in averaging these all out, i still don't think it's top 10 in the world. federer runs around his backhand whenever he can b/c his forehand is so awesome and he's aware that his backhand is attackable. if any of the guys i mentioned in the original post got in a backhand to backhand rally with federer (where no forehands could be used), i'd put $ that federer would come up the loser more often than not. everytime djokovic started pounding federer's backhand deep, i knew that an error or short ball would be forced, which is what happened. this has happened to him many time in the past. however it's a testament to the other parts of his game which have only allowed him to lose so few times during the last 4 years.


well, the thing is, tennis isn't played by hitting only backhands in a backhand rally, so your whole arguement is really senseless. no offense.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 08:09 AM
well, the thing is, tennis isn't played by hitting only backhands in a backhand rally, so your whole arguement is really senseless. no offense.

It's not senseless when this strategy makes opponent to produce errors, as it did with federer yesterday in Montreal, and you cannot argue that.

federerfanatic
08-13-2007, 08:41 AM
andy roddick has the hardest forehand on tour, harder than roger's. does that mean he can beat federer just because of one stroke? no.

ROTFL! Federer's forehand is the best in the game, and there are atleast 20 guys with better forehands then Roddick now. Federer's forehand >>>> Roddick's forehand in every single way.

NamRanger
08-13-2007, 08:53 AM
Gasquet will beat Federer in a backhand to backhand rally any day of the week. You are dumb if you really think that Federer can beat Gasquet in a backhand rally.


Federer's backhand cannot take pressure. He will error more then likely if you constantly attack it, like Djokovic or Nadal does.



Wimbledon 06 Federer still made plenty of errors off the backhand. Try again. Look up the stats. Only reason why Federer won because of his serve.


It's a top 10 backhand on a good day, but I wouldn't put it in the top 5.

rosenstar
08-13-2007, 09:55 AM
It's not senseless when this strategy makes opponent to produce errors, as it did with federer yesterday in Montreal, and you cannot argue that.

no, I understand that. my arguement is that one must judge the ability of a certain shot not by that shot alone, but by how that shot fits into the rest of their game.

rod99 believes federer has a lousy backhand b/c if he were only allowed to hit backhands, he would lose mor often than not. I believe that Federer's backhand is fantastic because it suits his game. I explained this in detail in post #34 and don't feel like typing it out again, so heres the link:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1660593&postcount=34

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 10:02 AM
ever year tennis is 75% mental? federer is a smarter player than them. andy roddick has the hardest forehand on tour, harder than roger's. does that mean he can beat federer just because of one stroke? no. Just because federer's backhand is not that great compared to other top 10 or top 20 pro's, does that mean he'll lose? no. it just means that he's weaker there, but he can find ways around it.

So yeah I think your point is way off the mark.

All I have to say to that is ................LOL..................

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 10:03 AM
well, the thing is, tennis isn't played by hitting only backhands in a backhand rally, so your whole arguement is really senseless. no offense.

Thank you that is what I have been trying to say.

tennissavy
08-13-2007, 10:23 AM
this match was yet another example of a match federer lost primarily due to his backhand. everytime i see a thread on this board claiming that federer has one of the (or the best) best backhands in the game i laugh. sure, he's got a lot of variety and can hit some amazing shots with it, but it simply won't hold up against weapons like nadal's forehand or djokovic's fh/bh. he'll eventually make an error or drop the ball short. federer doesn't even have a top 10 backhand in the world. anyone who argues that statement hasn't watched enough of federer's matches.

I agree with you. I would say that he has one of the best one handed backhands in the world. I would also say that it is not as good as even an average two handed backhand. I love to use Federer as a great example of the superiority of the two handed backhand.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 10:24 AM
Thank you that is what I have been trying to say.

you maybe ergo sum, but you are not cogito

if you ever played tennis that you will know what it means to be pounded to your weak side, and how your returns fall either short or out of boundries

you can still produce spectacular shots off your weaker side, given you get a good ball to hit

joesixtoe
08-13-2007, 10:30 AM
Federer does not have a top 10 backhand. I don't understand why people think it's so great. Do you see how many UE's he gets off that wing?? Ok he uses his backhand very well when it comes to incorperating it into his game. Uses the slice really nicely(better than anyone else), great backhand passing shots(I love the way he hits those), and he can rally pretty good with it. It just can't hold up to a top 10 backhand when their pounding away at it.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 10:33 AM
no, I understand that. my arguement is that one must judge the ability of a certain shot not by that shot alone, but by how that shot fits into the rest of their game.

rod99 believes federer has a lousy backhand b/c if he were only allowed to hit backhands, he would lose mor often than not. I believe that Federer's backhand is fantastic because it suits his game. I explained this in detail in post #34 and don't feel like typing it out again, so heres the link:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1660593&postcount=34

OK, to put things in perspective, Federer has one of the most versatile b/h, no question about it, and I personally was amazed of he was using it during final in Montreal, however, if you ever played tennis with both, 1HBH and 2HBH ten you will know of much stronger 2HBH is. And since roger has 1HBH he cannot handle deep and paced shots so by virtue of that, he produced series of short returns (sometimes in the net) or errors

it's not allways about hitting a winner, but it's also about not allowing your opponent to exploit you

does that makes sense now?

NadalandFedererfan
08-13-2007, 10:43 AM
People hit to his backhand since his forehand is so great. He has one of the best backhands in the World, but because he has maybe the best forehand ever you still play the backhand obviously. It does not mean it is lacking in anyway.

david22
08-13-2007, 10:44 AM
OK, to put things in perspective, Federer has one of the most versatile b/h, no question about it, and I personally was amazed of he was using it during final in Montreal, however, if you ever played tennis with both, 1HBH and 2HBH ten you will know of much stronger 2HBH is. And since roger has 1HBH he cannot handle deep and paced shots so by virtue of that, he produced series of short returns (sometimes in the net) or errors

it's not allways about hitting a winner, but it's also about not allowing your opponent to exploit you

does that makes sense now?

Well,Gasquet's one handed backhand is harder than most of the 2 handed backhand

NadalandFedererfan
08-13-2007, 10:45 AM
Well,Gasquet's one handed backhand is harder than most of the 2 handed backhand

You are right. Gasquet has a great one hander.

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 11:23 AM
andy roddick has the hardest forehand on tour, harder than roger's.
I disagree that Roddick has the hardest forehand on the tour. I think there are a lot of guys that can hit their forehands harder than Roddick, including Mathieu, Djokovic, Baghdatis, Gonzales, Blake, Nadal, Tursunov, Moya, and yes, even Federer.

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 11:27 AM
I agree with you. I would say that he has one of the best one handed backhands in the world. I would also say that it is not as good as even an average two handed backhand. I love to use Federer as a great example of the superiority of the two handed backhand.
Ironic, because I would use Federer as a great example of the superiority of the one-handed backhand.

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 11:30 AM
OK, to put things in perspective, Federer has one of the most versatile b/h, no question about it, and I personally was amazed of he was using it during final in Montreal, however, if you ever played tennis with both, 1HBH and 2HBH ten you will know of much stronger 2HBH is.

I think only people that have weak 1HBH's would make that assertion.

BTW, anyone that switched from a 1HBH to a 2HBH must have had a weak 1HBH, right? Or else they wouldn't have made the switch.

dennis10is
08-13-2007, 11:40 AM
Good point. Joker played very smart tennis especially for a 20 year old (is that how old he is?). He hit comfortably within himslef and mixed up the pace and got some UE's out of Fed just by hitting routione groundies, and he picked his places to rip really well

As a followup to my earlier post, i checked the stats and fed only won 42% of his 2nd serves while Joker won 58% of his. To me, this was the difference in the match. The old adage "You're only as good as your second serve" couldnt be more true today. fed was clearly having troubles there and his MPH was really low on his 2nds at times..he usually has a much better second than that especially on a faster court. He was either not confident or has an injury.

Agreed, His second serve has been short and he has no confidence with it. That has been happening for some time now. this to me has been the difference between Federer last year versus this year. The gusty conditions, Jokovic's consisently hard play contributed to his shanking but it was clear that something is wrong with his second serve. They have been landing shorter and in the middle of the box, and his opponents know it.

He's been getting out of tough spots with his first serve but you can't rely on an ace ALL the time. One more ACE on ad-in at 6-5 would have given Fed the 1st set and probably the match.

You are only as great as you second serve and it is letting him down for whatever reason.

drakulie
08-13-2007, 12:12 PM
this match was yet another example of a match federer lost primarily due to his backhand. everytime i see a thread on this board claiming that federer has one of the (or the best) best backhands in the game i laugh. sure, he's got a lot of variety and can hit some amazing shots with it, but it simply won't hold up against weapons like nadal's forehand or djokovic's fh/bh. he'll eventually make an error or drop the ball short. federer doesn't even have a top 10 backhand in the world. anyone who argues that statement hasn't watched enough of federer's matches.

You are absolutely correct. How he became # 1, and won all those grand slams is beyond me.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 12:25 PM
I think only people that have weak 1HBH's would make that assertion.

BTW, anyone that switched from a 1HBH to a 2HBH must have had a weak 1HBH, right? Or else they wouldn't have made the switch.

Wrong, my B/H 1H or 2H was always my dominant side and I only switched due to injury, non tennis related in case you wonder.

I am sensing you have no clue of what I am referring to, perhaps if you read the entire post and analyse both side's comments then you'll know better and you may actually have something constructive to say.

laurie
08-13-2007, 12:28 PM
I would try to make two things clear:

1. Roddick certainly does not have one of the hardest forehands on the tour. In fact, his forehand often seems to lack penetration. Breakpoint has noted guys there who all have better forehands. Roddick's lack of success at the highest level is not a coincidence - he has too many technical flaws.

2. Roger Federer has got to the stage in his career where he thinks it works for him so he uses it no matter what. Another term for stubborness. There are a few areas where Federer can add to his game, or more to the point, bring back elements to his game which he has been neglecting as of late. One area is coming to net to finish points more often, with his volleying skills, he should be attacking short balls and coming to net more. The other area is the sliced backhand. He doesn't seem to use it as much as he did in 2003 and 2004, he has a great one, really knifes it and keeps it low. His refusal to use it in the French open final was a mistake because he tried it in the 2nd set and it was a successful tactic. He keeps coming over the ball and making errors when it gets to more than 3 or 4 shots to his backhand.

I'm finding it disinteresting to watch Federer because he's doing the same things over and over in a match. He doesn't really mix up the play at all. Which is ironic considering how the pundits keep force feeding us with platitudes of his versatile game.

However, Federer has it within him to bring his best game out if the challenge is set. And now it has been set.

One of the reasons why Federer is playing such a stayed game is because he has no coach. Why doesn't he employ someone who is brave enough to tell him things he seems not to want to hear? He sacked Lundgren who wanted him to get to net more, and he's sacked Tony Roche. But in sport, even the best need to be told when certain things in their game aren't working and they need to be reminded of what they are capable of. Federer should be man enough to take other people's ideas in.

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 12:43 PM
Wrong, my B/H 1H or 2H was always my dominant side and I only switched due to injury, non tennis related in case you wonder.

I am sensing you have no clue of what I am referring to, perhaps if you read the entire post and analyse both side's comments then you'll know better and you may actually have something constructive to say.
How many pros have switched from a 1HBH to a 2HBH due to injury?

You telling me that it's your dominant side doesn't really tell me anything. You could have a poor backhand, 1HBH or 2HBH, and just an even worse forehand.

I have a very strong 1HBH and I have no trouble going up against any of the 2HBH players I've played against at the 4.5 level.

And, yes, I did read your entire post. I just disagree that the 1HBH is somehow weaker than the 2HBH. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I think the 1HBH is stronger than the 2HBH. People that know how to hit 1HBH's well can hit the ball harder and deeper than people that know how to hit 2HBH's well. Players like Gasquet, Gaudio, and Haas are good examples.

rosenstar
08-13-2007, 12:58 PM
OK, to put things in perspective, Federer has one of the most versatile b/h, no question about it

IMO That's why his backhand is so good. he doesn't need to hit winners off that wing. he needs to be able to work the point and that what he does. His BH does its job better than the BH of almost any other pro.


however, if you ever played tennis with both, 1HBH and 2HBH ten you will know of much stronger 2HBH is. And since roger has 1HBH he cannot handle deep and paced shots so by virtue of that, he produced series of short returns (sometimes in the net) or errors

it's not allways about hitting a winner, but it's also about not allowing your opponent to exploit you

does that makes sense now?

I understand where you're coming from, and I absolutely agree that you must prevent your opponent from exploiting the weaker parts of your game.

I currently play with a 2HBH, and I think a 1HBH is a better shot. it premotes a more all court game, making shots such as a slice BH and a BH volley much more natural. Not to mention the disguise it provides: It gives you the ability to hide a topspin shot, a slice or a drop shot.

that being said, I do agree that for a baseliner, a 2HBH is a more realiable, possibly more powerful shot.

but for Federer, someone with an all court game, variety and disguise is far more important than power. And yes, sometimes his BH does have it's bad days, but it's only been bad enough to cause a loss 21 times over the last 3 or 4 years.

laurie
08-13-2007, 01:00 PM
How many pros have switched from a 1HBH to a 2HBH due to injury?

You telling me that it's your dominant side doesn't really tell me anything. You could have a poor backhand, 1HBH or 2HBH, and just an even worse forehand.

I have a very strong 1HBH and I have no trouble going up against any of the 2HBH players I've played against at the 4.5 level.

And, yes, I did read your entire post. I just disagree that the 1HBH is somehow weaker than the 2HBH. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I think the 1HBH is stronger than the 2HBH. People that know how to hit 1HBH's well can hit the ball harder and deeper than people that know how to hit 2HBH's well. Players like Gasquet, Gaudio, and Haas are good examples.

Indeed, the one hand backhand is a more versatile shot. On the return of serve you can step in and take it early like McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Sampras , or step back take it late and have a swing like Kuerten, Lendl and Haas. You can slice it down the line on return. You can use it to chip and charge, you can use it to stay in the rallies with by slowing it down with slice then coming over it with topsin - a strategy Sampras used successufully over Agassi throughout his career and then Rafter employed the same strategy with success in the 2000 and 2001 Wimbledon semifinals against Agassi. And of course, you can use it to slice and get to net off short balls.

And - it's no coincidence that the most dominant players of the last 30 years - the players who have been at number one longer than other players have one hand backhands:

John McEnroe - number one for 4 years
Ivan Lendl - number one for 5 years
Pete Sampras - number one for 6 years
Roger Federer - number one for 4 years and counting
Martina Navratilova - number one for many years
Steffi Graf - number one for many years.

Then just below that are people like Edberg and Becker. Then of course there's Laver, Rosewall and Arthur Ashe from the 1960s and 1970s. Not forgetting Villas and Nastase.

Then we talk about Henin and Mauresmo in the womens game and the versatlity thier backhands bring - allowing Mauresmo to win Wimbledon and be number one for most of last year until injury and Henin to be right at the top of the womens game winning multiple slams.

Players with one hand backhands are usually more verstalie as players than two handers with excepetions.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 01:02 PM
How many pros have switched from a 1HBH to a 2HBH due to injury?

You telling me that it's your dominant side doesn't really tell me anything. You could have a poor backhand, 1HBH or 2HBH, and just an even worse forehand.

I have a very strong 1HBH and I have no trouble going up against any of the 2HBH players I've played against at the 4.5 level.

And, yes, I did read your entire post. I just disagree that the 1HBH is somehow weaker than the 2HBH. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I think the 1HBH is stronger than the 2HBH. People that know how to hit 1HBH's well can hit the ball harder and deeper than people that know how to hit 2HBH's well. Players like Gasquet, Gaudio, and Haas are good examples.

Just to clarify, i am about 5.0 player and there only reason i say "about" because I win against 4.5 about 8 out 10, so my strokes are there, both sides, off the ground and off the air. What I meant to say that on b/h side I feel very natural, not because my f/h is not good, it's just because I am 50/50 lefty and righty. And since my switch to 2HBH I noticed i can handle harder shots on my b/h side, notably serve included here, and therefore I can relate to someone playing 1HBH returning hard shots short.

it's simple law of physics, 2 hands are stronger than 1

Fries-N-Gravy
08-13-2007, 01:13 PM
federer is having similar backhand problems as sampras did. he's just been so good at everything else and improvising has been enough for that backhand, but lately its been a headache. his forehand is just so good it makes up for it. sampras' backhand was horrible when the ball bounced a bit high.

F=MA, the M would be your body weight and momentum from your legs/footwork, and A is the speed of the racquet. the speed of the racquet is determined by the fluidity of the body and arm mechanics. not so "simple" is it?

by your "law of physics" assumption, wouldn't a two handed serve be better? as well as a two handed forehand? one hand is actually more powerful because two is more constricting.

IT IS NOT ABOUT STRENGTH. the real problem is having a relatively flat grip one handed backhand really puts you at a disadvantage for high balls because the ideal contact point is lower. Two handed backhands allow you to adjust much easier to higher shots especially when you're using semi or full western on your nondominant hand. Kuerten who has been forgotten because of his downfall had a western one hander (higher contact point) and it was considered by many to be his strongest shot.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 01:15 PM
John McEnroe - number one for 4 years
Ivan Lendl - number one for 5 years
Pete Sampras - number one for 6 years
Roger Federer - number one for 4 years and counting
Martina Navratilova - number one for many years
Steffi Graf - number one for many years.



Where is Borg? isn't he some kind of a legend in the tennis world? And if i am not mistaken he played 2HBH?

Fries-N-Gravy
08-13-2007, 01:20 PM
he was stating the dominant one handerers

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 01:23 PM
F=MA, the M would be your body weight and momentum from your legs/footwork, and A is the speed of the racquet. the speed of the racquet is determined by the fluidity of the body and arm mechanics. not so "simple" is it?

by your "law of physics" assumption, wouldn't a two handed serve be better? as well as a two handed forehand? just goes to show that some people who try to sound smart don't really know what they're talking about. one hand is actually more powerful because two is more constricting.


Thank you for a "refreshment" course in physics, and you are right, in many ways i might add especially body weight and momentum from your legs/footwork because this is where the power comes from in 2HBH, unlike long looping and fluid swing as is the case in 1HBH

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 01:27 PM
he was stating the dominant one handerers

and the part which I deleted

And - it's no coincidence that the most dominant players of the last 30 years - the players who have been at number one longer than other players have one hand backhands:

notice the text in bold

friedalo1
08-13-2007, 01:33 PM
im sorry to say federer had triple match point. He plainly choked the match away. Federer has the one of the best looking backhands and forehands in the world. Mentally he is not perfect. He has more good days than bad days. He is a great champion like Sampras, Borg, Connors.

rosenstar
08-13-2007, 01:44 PM
F=MA, the M would be your body weight and momentum from your legs/footwork, and A is the speed of the racquet. the speed of the racquet is determined by the fluidity of the body and arm mechanics. not so "simple" is it?

actually M=the mass of the racquets



IT IS NOT ABOUT STRENGTH. the real problem is having a relatively flat grip one handed backhand really puts you at a disadvantage for high balls because the ideal contact point is lower. Two handed backhands allow you to adjust much easier to higher shots especially when you're using semi or full western on your nondominant hand. Kuerten who has been forgotten because of his downfall had a western one hander (higher contact point) and it was considered by many to be his strongest shot.

I 100% agree.

rosenstar
08-13-2007, 01:45 PM
im sorry to say federer had triple match point. He plainly choked the match away. Federer has the one of the best looking backhands and forehands in the world. Mentally he is not perfect. He has more good days than bad days. He is a great champion like Sampras, Borg, Connors.

I also agree with this

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 01:53 PM
Just for the record, i never said Federer doesn't have a good b/h, to the contrary, all things considered, and i am repeating myself here, his b/h is very versatile and potent, my only comment was was Djokovic made him produce many UE with his deep and powerful strokes to Federer's b/h

And I am off to my tennis game, ciao:p

laurie
08-13-2007, 02:04 PM
Just for the record, i never said Federer doesn't have a good b/h, to the contrary, all things considered, and i am repeating myself here, his b/h is very versatile and potent, my only comment was was Djokovic made him produce many UE with his deep and powerful strokes to Federer's b/h

And I am off to my tennis game, ciao:p

Good for you, but hurry up then! You are still online. Don't let silly discussions on Tennis Warehouse message boards stop you from playing a nice game of Tennis - which is much more fun.

fastdunn
08-13-2007, 02:17 PM
One of the reasons why Federer is playing such a stayed game is because he has no coach. Why doesn't he employ someone who is brave enough to tell him things he seems not to want to hear? He sacked Lundgren who wanted him to get to net more, and he's sacked Tony Roche. But in sport, even the best need to be told when certain things in their game aren't working and they need to be reminded of what they are capable of. Federer should be man enough to take other people's ideas in.

But even under Roche, his game slowly had turned into
hard core baselining with less variety.

I think main reason is that we has not had any serious challenge
last 2-3 years. He had no reason not to resort to safe baseline game.

I think he now has s bit better competitions (Nadal on faster courts,
Djokovic, and maybe Gasquet and Murray maturing up)
and maybe finally has some motivation to consider some tweaks.

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 02:44 PM
it's simple law of physics, 2 hands are stronger than 1
Well, if you want to bring physics into it, the 1HBH is more powerful because it's a longer stroke than the abbreviated 2HBH. Ask any 2HBH pro on the WTA that have played Justine Henin and ask them if they think Henin's 1HBH is or is not a powerful shot.

rod99
08-13-2007, 03:37 PM
no, I understand that. my arguement is that one must judge the ability of a certain shot not by that shot alone, but by how that shot fits into the rest of their game.

rod99 believes federer has a lousy backhand b/c if he were only allowed to hit backhands, he would lose mor often than not. I believe that Federer's backhand is fantastic because it suits his game. I explained this in detail in post #34 and don't feel like typing it out again, so heres the link:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1660593&postcount=34

first of all, i don't believe he has a "lousy" backhand. i said he has a good backhand which isn't top 10 in the world. there is a big difference there. second of all, i do agree federer's backhand fits nicely into his game. however, i also believe if federer had a backhand like any of the guys in my original post then he would have an even better record. obviously he has an amazing record as it is, but if would be even better if his backhand improved.

and this talk about generating more pace simply b/c someone has a 2-hander is nonscense. gasquet, calleri, haas, ljubicic, and pavel can all rip the one-hander with as much pace as any 2-hander. it's all about the mechancis. federer just isn't able to generate as much pace as these guys for whatever reason.

LafayetteHitter
08-13-2007, 03:44 PM
Guys you just don't understand, a double digit slam record means NOTHING if you lose at the Rogers Cup...LOL
God the Federer trolls are unreal sometimes. It was great tennis and enjoyable to watch. It's good for the game to have some players that push Federer and bring the game to a higher level.

Chopin
08-13-2007, 04:07 PM
Beautiful, very pretty, but the only problem is this preparation in this form occurs only when player has adequate time to set up. in many cases they resort to off balance, out of position and less perfect shots, as the ones you get when your opponent hits the ball hard and away from you, as was the case today

Everything is relevant to what your opponent throws at you

You're right, of course. But I'd argue that Federer's slice shot is perfect for when he's out of balance, how many times do we see him block back a serve or go defense to offensive with it. Still though, I agree with you, it matters what ball your opponent is giving you--look at Federer on clay against Nadal. But that being said, I think the reason Federer lost that match has little to do with his backhand (at least less than his serving and focus on big points). Federer weathered the storm early and routinely broke and gave himself 5 or 6 set point in the first set and lost them largely on errors. He then won the second set 6-2. I think this loss means little for Federer's dominance for the remainder of the year. It could easily have been a 7-5, 6-2 type of match...

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 04:16 PM
you maybe ergo sum, but you are not cogito

if you ever played tennis that you will know what it means to be pounded to your weak side, and how your returns fall either short or out of boundries

you can still produce spectacular shots off your weaker side, given you get a good ball to hit

Wow you come in on this on the second day and all of a sudden your an expert. LOL! You think you know quite a bit but I don't think you know much at all. I was just agreeing with rosen that rod99 made a dumb point when he said that if you took everything away and just made it into a backhand to backhand rally then you would see that Federer's bh isn't that great. I thought that was silly. So don't tell me that I don't think. You arrogant ***. Also this is just about opinions, I didn't attack rod at all, I just didn't agree with him. Don't attack someone who has a different opinion mr. 5.0. lol!

wangs78
08-13-2007, 04:18 PM
People - I know we love these message boards and love to argue with points that are exaggerated. So, if we took away the exaggeration factor, here is the answer about Fed's backhand:

He has an excellent backhand from a skill perspective, but from a consistency perspective, you can probably only rate it as being "very good". I've seen Fed do things with the backhand that defies belief, I'm sure we all have, therefore we know he has the ability. But we have also seen other players (Nadal, and no Djokovic) successfully attack it to win the match. Look, Fed is obviously going to lose matches here and there and ppl are always going to blame the backhand but it's just not right to do that. He lost because he wasn't playing well and it only seemed like the backhand failed him because other players will always hit to his backhand because they don't want to face Federer's forehand, which many, including McEnroe, say is the greatest weapon in the sport. Federer has every shot and every stroke in the book, including the backhand. Sure, his forehand and serving skill (note I did not say serving power) are his greatest assets, but his backhand is one of the best in the game. Maybe not the best, I agree.

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 04:21 PM
People - I know we love these message boards and love to argue with points that are exaggerated. So, if we took away the exaggeration factor, here is the answer about Fed's backhand:

He has an excellent backhand from a skill perspective, but from a consistency perspective, you can probably only rate it as being "very good". I've seen Fed do things with the backhand that defies belief, I'm sure we all have, therefore we know he has the ability. But we have also seen other players (Nadal, and no Djokovic) successfully attack it to win the match. Look, Fed is obviously going to lose matches here and there and ppl are always going to blame the backhand but it's just not right to do that. He lost because he wasn't playing well and it only seemed like the backhand failed him because other players will always hit to his backhand because they don't want to face Federer's forehand, which many, including McEnroe, say is the greatest weapon in the sport. Federer has every shot and every stroke in the book, including the backhand. Sure, his forehand and serving skill (note I did not say serving power) are his greatest assets, but his backhand is one of the best in the game. Maybe not the best, I agree.

Dude, that was very well said. :)

West Coast Ace
08-13-2007, 04:29 PM
Well, if you want to bring physics into it, the 1HBH is more powerful because it's a longer stroke than the abbreviated 2HBH. Ask any 2HBH pro on the WTA that have played Justine Henin and ask them if they think Henin's 1HBH is or is not a powerful shot.Not sure about that - two arms can transfer power into the ball better than one. Plus two hands allow one to lessen the vibration from the impact more effectively. (Note: BSME from Lehigh University).

Guys you just don't understand, a double digit slam record means NOTHING if you lose at the Rogers Cup...LOL
God the Federer trolls are unreal sometimes. It was great tennis and enjoyable to watch. It's good for the game to have some players that push Federer and bring the game to a higher level.Well said. One match and all the nutbags break out of the asylums and head to the Internet Cafes.

I said it in another thread - it's the wind! The one hander is a longer stroke - more to go wrong, especially when the wind is moving the ball around. Hard to say where I'd rate Fed's BH - but it would be pretty high because of the variety.

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 04:33 PM
Well said. One match and all the nutbags break out of the asylums and head to the Internet Cafes.

I said it in another thread - it's the wind! The one hander is a longer stroke - more to go wrong, especially when the wind is moving the ball around. Hard to say where I'd rate Fed's BH - but it would be pretty high because of the variety.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree with that. I think you did say something about the wind being a factor in some of his other matches in another thread.

rod99
08-13-2007, 05:27 PM
Well said. One match and all the nutbags break out of the asylums and head to the Internet Cafes.

I said it in another thread - it's the wind! The one hander is a longer stroke - more to go wrong, especially when the wind is moving the ball around. Hard to say where I'd rate Fed's BH - but it would be pretty high because of the variety.

I would have to agree with that. I think you did say something about the wind being a factor in some of his other matches in another thread.[/QUOTE]

well this "nutbag" has been saying it for years now, not simply based on this one match. it's just frustrating when i hear people say federer has the best backhand in the game, b/c it's simply not. it's just a good backhand. if you can drive the ball deep and high to his backhand then eventually it will break down more often that not. i'll stand by the point that if you replace his backhand with one of those mentioned in the original post, then federer would lose fewer times than he does.

just b/c federer may go down as the greatest of all time doesn't mean that every part of his game is "great".

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 05:34 PM
I would have to agree with that. I think you did say something about the wind being a factor in some of his other matches in another thread.

well this "nutbag" has been saying it for years now, not simply based on this one match. it's just frustrating when i hear people say federer has the best backhand in the game, b/c it's simply not. it's just a good backhand. if you can drive the ball deep and high to his backhand then eventually it will break down more often that not. i'll stand by the point that if you replace his backhand with one of those mentioned in the original post, then federer would lose fewer times than he does.

just b/c federer may go down as the greatest of all time doesn't mean that every part of his game is "great".[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Well said Rod.

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 05:34 PM
The quote thing is messing up on this thread.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 05:59 PM
Wow you come in on this on the second day and all of a sudden your an expert. LOL! You think you know quite a bit but I don't think you know much at all. I was just agreeing with rosen that rod99 made a dumb point when he said that if you took everything away and just made it into a backhand to backhand rally then you would see that Federer's bh isn't that great. I thought that was silly. So don't tell me that I don't think. You arrogant ***. Also this is just about opinions, I didn't attack rod at all, I just didn't agree with him. Don't attack someone who has a different opinion mr. 5.0. lol!

We are here because we love tennis, we like playing, like watching and like talking about it. My reference to your motto was mere suggestion to rethink of the opinions mentioned. And if you find it offensive and construed it as a criticism, I apologize, it didn't mean to be.

tennispro11
08-13-2007, 06:02 PM
We are here because we love tennis, we like playing, like watching and like talking about it. My reference to your motto was mere suggestion to rethink of the opinions mentioned. And if you find it offensive and construed it as a criticism, I apologize, it didn't mean to be.

I completely agree with everything you just said. Your reference ****ed me off a little bit because I felt like you were attacking me. But it's all good. Your explanation is well put.

tricky
08-13-2007, 06:11 PM
well this "nutbag" has been saying it for years now, not simply based on this one match. it's just frustrating when i hear people say federer has the best backhand in the game, b/c it's simply not.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I think overall, when you throw in slice, BH return and BH volley -- the total game -- he could be the best in in the game. But if we're just isolating the topspin BH, then there's just no way that shot could be the best in the game.

FWIW, I think people underestimate just how ridiculously great a great topspin BH can be. It's the only stroke that can give you 75% of the court to play with.

Bhagi Katbamna
08-13-2007, 06:17 PM
No question that Fed's backhand is his weaker side. Not that it's weak by any means.
He has an excellent backhand from a skill perspective, but from a consistency perspective, you can probably only rate it as being "very good". I've seen Fed do things with the backhand that defies belief, I'm sure we all have, therefore we know he has the ability. But we have also seen other players (Nadal, and no Djokovic) successfully attack it to win the match. Look, Fed is obviously going to lose matches here and there and ppl are always going to blame the backhand but it's just not right to do that. He lost because he wasn't playing well and it only seemed like the backhand failed him because other players will always hit to his backhand because they don't want to face Federer's forehand, which many, including McEnroe, say is the greatest weapon in the sport. Federer has every shot and every stroke in the book, including the backhand. Sure, his forehand and serving skill (note I did not say serving power) are his greatest assets, but his backhand is one of the best in the game. Maybe not the best, I agree.

Well said.

Ambivalent
08-13-2007, 07:10 PM
Djokovic's backhand is nothing spectacular.

NamRanger
08-13-2007, 07:13 PM
Djokovic's backhand is nothing spectacular.


Extremely solid, makes literally no stupid errors unless huge lapse, good penetration, accurate, able to take balls on the rise. How is it not good again?

NamRanger
08-13-2007, 07:15 PM
You are right. Gasquet has a great one hander.

He has the best one hander. Period. No one can win matches literally with just their backhand like Gasquet can.

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 07:36 PM
Not sure about that - two arms can transfer power into the ball better than one. Plus two hands allow one to lessen the vibration from the impact more effectively. (Note: BSME from Lehigh University).

Power with the 1HBH comes from the technique, the shoulder rotation up, the weight transfer, the fluidity of the stroke, etc., and not from only the arm itself. Some guys with the skinniest arms with no muscles can hit the most powerful 1HBH's. Korda, Kuerten, and Federer come to mind. (Note: BSME from an Ivy League University).

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 08:13 PM
Djokovic's backhand is nothing spectacular.

can you think of anyone, Gasquet excluded, who is able to rip it down the line for a winner the way he does?

pow
08-13-2007, 08:18 PM
Just curious... when Nadal and Djokovic loses a match... what exactly is the single component that breaks down for them?
When Federer loses a match, the first scapegoat is his backhand.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 08:27 PM
Just curious... when Nadal and Djokovic loses a match... what exactly is the single component that breaks down for them?
When Federer loses a match, the first scapegoat is his backhand.

Very good question, I am guessing, with Nadal must be his timing, just doesn't get on time to make another perfect shot. Except his f/h and b/h he doesn't really have anything special which can fail him.

With Djokovic i suppose he is still learning so whatever caused him to loose, was different each time and most likely was his overall performance, or i should say lack of it.

pow
08-13-2007, 08:50 PM
Very good question, I am guessing, with Nadal must be his timing, just doesn't get on time to make another perfect shot. Except his f/h and b/h he doesn't really have anything special which can fail him.

With Djokovic i suppose he is still learning so whatever caused him to loose, was different each time and most likely was his overall performance, or i should say lack of it.

Actually I put that question up to illustrate that a player does not necessarily need to be have a component of their game "break down" for them to lose a match. Sometimes... it just happens, no? <-- (haha imitating Nadal)

tangerine
08-13-2007, 09:01 PM
Federer's behavior in the final was interesting to me. Was he was stunned to see Djokovic across the net instead of Nadal? He seemed like it. All this time he's been practicing with left-handers now all of a sudden he's got to deal with a player who can hit winners off both wings.

I think he was also shocked that Djokovic didn't just roll over and play dead like so many others do. He held his nerve, didn't choke, and actually blew Roger away in the tiebreaks. Unheard of!

I think Roger has been focusing on the Nadal factor too much. He often looks like he's not prepared to deal with any other opponent nowadays.

volleyandfun
08-13-2007, 09:12 PM
Actually I put that question up to illustrate that a player does not necessarily need to be have a component of their game "break down" for them to lose a match. Sometimes... it just happens, no? <-- (haha imitating Nadal)

Funny, NO? yeap, that's Nadal.

But i have to admit Roddick is the best when it comes to being funny. big mac serve motion? or the interview after being blown away by roger in AO?

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-13-2007, 09:25 PM
This is just practice for federer. Lets see joker beat fed at the usopen or any grand slam. Thats all that really matters.

Golden Retriever
08-13-2007, 09:44 PM
The one-handed backhand is just not as good as the 2HBH. Gasquet is a freak of nature.

saram
08-13-2007, 09:46 PM
The one-handed backhand is just not as good as the 2HBH. Gasquet is a freak of nature.


wrong--they parallel one another with strenths and weaknesses....one is not better than the other.

Graf won 22 slams with a 1HBH...

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 11:07 PM
The one-handed backhand is just not as good as the 2HBH. Gasquet is a freak of nature.
Then how about Haas, Kuerten, Gaudio, Pavel, Korda, etc., even me? Must be lots of "freaks of nature" out there.

BreakPoint
08-13-2007, 11:11 PM
Graf won 22 slams with a 1HBH...
Not to mention the number of slams won by Sampras, Federer, Laver, Emerson, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall, Vilas, Rafter, Ashe, Henin, Navratilova, Smith-Court, Goolagong, etc.

crazylevity
08-14-2007, 12:02 AM
wrong--they parallel one another with strenths and weaknesses....one is not better than the other.

Graf won 22 slams with a 1HBH...

Graf won 22 slams with a 1 handed SLICE backhand. :-D

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-14-2007, 12:28 AM
^^Exactly. Just because some have won a boatload of tournaments dont actually mean their one handed backhand was not a weakness.. Graf slice lol. Sampras? Serve machine. Edberg? Becker? Break Point??lol Mostly serves and volleys and big forehands. Lendle was one of the few exceptions that could baseline well with a one hander. You almost do need a freak in nature one hander to compete well from the baseline. Fed obviously has a killer forehand, accurate serves, moves well, above average one hander. This one vs two hander will never stop.

BreakPoint
08-14-2007, 12:45 AM
Graf won 22 slams with a 1 handed SLICE backhand. :-D
Guess that just proves how great a 1HBH is that she could do that. ;)

crosscourt
08-14-2007, 12:56 AM
Just curious... when Nadal and Djokovic loses a match... what exactly is the single component that breaks down for them?
When Federer loses a match, the first scapegoat is his backhand.

That's because the only way that anyone has worked out to attack Federer so far is to attack his backhand. And I can't remember seeing Federer lose in the last couple of years (when he was playing well) other than by someone getting on to his backhand. Even that is not easy. Everyone tries it, very few are good enough to do it and then only occasionally or on particular surfaces. It was only a couple of years ago that Agassi was saying that Federer was better than Sampras and that one of the reasons was that with Sampras you know where to go to get into his game but that with Feederer there was nowhere to go to. Nadal and Djokovic have shown that's not quite right.

TheSneakerologist
08-14-2007, 01:23 AM
Fed=most versatile backhand of all time. Don't even start -_-

Golden Retriever
08-14-2007, 02:34 AM
Not to mention the number of slams won by Sampras, Federer, Laver, Emerson, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall, Vilas, Rafter, Ashe, Henin, Navratilova, Smith-Court, Goolagong, etc.

They won despite of their backhands, except Henin who is also a freak of nature.

Povl Carstensen
08-14-2007, 03:00 AM
I need to see the match again, was so tired when I saw it last night, and I havent even read all the posts, but here is my 5c's, so far. 1. set was soo close to go to Federer, some amazing points in the end of it. And in a few of those exchanges, Federer, perhaps of a kind of stubbornness, chose to play repeated crosscourt bhs, which Djokovich punished with a couple of vital down the line winners. The beginning of the second set saw Federer change his tactics and mix up his bhs.
I need to see the match again (was falling asleep) to comment more.
I think the "stubbornness" is interesting, though a bit frustrating at times. And Djokovich played a great match...

rwn
08-14-2007, 03:48 AM
Federer lost 21 matches in more than 3 and a half years. Try to think about that for a while and realise how stupid this thread is.

West Coast Ace
08-14-2007, 03:55 AM
Power with the 1HBH comes from the technique, the shoulder rotation up, the weight transfer, the fluidity of the stroke, etc., and not from only the arm itself. Some guys with the skinniest arms with no muscles can hit the most powerful 1HBH's. Korda, Kuerten, and Federer come to mind. (Note: BSME from an Ivy League University).And what did you say that doesn't apply to a 2 hander? And you completely stayed away from my vibration point...

Mr Topspin
08-14-2007, 04:05 AM
Funny, NO? yeap, that's Nadal.

But i have to admit Roddick is the best when it comes to being funny. big mac serve motion? or the interview after being blown away by roger in AO?



Just my two pence (British currency) on your debate on 1hb vs 2hb.

Firstly,as has been mentioned by Laurie, Some of the most dominant champions have all had one handed backhands including Laver, Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras, Navratillova, Goolagong and most recently Graff, Henin and Federer. You cannot be that dominat without having a solid baseline game on both wings especially on the backhand side. Steffi Graff, is a prime example of someone who was able to compete with the best players of the world with a relatively weaker backhand slice which ultimately made all the difference on grass where her slice was a major weapon ala Mauresmo.

In regards to Federer, what makes his backhand so good and so erratic is that he has tons more variety than the guys that can just hit topspin backhands and little else on that side. I can guarantee that if Federer had a backhand similar to Gasquet he may have done well at the French but may not have been as versatile as he is now. Federer's backhand allows him to tie opponents in knots ala Roddick and punish them in a way that most players cannot. In short, the variety generated by Fed's backhand is a weakness when put through relentless topspin bashing, as it is more effective as a mix up shot rather than repeated drills of the same shot. And herein lies the difficulty for Federer. Since hooking up with Roache Fed started working on consistency on topspin backhands and became dare i say it much more predictable on the backhand; as he thought that was the way to defeat Nadal. This plan failed as it made his overall game suffer and he lost much of the diversity that made him stand out.

In relation to the 1 hander vs two hander. I play tennis also and have a ranking in Britain similar to what you may call 4.0. I play with a 1hb and play mostly 2hb as they are more prevalent in my league. I always find it easier to play these guys coz they are far more consistent to play as they provide consistent pace to work with. My bh is my weaker side relative to my fh but when i play guys who are known for having strong 2hb i when on can destroy them on backhand rallies going pound for pound on pure topspin rallies. If i choose to use slice and touch shots i can win also. In conclusion, i have choices and options that most 2hb just dont have and that is why i feel that a decent player with a proficient 1hb will always give 2hb a run for their money.

TennezSport
08-14-2007, 05:16 AM
^^^ I completely agree with Mr. T ;) The versitility with the 1hbh is a big advantage. The 2hbh may have a little better disguise, but is not as versatile (unless the 2hbh player learns to go to a 1hbh slice shot ala Wilander).

TennezSport :cool:

epicsocks
08-14-2007, 05:20 AM
Djokovic said it all during his victory speech: "Roger can't win them all, I mean, give him a break."

volleyandfun
08-14-2007, 05:56 AM
Just my two pence (British currency) on your debate on 1hb vs 2hb.


In relation to the 1 hander vs two hander. I play tennis also and have a ranking in Britain similar to what you may call 4.0. I play with a 1hb and play mostly 2hb as they are more prevalent in my league. I always find it easier to play these guys coz they are far more consistent to play as they provide consistent pace to work with. My bh is my weaker side relative to my fh but when i play guys who are known for having strong 2hb i when on can destroy them on backhand rallies going pound for pound on pure topspin rallies. If i choose to use slice and touch shots i can win also. In conclusion, i have choices and options that most 2hb just dont have and that is why i feel that a decent player with a proficient 1hb will always give 2hb a run for their money.

I don't understand why do you say that? I use slice, i use dropshots, i use 1h volleys, i change pace and in addition i can change direction and angle at any time and no one has any clue, cannot anticipate where my shots are going, like you said 2hbh is very hard to read and i've been told that over and over.
And one more place where i greatly benefit with 2hbh is serve return, it makes it easier to handle serves with lot of pace and with a minimal swing, virtually by blocking them return goes deep. I played a junior (about 5.5), lefty, tall and and serving with lots of spin and handled his serve pretty well, returning them on my b/h side consistently.

The thing is that when you play, every ball you get is different, and can be handled in many ways so game variety is essential, and every player in order to progress should be able to use majority, if not all shots available.

I'll check my old videos and see how other players do with their 1hbh and rallies similar to those Federer had with Djokovic

rod99
08-14-2007, 08:54 AM
Federer lost 21 matches in more than 3 and a half years. Try to think about that for a while and realise how stupid this thread is.

it's not stupid. yes, he's only lost 21 matches but he would have lost even less if his backhand was better.

ledor
08-14-2007, 09:21 AM
Federer's backhand just proves he's human.

tennissavy
08-14-2007, 09:25 AM
Guess that just proves how great a 1HBH is that she could do that. ;)

No, it was a different game then. Most one handed backhands cannot cope consistently with the modern game.

Mr Topspin
08-14-2007, 09:49 AM
I don't understand why do you say that? I use slice, i use dropshots, i use 1h volleys, i change pace and in addition i can change direction and angle at any time and no one has any clue, cannot anticipate where my shots are going, like you said 2hbh is very hard to read and i've been told that over and over.
And one more place where i greatly benefit with 2hbh is serve return, it makes it easier to handle serves with lot of pace and with a minimal swing, virtually by blocking them return goes deep. I played a junior (about 5.5), lefty, tall and and serving with lots of spin and handled his serve pretty well, returning them on my b/h side consistently.

The thing is that when you play, every ball you get is different, and can be handled in many ways so game variety is essential, and every player in order to progress should be able to use majority, if not all shots available.

I'll check my old videos and see how other players do with their 1hbh and rallies similar to those Federer had with Djokovic



Well perhaps in your case. You are still incorporating some of the variety you picked up from using a one hander. If you play people who have always used 2hands it is unlikely that they will use the same sort of variety that you execute. Murray is one of the few guys who executes all the shots whilst using a 2 hander, most other guys with an all court game use 1 hand on the backhand.

Chopin
08-14-2007, 11:38 AM
it's not stupid. yes, he's only lost 21 matches but he would have lost even less if his backhand was better.

So the primary reasons he lost most of those matches was his backhand?

BreakPoint
08-14-2007, 12:34 PM
They won despite of their backhands, except Henin who is also a freak of nature.
Wow, then maybe everyone should switch to a 1HBH and win despite their backhands, too. ;)

Again, must be so many "freaks of nature" out there that it's actually "normal"? :D

BreakPoint
08-14-2007, 12:43 PM
And what did you say that doesn't apply to a 2 hander? And you completely stayed away from my vibration point...
The power comes from the momentum generated by the weight of your racquet and the speed of your swing (p=mv), and not by how many hands you have on the racquet. 2HBH tends to be a shorter stroke, thus, the velocity of the racquet head at the moment of impact is typically less than a good 1HBH that comes from a long, full, faster swing (see Henin, Haas, Federer, Gaudio, Kuerten, etc.). 1HBH players tend to also use heavier racquets (statistics show this) which also helps them to generate greater momentum along with their longer, faster strokes.

I don't experience any more vibration on my 1HBH than on my 1HFH so I'm not quite sure what vibration has to do with it? Besides, you should only feel the vibration after you've hit the ball so it shouldn't really affect your shot anyway.

BreakPoint
08-14-2007, 12:45 PM
No, it was a different game then. Most one handed backhands cannot cope consistently with the modern game.
I guess somebody must have forgotten to tell Federer that. ;)

(as well as Henin, Mauresmo, Haas, Robredo, Blake, Ljubicic, etc.)

BreakPoint
08-14-2007, 12:47 PM
it's not stupid. yes, he's only lost 21 matches but he would have lost even less if his backhand was better.
He also would have lost even less if he had a serve like Karlovic or Roddick, so what's the point? :confused:

Is he not perfect enough already or not "god-like" enough? Most of his opponents certainly think so.

drakulie
08-14-2007, 01:20 PM
it's not stupid. yes, he's only lost 21 matches but he would have lost even less if his backhand was better.

Or if his competetition war worse.

How about giving his opponents some credit?? Ever think of that? Duh!

federerfanatic
08-14-2007, 02:54 PM
So the primary reasons he lost most of those matches was his backhand?

He loses matches sometimes since when you have the best players in the World, there are many others who play tennis at a very high level and everyone has to lose sometimes. Gee, what a strange concept that would be, that instead of obvious weakness in his game. ;)

rod99
08-14-2007, 04:29 PM
So the primary reasons he lost most of those matches was his backhand?

yes, i believe that is the case

daddy
08-14-2007, 04:43 PM
^^^ I completely agree with Mr. T ;) The versitility with the 1hbh is a big advantage. The 2hbh may have a little better disguise, but is not as versatile (unless the 2hbh player learns to go to a 1hbh slice shot ala Wilander).

TennezSport :cool:

Im not sure what this ment but all 2hbh play slice with one hand mate, and in case you wonder if this is correct watch wimbledon 07 again and see how rafa plays his one handed slice to perfection, always one cm above the net and sliced like with sword ..

daddy
08-14-2007, 04:45 PM
He also would have lost even less if he had a serve like Karlovic or Roddick, so what's the point? :confused:

Is he not perfect enough already or not "god-like" enough? Most of his opponents certainly think so.

Elaborate on this, I want to know how come roddick serve is better than Feds ? Faster is not better, faster serve means better return in 90% of cases and also variety on Fed serve ( resembles PeteS ) is amazing .. If hes on a role, well, its a hell serve. Remember the world record on aces, few years ago, johanson or whichever swed against agassi ? 55 aces and lost in 4 sets , ha ha ! ;)

rod99
08-14-2007, 07:08 PM
He also would have lost even less if he had a serve like Karlovic or Roddick, so what's the point? :confused:

Is he not perfect enough already or not "god-like" enough? Most of his opponents certainly think so.

true, but noone is saying he has a bigger serve than roddick or karlovic (yes, he holds all the time, but a big reason is b/c of the rest of his game, though he does have a very good serve). i started this thread b/c i'm sick of people saying that he has the best backhand in the game when it's not the case.

daddy
08-14-2007, 07:12 PM
true, but noone is saying he has a bigger serve than roddick or karlovic (yes, he holds all the time, but a big reason is b/c of the rest of his game, though he does have a very good serve). i started this thread b/c i'm sick of people saying that he has the best backhand in the game when it's not the case.

I am. Serve is not speed and aces. He gets so many easy points on serve, aces, unreturned serve winners, perfect set up short balls and much more. ALso best 2nd serve in the game, most variety on the serve and perfect precision. He holds because even when the serve lets him down the rest of the game is there to back up, but face it that karlovic does not his a single decent return during a season and rod is just so flat that people read the serve, get into it and get them selves into the point whereas with fed serve, when its in its over.

daddy
08-14-2007, 07:12 PM
BH is not the best for sure, just to add, but ppl, if it was, why woudl we watch tennis at all ?

tennispro11
08-14-2007, 07:16 PM
Not the best BH for sure, but I would definitely say top 5. What he lacks in the topspin department, he makes up for with his diversity of the BH.

daddy
08-14-2007, 07:18 PM
Not the best BH for sure, but I would definitely say top 5. What he lacks in the topspin department, he makes up for with his diversity of the BH.

Buit he can topspin bh also, to create angles, but only of slower balls. Otherwise hes hiting it back fairly fast but not causing too much damage unles he has a good bh and bad hair day .. ;)

volleyandfun
08-14-2007, 07:22 PM
Well perhaps in your case. You are still incorporating some of the variety you picked up from using a one hander. If you play people who have always used 2hands it is unlikely that they will use the same sort of variety that you execute. Murray is one of the few guys who executes all the shots whilst using a 2 hander, most other guys with an all court game use 1 hand on the backhand.


Little bit but not quite, when I switched to 2hbh it felt SO GOOD that everything coming my way i was hitting with 2h. When I started to play more competitive tennis i realized 2 things, #1 i was hitting out many short balls, and #2 despite having decent pace on both sides I couldn't win many games. And Mr Topspin is perfectly right, it is actually very easy to win points against someone who plays the same strokes all the time, especially flat and crosscourt. So i started to blend in some other shots, little slice tap is perfect for hard to get short balls, occasional drop shot (guys do not laff) does miracles to throw some baseliner off the balance, and slicing left and right adds another dimension. So now i beat all the people i was loosing just a year ago.

daddy
08-14-2007, 07:39 PM
Little bit but not quite, when I switched to 2hbh it felt SO GOOD that everything coming my way i was hitting with 2h. When I started to play more competitive tennis i realized 2 things, #1 i was hitting out many short balls, and #2 despite having decent pace on both sides I couldn't win many games. And Mr Topspin is perfectly right, it is actually very easy to win points against someone who plays the same strokes all the time, especially flat and crosscourt. So i started to blend in some other shots, little slice tap is perfect for hard to get short balls, occasional drop shot (guys do not laff) does miracles to throw some baseliner off the balance, and slicing left and right adds another dimension. So now i beat all the people i was loosing just a year ago.


Okay just watch with the slice, if its not top notch, low fast and running away, any class act will make a winner from it even if you hit a baseline.

BreakPoint
08-14-2007, 08:19 PM
Elaborate on this, I want to know how come roddick serve is better than Feds ? Faster is not better, faster serve means better return in 90% of cases and also variety on Fed serve ( resembles PeteS ) is amazing .. If hes on a role, well, its a hell serve. Remember the world record on aces, few years ago, johanson or whichever swed against agassi ? 55 aces and lost in 4 sets , ha ha ! ;)
Exactly! So saying that Federer would win even more if he had a better backhand doesn't make any sense either. How many times has Roddick beaten Federer even with his huge serve and Federer's supposedly "weak backhand"?

federerfanatic
08-14-2007, 10:08 PM
The funniest thing about this thread is you get the impression its originator was chomping at the bit for Federer to lose another match, so he would finally get the opportunity to start this troll thread. It is particularly amusing to see the headline "yet again". So "yet again" for a guy who is losing about 5 matches a year on average.

sarpmas
08-14-2007, 10:33 PM
... Roger Federer has got to the stage in his career where he thinks it works for him so he uses it no matter what. Another term for stubborness. There are a few areas where Federer can add to his game, or more to the point, bring back elements to his game which he has been neglecting as of late...

I'm finding it disinteresting to watch Federer because he's doing the same things over and over in a match. He doesn't really mix up the play at all. Which is ironic considering how the pundits keep force feeding us with platitudes of his versatile game...
... And herein lies the difficulty for Federer. Since hooking up with Roache Fed started working on consistency on topspin backhands and became dare i say it much more predictable on the backhand; as he thought that was the way to defeat Nadal. This plan failed as it made his overall game suffer and he lost much of the diversity that made him stand out...
I think both laurie and Mr Topspin have raised a very important issue as to why Federer appears more vulnerable nowadays and I believe many have overlooked the bigger picture. Federer's 'weaker' bh is just a small part of the reason. The main problem is: Federer is fast BECOMING PREDICTABLE.

He is having so much success playing comfortably from the baseline nowadays that IMO, he has neglected the very thing that put him where he is today, his versatility. He still has all the shots in his arsenal, but unfortunately, he chose to play less slices, less volleys, less angles, less VARIETY, he is becoming predictable. He is giving his opponents an opportunity to get into a rhythm playing him. Every now and then, when one such opponent gets into a zone, able to stay with Federer and matching him stroke for stroke from the baseline, Federer will be in danger of losing.

I'm patiently awaiting the return of the 2005 2006 version of Federer. That is the Federer that sends chills down the spine of his opponents, where variety is the name of his game!

Zets147
08-14-2007, 11:17 PM
I say, we all log into his website and post up "Roger, you need to use your variety more!!!" let's see how he deals with every poster from every country saying the same thing.

volleyandfun
08-15-2007, 06:49 AM
I think both laurie and Mr Topspin have raised a very important issue as to why Federer appears more vulnerable nowadays and I believe many have overlooked the bigger picture. Federer's 'weaker' bh is just a small part of the reason. The main problem is: Federer is fast BECOMING PREDICTABLE.

He is having so much success playing comfortably from the baseline nowadays that IMO, he has neglected the very thing that put him where he is today, his versatility. He still has all the shots in his arsenal, but unfortunately, he chose to play less slices, less volleys, less angles, less VARIETY, he is becoming predictable. He is giving his opponents an opportunity to get into a rhythm playing him. Every now and then, when one such opponent gets into a zone, able to stay with Federer and matching him stroke for stroke from the baseline, Federer will be in danger of losing.

I'm patiently awaiting the return of the 2005 2006 version of Federer. That is the Federer that sends chills down the spine of his opponents, where variety is the name of his game!

That is very well put. I remember before this year's FO Federer was preparing to win, so I figured he had some kind of a strategy to handle Nadal on clay. To my disappointment, and I am sure his too later, he did not do anything special, just a simple baseline to baseline pounding which he has no chance with Nadal on clay.

rod99
08-15-2007, 04:50 PM
The funniest thing about this thread is you get the impression its originator was chomping at the bit for Federer to lose another match, so he would finally get the opportunity to start this troll thread. It is particularly amusing to see the headline "yet again". So "yet again" for a guy who is losing about 5 matches a year on average.

good try, but no. like i said, i'm a federer fan. i've pulled for him ever since agassi retired. however, i think his backhand is one of the most overrated shots in the game.

rod99
08-15-2007, 04:54 PM
[QUOTE=daddy;1666333]I am. Serve is not speed and aces. He gets so many easy points on serve, aces, unreturned serve winners, perfect set up short balls and much more. ALso best 2nd serve in the game, most variety on the serve and perfect precision. He holds because even when the serve lets him down the rest of the game is there to back up, but face it that karlovic does not his a single decent return during a season and rod is just so flat that people read the serve, get into it and get them selves into the point whereas with fed serve, when its in its over.[/QUO

that's garbage. federer certainly has one of the best serves in the game (i'd say top 5 for sure) but he doesn't have the best serve. he has the ability to break big servers b/c he returns so well. he does this not with winners but has the ability to get the ball back to get him in a neutral position. and when it's a neutral position then he always has the upper hand. however, if you want to look at the serve alone, he's not the best.

Chang
08-15-2007, 04:56 PM
I think both laurie and Mr Topspin have raised a very important issue as to why Federer appears more vulnerable nowadays and I believe many have overlooked the bigger picture. Federer's 'weaker' bh is just a small part of the reason. The main problem is: Federer is fast BECOMING PREDICTABLE.

He is having so much success playing comfortably from the baseline nowadays that IMO, he has neglected the very thing that put him where he is today, his versatility. He still has all the shots in his arsenal, but unfortunately, he chose to play less slices, less volleys, less angles, less VARIETY, he is becoming predictable. He is giving his opponents an opportunity to get into a rhythm playing him. Every now and then, when one such opponent gets into a zone, able to stay with Federer and matching him stroke for stroke from the baseline, Federer will be in danger of losing.

I'm patiently awaiting the return of the 2005 2006 version of Federer. That is the Federer that sends chills down the spine of his opponents, where variety is the name of his game!

I strongly agree with the fact that Federer is losing his variety and that players are getting used to him.

daddy
08-15-2007, 05:07 PM
that's garbage. federer certainly has one of the best serves in the game (i'd say top 5 for sure) but he doesn't have the best serve. he has the ability to break big servers b/c he returns so well. he does this not with winners but has the ability to get the ball back to get him in a neutral position. and when it's a neutral position then he always has the upper hand. however, if you want to look at the serve alone, he's not the best.


Oh yeah. Then explain this to me and you are right, I put my hat off for you.

5th set 2 - 2 wimbledon finals against rafa 07. 15 - 40. He serves like 4 huge serves and wins after that soly on his confidence serving like a god and when its not a winner he hits a winner of it. So let me ask you this, if those 4 serves were not there - would he won this years wimbledon ?

If you say yes, I will not comment further, since youd be so wrong and you wount even know it.

rod99
08-15-2007, 05:14 PM
Oh yeah. Then explain this to me and you are right, I put my hat off for you.

5th set 2 - 2 wimbledon finals against rafa 07. 15 - 40. He serves like 4 huge serves and wins after that soly on his confidence serving like a god and when its not a winner he hits a winner of it. So let me ask you this, if those 4 serves were not there - would he won this years wimbledon ?

If you say yes, I will not comment further, since youd be so wrong and you wount even know it.

i'm not really sure what the point of your post is. i said he has a top 5 serve in the world and obviously he came up big in that situation. you can't use one example to solidify your claim that he has the best serve in the world. ridiculous. i've often seen federer serve barely 50% in matches, including big matches at the french open.

daddy
08-15-2007, 05:17 PM
i'm not really sure what the point of your post is. i said he has a top 5 serve in the world and obviously he came up big in that situation. you can't use one example to solidify your claim that he has the best serve in the world. ridiculous. i've often seen federer serve barely 50% in matches, including big matches at the french open.

Yes friend , but I singled out him as one who has by far the best serve in the world due to several reasons :

1 - aces pretty much.
2 - serve winners too often
3 - when its not an ace or a winner , he sets up a perfect volley or easy forhand or drop shot etc, wins the point
4 - when he misses the first serve, 2nd has a perfect placement, very high speed and huge kick.

Give me a bit of time and I will come up with stats, like 15 mins okay ?

federerGOAT
08-15-2007, 05:24 PM
Yes friend , but I singled out him as one who has by far the best serve in the world due to several reasons :

1 - aces pretty much.
2 - serve winners too often
3 - when its not an ace or a winner , he sets up a perfect volley or easy forhand or drop shot etc, wins the point
4 - when he misses the first serve, 2nd has a perfect placement, very high speed and huge kick.

Give me a bit of time and I will come up with stats, like 15 mins okay ?

I agree on this one. I think he had a serve that was just as good or even better than Pete Sampras. Their serving speeds were almost the same, but Fed has more variety.

daddy
08-15-2007, 05:26 PM
Okay I analysed some stats and obviously did this roddick vs federer. Conclusions :

Roddick has by far more aces this season, almost double and did face few less less break points, 10%. Then again, they both saved like 67% of the break points they faced so thats even department. By this rod has a better serve, if we look at it alone. Now consider my point = rod played at least 30% weaker oponents ( by sole virtue of fed going deep into each tournament where he plays the guys who are currently in form and are in the latter stages of the tours, particulary in slams ) ..

So Id say stats say rod has a better serve. but when you calculate other factors, I think fed can easilly rely to his serve in crucial moments of his important matches against hard oponents whereas rod can not, which makes a big difference. I thought its not that close but it it. Still fed has a better ( should I say more usefull serve he can use in critical moments .. ).

I am being fair here and bringing up valid stats and my opinion.

rod99
08-15-2007, 05:27 PM
I agree on this one. I think he had a serve that was just as good or even better than Pete Sampras. Their serving speeds were almost the same, but Fed has more variety.

please. if you're trying to say federer has a better serve than sampras then you are WAY OFF. sampras had the best serve of all time and it wasn't even close. more power than federer and just as much variety. plus, he was a better volleyer and the serve setup his volley. best 2nd serve of all time as well. federer's groundstrokes are better than sampras' but sampras' serve and net game were better.

daddy
08-15-2007, 05:29 PM
please. if you're trying to say federer has a better serve than sampras then you are WAY OFF. sampras had the best serve of all time and it wasn't even close. more power than federer and just as much variety. plus, he was a better volleyer and the serve setup his volley. best 2nd serve of all time as well. federer's groundstrokes are better than sampras' but sampras' serve and net game were better.

I would agree about the net play. Sam used to finish the thing in one shot, he just found a line on his aproach and then finished it with a hard volley. I think his 32kilos strung and 85 racquet gave him this possibility. Now how the hell did he managed to control that rifle he had in his hands, thats something I can not explain.

tennissavy
08-15-2007, 05:37 PM
I guess somebody must have forgotten to tell Federer that. ;)

(as well as Henin, Mauresmo, Haas, Robredo, Blake, Ljubicic, etc.)

Take Haas, Blake and Robredo out of that lineup since they prove my point. The only one's who have 1hbhs that can cope in today's game are Henin, Mauresmo(though to a far lesser extent) and Federer. That's it. I dare you to name others who have one handed bhs which can consistently cope with the modern tennis game-MOST cannot. I didn't say that none could cope but I did say that most could not.

tennissavy
08-15-2007, 05:38 PM
^^^ I completely agree with Mr. T ;) The versitility with the 1hbh is a big advantage. The 2hbh may have a little better disguise, but is not as versatile (unless the 2hbh player learns to go to a 1hbh slice shot ala Wilander).

TennezSport :cool:

That is not true at all. I already set the record straight on that one earlier. My two handed backhand is every bit as versatile as the best one handed backhands you can find.

Chopin
08-15-2007, 07:29 PM
please. if you're trying to say federer has a better serve than sampras then you are WAY OFF. sampras had the best serve of all time and it wasn't even close. more power than federer and just as much variety. plus, he was a better volleyer and the serve setup his volley. best 2nd serve of all time as well. federer's groundstrokes are better than sampras' but sampras' serve and net game were better.

Federer and Sampras are pretty close serving wise, maybe Sampras had a better net game but serving wise, I don't think anyone is "WAY OFF" to argue that Federer's serve rivals Sampras.

Interestingly enough, the one time Sampras and Federer played, Federer won 82% of his first serve points versus 76% for Sampras, 51% of second serve points versus 45% for Sampras, Sampras hit 26 aces versus 25 for Federer, while Sampas had 9 double faults versus 6 for Federer. Overall Federer won 70% of his service points versus 67% for Sampras. Federer was far from his prime during this match, (Sampras was closer to his), I don't think it's much a stretch to say that Federer's serve is just as good as Sampras's. In fact, I personally think his second serve is much better with the significant action he gets off it.

NamRanger
08-15-2007, 07:34 PM
Federer and Sampras are pretty close serving wise, maybe Sampras had a better net game but serving wise, I don't think anyone is "WAY OFF" to argue that Federer's serve rivals Sampras.

Interestingly enough, the one time Sampras and Federer played, Federer won 82% of his first serve points versus 76% for Sampras, 51% of second serve points versus 45% for Sampras, Sampras hit 26 aces versus 25 for Federer, while Sampas had 9 double faults versus 6 for Federer. Overall Federer won 70% of his service points versus 67% for Sampras. Federer was far from his prime during this match, (Sampras was closer to his), I don't think it's much a stretch to say that Federer's serve is just as good as Sampras's. In fact, I personally think his second serve is much better with the significant action he gets off it.


Doesn't win as many cheap points or gets as many aces. The thing that made Sampras's second serve so good was that at 30-40 second serve, Sampras could literally ace you.

daddy
08-15-2007, 07:35 PM
Doesn't win as many cheap points or gets as many aces. The thing that made Sampras's second serve so good was that at 30-40 second serve, Sampras could literally ace you.

Or double fault himself, I was his fan back then and that drove me nuts man. Also at 30 - 40 he did it often, served ace, but fed can turn it up from 0 - 40, I think he is driven a bit more compared to sampras. But their careers are so different, this guy dominates for 3.5 years and sampras was around like forever.

rod99
08-15-2007, 07:35 PM
Federer and Sampras are pretty close serving wise, maybe Sampras had a better net game but serving wise, I don't think anyone is "WAY OFF" to argue that Federer's serve rivals Sampras.

Interestingly enough, the one time Sampras and Federer played, Federer won 82% of his first serve points versus 76% for Sampras, 51% of second serve points versus 45% for Sampras, Sampras hit 26 aces versus 25 for Federer, while Sampas had 9 double faults versus 6 for Federer. Overall Federer won 70% of his service points versus 67% for Sampras. Federer was far from his prime during this match, (Sampras was closer to his), I don't think it's much a stretch to say that Federer's serve is just as good as Sampras's. In fact, I personally think his second serve is much better with the significant action he gets off it.

we can agree to disagree. i don't think using one match as a comparison gives a lot of evidence towards this, especially when both players weren't in their prime. in my opinion, federer's serve doesn't come close to sampras'. sampras had a much bigger 2nd serve as well. he would throw in a few more double faults but he would also win many more free points off of it, especially on big points.

anointedone
08-15-2007, 07:36 PM
Doesn't win as many cheap points or gets as many aces. The thing that made Sampras's second serve so good was that at 30-40 second serve, Sampras could literally ace you.

Yeah the quality of second serve really set Sampras apart from even the other greatest servers of his own time as well.

BreakPoint
08-15-2007, 07:42 PM
Take Haas, Blake and Robredo out of that lineup since they prove my point. The only one's who have 1hbhs that can cope in today's game are Henin, Mauresmo(though to a far lesser extent) and Federer. That's it. I dare you to name others who have one handed bhs which can consistently cope with the modern tennis game-MOST cannot. I didn't say that none could cope but I did say that most could not.
How did Haas, Blake, and Robredo manage to become the Top 10 tennis players in the world if they could not "consistently cope with the modern tennis game"? :confused: Utterly ridiculous!

BreakPoint
08-15-2007, 07:43 PM
My two handed backhand is every bit as versatile as the best one handed backhands you can find.
I'd bet if you went up against Haas in a backhand-to-backhand rally that you wouldn't last more than 2 shots.

ty slothrop
08-15-2007, 07:47 PM
How did Haas, Blake, and Robredo manage to become the Top 10 tennis players in the world if they could not "consistently cope with the modern tennis game"? :confused: Utterly ridiculous!

keep in mind, this is the guy who said that after watching jill craybas courtside, he was convinced she hit harder than roddick...

JW10S
08-15-2007, 07:49 PM
keep in mind, this is the guy who said that after watching jill craybas courtside, he was convinced she hit harder than roddick...I've hit with Jill Craybas--she doesn't...

tennispro11
08-15-2007, 07:49 PM
keep in mind, this is the guy who said that after watching jill craybas courtside, he was convinced she hit harder than roddick...

LOL. There is no way that that is even possible. :p

rwn
08-15-2007, 10:13 PM
Yeah the quality of second serve really set Sampras apart from even the other greatest servers of his own time as well.

The second serve of Sampras is one of the most overrated shots in history. He usually won barely 50% of the points with it.

Mike Bulgakov
08-15-2007, 10:49 PM
This is from an an old study on rpm in tennis. The one-handed backhand proved very good for producing topspin. I think one-handed backhands can adapt to Nadal-like topspin, but Federer is too defensive and tentative against Nadal. I'd like to see a new study on tennis rpm.

In general the top players hit their backhands with significantly less topspin compared to their forehands with some interesting exceptions, including Pete Sampras as noted below.

As with the forehand, on the men's side Sergi Bruguera was the king of topspin on the backhand with his 2-handed shot. His average was 2382rpm, but this was still almost 1000rpm, or 30% less than his topspin forehand.

Interestingly among the men, 3 of the 4 highest spin rates were players who hit the backhand with 1-hand rather than 2 hands. This was surprising because it is widely considered more difficult to generate topspin with a one-handed shot. Tomas Muster, for example, averaged 2264rpm with his one-handed shot, second only to BrugueraUs two hander. Still, this was 20% less topspin than his forehand.

Pete Sampras was unique among all the players, both men and women, in that he hit significantly more topspin on his backhand drive compared to his forehand. His average of 2204rpm was the third highest we recorded, and 20% higher than his forehand topspin average of 1842rpm. Although not among the leaders in spin rate, Petr Korda, known for his exceptional 1-handed backhand, averaged 1553rpm on that shot, a little more than 10% more topspin than his forehand.

Andre Agassi was an exception among the players because of the even balance between sides, hitting the ball with virtually identical amounts of topspin on the backhand as the forehand. Agassi averaged 1754rpm on the backhand, compared to 1718rpm on the forehand.

Shot: Men's Backhands

Player:
Type
No. of Backhand
RPM Range:
Avg RPM:

Sergi Bruguera
2H
6
1667-3000rpm
2382rpm

Tomas Muster
1H
6
1500-3333rpm
2264rpm

Pete Sampras
1H
8
1875-2830rpm
2204rpm

Mark Philippousis
1H
3
1667-2419rpm
2029rpm

Andre Agassi
2H
14
790-2500rpm
1754rpm

Jim Courier
2H
4
1000-2143rpm
1606rpm

Petr Korda
1H
9
833-2727rpm
1553rpm

Michael Chang
2H
11
1154-2055rpm
1437rpm

Todd Martin
2H
1
1304rpm
1304rpm

Marcelo Rios
2H
2
833-1765rpm
1299rpm

Tim Henman
1H
1
1250rpm
1250rpm

Topspin on Women's Backhands

Many women also showed substantial decreases in the amount of topspin hit on the backhand, compared to the forehand. Venus Williams hit the most spin of the women studied, at 1429rpm, but this was also significantly less, about a third less spin, than on her forehand. Anna Kournikova was even more extreme. Her backhands averaged 999rpm, about 60% less spin than her forehand at 1713rpm.

On the women's side, however, there were more players with equal spin rates on both sides. Lindsay Davenport averaged 1332rpm on the backhand, versus 1346rpm on the forehand. Monica Seles was only slightly higher on the backhand at 1321rpm compared to her forehand at 1215rpm. Martina Hingis backhand averaged 1147rpm, which exactly equalled her forehand statistical average.

Shot: Women's Backhands

Player:
Type
No. of Backhand
RPM Range:
Avg RPM:

Venus Williams
2H
8
1000-1875rpm
1429rpm

Lindsay Davenport
2H
5
882-1875rpm
1332rpm

Monica Seles
2H
9
938-2143rpm
1321rpm

Mary Pierce
2H
4
938-1875rpm
1316rpm

Arantxa Sanchez-V.
2H
2
938-1500rpm
1219rpm

Martina Hingis
2H
15
600-1667rpm
1147rpm

Anna Kournikova
2H
8
535-1500rpm
999rpm

Mary Jo Fernandez
2H
10
375-1304rpm
790rpm

TennezSport
08-16-2007, 05:35 AM
=Mike Bulgakov;1669675] Interestingly among the men, 3 of the 4 highest spin rates were players who hit the backhand with 1-hand rather than 2 hands. This was surprising because it is widely considered more difficult to generate topspin with a one-handed shot. Tomas Muster, for example, averaged 2264rpm with his one-handed shot, second only to BrugueraUs two hander. Still, this was 20% less topspin than his forehand.

Nice study Mike, thanks for sharing.

Your statement above is also very interesting and I have often heard the same thing as well. I believe that this is a misunderstanding though as the 1hbh is much freer to generate more racquet head speed for TS than a 2hbh is. Unless you have the gumby arms, having two hands on the racquet makes a little harder to create the head speed for massive TS, as the second hand can slow the primary hand down (unless perfectly loose and timed). What is gained is consistency with the 2hbh as the second hand adds stability and disguise.

The 1hbh can produce more spin due to the easy whipping motion (ala Muster or Guga) due to the single arm reverse pronation and/or wrist snap. Power should be the same as power comes from the legs and not the arms, but the accuracy/consistency can suffer as all the stabilization work is on one arm using the smaller muscles of the upper back and arms (this is why Boris Becker used to throw tree trucks on his backhand side). Where the 1hbh has the upper hand is in the versitilty of hitting various TS and slice shots off of the same swing that 2hbhs have trouble with.

TennezSport :cool:

daddy
08-16-2007, 05:45 AM
Great study but goes to show few things. Ive learned this :

1hbh generates great top spin thus providing variety and angles, not necesarry power but can be very powerfull when skill is aplied with less topspin.

Sampras matter - he had a flatter forhand which was one of his deadlies weapons, meaning he balanced it right and went for flat out winners when he needed to - when the points were set up. This is a great insight in his game, I really like the post.

IMP : I saw up there in this post someone saying that haas blake and robredo are consistent or else how would they get to top ten ? Remember when haas won tournament beg this year, beating roddick in final, and he did not face a break point against him in whole tournament ? Well thats inconsistent for me, plays such a tournament and then wins nothing for the remainder of the season, I totally disagree that ranking means they are consistent, just that they are tallented and show it off sometimes - just enough times to stay in top 10.

always_steffi
08-16-2007, 08:45 AM
That is not true at all. I already set the record straight on that one earlier. My two handed backhand is every bit as versatile as the best one handed backhands you can find.

Sure it is. But how versatile is it really when you are trying to keep the ball within the court.

HA HA

mileslong
08-16-2007, 08:51 AM
this match was yet another example of a match federer lost primarily due to his backhand. everytime i see a thread on this board claiming that federer has one of the (or the best) best backhands in the game i laugh. sure, he's got a lot of variety and can hit some amazing shots with it, but it simply won't hold up against weapons like nadal's forehand or djokovic's fh/bh. he'll eventually make an error or drop the ball short. federer doesn't even have a top 10 backhand in the world. anyone who argues that statement hasn't watched enough of federer's matches.
you obviously dont watch ANY tennis to make a stupid post like this...

BreakPoint
08-16-2007, 10:22 AM
IMP : I saw up there in this post someone saying that haas blake and robredo are consistent or else how would they get to top ten ? Remember when haas won tournament beg this year, beating roddick in final, and he did not face a break point against him in whole tournament ? Well thats inconsistent for me, plays such a tournament and then wins nothing for the remainder of the season, I totally disagree that ranking means they are consistent, just that they are tallented and show it off sometimes - just enough times to stay in top 10.
Huh? Do you know how many times Haas has been injured this year? Don't you also remember that Haas was in the semifinals of the Australian Open this year - A Grand Slam? Haas has been consistenly a top player on the tour during his career, except for the many times he's been injured - but of course that has nothing to do with how good his backhand is.

harryz
08-16-2007, 10:37 AM
Djokovic started incredibly strong and then Fed took over for a while. Let's not forget that Fed served for the first set at 6-5, 40-love, had a few ad points and couldn't convert. Djokovic played a great game. Then after losing the TB, Fed won the second set easily at 6-2. I think he should have won the match 7-5, 6-2 or better. Fed's mind seemed elsewhere, not his technique. The guy has lost 6 times in 8 months and won over 50 matches. That's superhuman in any year. Losses will come-- the guy is human. He may struggle with his BH or 2nd serve from time to time. So what?

Djokovic played a strong match and was aggressive and confident during much of it. Federer will bounce back, do well in Cincy even if he doesn't win it and will still be the favorite at the Open, even with his "sub par" backhand (hahaha)-- a stroke which I think has greater variety than any other 1H bh out there. He can chip, loop, or drive the ball and is the most consistent returner out there, statistically. He only got into trouble trying low percentage BHs on the run, going for up the line winners on a few occasions rather than lobbing or chipping the ball back cross court. Easy for us to say on the sidelines...

anointedone
08-16-2007, 10:38 AM
Huh? Do you know how many times Haas has been injured this year? Don't you also remember that Haas was in the semifinals of the Australian Open this year - A Grand Slam? Haas has been consistenly a top player on the tour during his career, except for the many times he's been injured - but of course that has nothing to do with how good his backhand is.

Haas is an occasional fringe top 10 player at best. Federer is far superior in every aspect of the game to Haas. The only way they ever have a tough match is if Federer goes on a walkabout halfway through the match, like their match in Australia 19 months ago.

Yeah he was in the semis of the Australian Open, good for him, only the 3rd Grand Slam semifinal he has ever been in, all at the Australian Open too, the weakest slam.

Andres
08-16-2007, 10:46 AM
How is the AO the weakest slam, if you're kind enough to enlighten us?

bluescreen
08-16-2007, 10:49 AM
yeah dude, dont go calling the aus. open the weakest slam. there is no "weak" slam. i mean, its a slam.

anointedone
08-16-2007, 10:50 AM
How is the AO the weakest slam, if you're kind enough to enlighten us?

The U.S Open and Wimbledon are still regarded as the two most important slams even today, with the French right behind. The Australian Open is still last in prestige and importance. If you ask any player which slam they would like to win from most to least, the Australian would come last to almost any non-Australian player.

Andres
08-16-2007, 10:50 AM
A backhand that is pretty unknown, no one comments about it, but IMO, is one of the best in the game, is Hrbaty's two hander.

Powerful, damn solid, it doesn't break down, and he doesn't miss much off that wing (opposed to his forehand)

But it's not flashy like Safin's, and the guy doesn't get much recognition, but his backhand is VERY good

NamRanger
08-16-2007, 10:52 AM
How is the AO the weakest slam, if you're kind enough to enlighten us?


It's the weakest slam in that it's popularity is no where near USO, Wimbledon, of the French Open. It's also the slam where you see the most upsets, because players have not played each other for awhile, and the court surface is unique, so it's very tough to adjust (which probably causes the upsets). You see new things at the AO every year, such as Gonzo's improved court coverage and slice, Federer's obsession with hitting a good topspin one hand backhand, Roddick's improved return game, etc.

Andres
08-16-2007, 10:53 AM
The U.S Open and Wimbledon are still regarded as the two most important slams even today, with the French right behind. The Australian Open is still last in prestige and importance. If you ask any player which slam they would like to win from most to least, the Australian would come last to almost any non-Australian player.
I don't care the recognition nor the PRESTIGE. Or does it matter now?
Ask any southamerican or spaniard, and they would prefer winning Roland Garros over Wimbledon. And Southamericans + Spaniards = 50% of the Top100.

Equal points, it's equally important!

anointedone
08-16-2007, 10:56 AM
Well Hrbaty has been in or around the top 30 for the last 4 years now, despite
being in his late 20s, and his backhand is clearly his best shot, so it must be something quite effective for him.

anointedone
08-16-2007, 10:58 AM
I don't care the recognition nor the PRESTIGE. Or does it matter now?
Ask any southamerican or spaniard, and they would prefer winning Roland Garros over Wimbledon. And Southamericans + Spaniards = 50% of the Top100.

Equal points, it's equally important!

Yeah there are a fair number of players who would take the French Open over Wimbledon and the U.S Open even, which now puts those 3 slams very close. The Australian is also closer then it used to be, but it is clearly behind the other 3. If you polled players to which they would like to win most to least, the only people that would vote for the Australian are "some" (not even all) Australians I bet, while Wimbledon, U.S Open, French Open, would all get a fair share of the votes.

BreakPoint
08-16-2007, 11:05 AM
Haas is an occasional fringe top 10 player at best. Federer is far superior in every aspect of the game to Haas. The only way they ever have a tough match is if Federer goes on a walkabout halfway through the match, like their match in Australia 19 months ago.

Yeah he was in the semis of the Australian Open, good for him, only the 3rd Grand Slam semifinal he has ever been in, all at the Australian Open too, the weakest slam.
I never said Haas was a better player than Federer, although he has beaten Federer before and has given Federer plenty to handle in the times that he's lost. I said his 1HBH does not prevent him from being able to "consistenly cope with the modern game", as some others here have claimed. He beats plenty of other pros with 2HBH's and is ranked above lots of pros with 2HBH's. His 1HBH is a strength, not a weakness, and is extremely consistent, as well as powerful.

BTW, all the same top players show up at the Australian Open as show up for Wimbledon, US Open, and French Open, so how is the Australian Open "the weakest slam"? :confused:

BreakPoint
08-16-2007, 11:09 AM
The U.S Open and Wimbledon are still regarded as the two most important slams even today, with the French right behind. The Australian Open is still last in prestige and importance. If you ask any player which slam they would like to win from most to least, the Australian would come last to almost any non-Australian player.
But what does prestige have to do with how hard it is to get to the semis? :confused: You still have to play best of 5 sets and win 5 straight matches against the best players in the world to get to the semis, don't you?

anointedone
08-16-2007, 11:11 AM
I never said Haas was a better player than Federer, although he has beaten Federer before and has given Federer plenty to handle in the times that he's lost.

Haas has not beaten Federer since January 2002, so lets qualify this "before", and even then he had to save a match point in the 5th set. Haas has not beaten Federer in forever is more like it, and never will again.

As for giving him a handle in the times that he's lost, in Haas's 7 straight losses to Federer since then he has lost 5 of the 7 in straight sets, and 3 of those he won 8 games or less.

I said his 1HBH does not prevent him from being able to "consistenly cope with the modern game", as some others here have claimed. He beats plenty of other pros with 2HBH's and is ranked above lots of pros with 2HBH's. His 1HBH is a strength, not a weakness, and is extremely consistent, as well as powerful.

He has no amazing strength. He just has an all around game, pretty good at everything but not great at anything. That is why when he plays a real top player they have to be playing poorly for him to have a chance.

Andres
08-16-2007, 11:16 AM
Yeah there are a fair number of players who would take the French Open over Wimbledon and the U.S Open even, which now puts those 3 slams very close. The Australian is also closer then it used to be, but it is clearly behind the other 3. If you polled players to which they would like to win most to least, the only people that would vote for the Australian are "some" (not even all) Australians I bet, while Wimbledon, U.S Open, French Open, would all get a fair share of the votes.
But wanting to win it more than other tourneys doesn't make it more important. In fact, more players SKIP Wimby than AO

anointedone
08-16-2007, 11:17 AM
But wanting to win it more than other tourneys doesn't make it more important. In fact, more players SKIP Wimby than AO

Well do you consider the Australian equal in importance to the other 3?

Andres
08-16-2007, 11:19 AM
Absolutely.

Prestige is a different issue. Wimbledon IS the most prestigious tournament in the world, but that doesn't make it MORE IMPORTANT than Australian Open.

tennissavy
08-16-2007, 11:22 AM
I'd bet if you went up against Haas in a backhand-to-backhand rally that you wouldn't last more than 2 shots.

Blind bets are not wise especially since you have never seen me play.

BreakPoint
08-16-2007, 11:32 AM
Blind bets are not wise especially since you have never seen me play.
No, but I have seen Haas play so that's more than enough.

BreakPoint
08-16-2007, 11:33 AM
Well do you consider the Australian equal in importance to the other 3?
Again, what does that have to do with how hard it is to get to the semis 3 times?

anointedone
08-16-2007, 11:36 AM
Again, what does that have to do with how hard it is to get to the semis 3 times?

1)If most of the players consider it less important a slam, likely many of them dont play as well, and lesser players have a better chance of advancing far.

2)Like others have said it is early in the year, often players are not as fit, not as ready, not as match tough. This balances the playing field more and brings the better and weaker players all closer together.

3)There are always injuries on that physicaly demanding surface.

Andres
08-16-2007, 11:37 AM
1)If most of the players consider it less important a slam, likely many of them dont play as well, and lesser players have a better chance of advancing far.
Who are those players who consider it less IMPORTANT?
If it's less important, why are more players skipping Wimbledon, compared to Australian Open?

BreakPoint
08-16-2007, 11:39 AM
He has no amazing strength. He just has an all around game, pretty good at everything but not great at anything. That is why when he plays a real top player they have to be playing poorly for him to have a chance.
Well, since Haas is currently ranked #9 in the world, that makes him better than the 99,999,991 other tennis players in the world, so I'd say "pretty good" is a gross understatement.

BTW, Haas has been ranked as high as #2 before his shoulder surgery several years ago.

BreakPoint
08-16-2007, 11:46 AM
1)If most of the players consider it less important a slam, likely many of them dont play as well, and lesser players have a better chance of advancing far.
So the players aren't going to try as hard to win? Are you serious? They still make about the same amount of money as the other slams and this is their profession and how they make a living. And why did Federer cry like an unconsolable baby when he won the AO against Baghdatis last year? And how did Agassi and Sampras win all those AO titles? Did they have it easy?

2)Like others have said it is early in the year, often players are not as fit, not as ready, not as match tough. This balances the playing field more and brings the better and weaker players all closer together.
If that was indeed the case then if should affect everyone equally so nothing changes.

3)There are always injuries on that physicaly demanding surface.
So are the top players more prone to injury than the weaker players are?

anointedone
08-16-2007, 12:01 PM
Well, since Haas is currently ranked #9 in the world, that makes him better than the 99,999,991 other tennis players in the world, so I'd say "pretty good" is a gross understatement.

I am speaking in terms of pro standards, he does everything "pretty well" but nothing amazing, which has been good enough to be a fringe top 10 player at times, but nothing more.

BTW, Haas has been ranked as high as #2 before his shoulder surgery several years ago.

His brief stint at #2 was while the field was so weak Hewitt was the dominant #1, Johansson and a past-his-prome Costa both won slam titles that year. He isnt anywhere close to a #2 caliber player in todays field. He also got to #2 without winning a single title that year, or ever reaching a slam final in his career, which makes his ranking a bit of a joke anyway.

anointedone
08-16-2007, 12:03 PM
Who are those players who consider it less IMPORTANT?
If it's less important, why are more players skipping Wimbledon, compared to Australian Open?

Do you have a list of the players skipping Wimbledon compared to the Australian Open? I cant think of any important players who skipped Wimbledon or the Australian Open this year, so no difference there.

Like I said when players talk about their biggest goals I see no player who mentions winning the Australian over winning any of the other 3, except a player who has no chance at 1 of the other 3 (eg-sometime who hates clay, or hates grass).

anointedone
08-16-2007, 12:07 PM
So the players aren't going to try as hard to win? Are you serious? They still make about the same amount of money as the other slams and this is their profession and how they make a living. And why did Federer cry like an unconsolable baby when he won the AO against Baghdatis last year?

I didnt say they wouldnt try, I just said there is more urgency and a deeper hunger to win the at the others. Players who play a smaller tournament are going to try hard probably, but they went have the same urgency as if they were playing a Masters, conversely a Masters to a Grand Slam, conversely the Australian to the other slams, etc....

And how did Agassi and Sampras win all those AO titles? Did they have it easy?

Well Agassi did play Clement and Schuettler in 2 of his Aussie Open finals. Also check out the draw of his last Aussie Open win - Grosjean in the quarters, Ferreira in the semis, Schuettler in the final. ;)

If that was indeed the case then if should affect everyone equally so nothing changes.

So are the top players more prone to injury than the weaker players are?

Things like unreadiness, not being as match fit, early in the season, tend to level the playing field and bring the players closer together. It also brings more variables into play which can cause more upsets and open the path for the weaker players.

Andres
08-16-2007, 12:30 PM
Do you have a list of the players skipping Wimbledon compared to the Australian Open? I cant think of any important players who skipped Wimbledon or the Australian Open this year, so no difference there.

Like I said when players talk about their biggest goals I see no player who mentions winning the Australian over winning any of the other 3, except a player who has no chance at 1 of the other 3 (eg-sometime who hates clay, or hates grass).
Ever heard of the 'alergic to grass' expression? More players skip Wimby than AO. Specially claycourters.

rod99
08-16-2007, 04:21 PM
you obviously dont watch ANY tennis to make a stupid post like this...

if you don't agree with that then it is you who obviously don't wtch ANY tennis. idiot.

federerGOAT
08-16-2007, 05:02 PM
Federer and Sampras are pretty close serving wise, maybe Sampras had a better net game but serving wise, I don't think anyone is "WAY OFF" to argue that Federer's serve rivals Sampras.

Interestingly enough, the one time Sampras and Federer played, Federer won 82% of his first serve points versus 76% for Sampras, 51% of second serve points versus 45% for Sampras, Sampras hit 26 aces versus 25 for Federer, while Sampas had 9 double faults versus 6 for Federer. Overall Federer won 70% of his service points versus 67% for Sampras. Federer was far from his prime during this match, (Sampras was closer to his), I don't think it's much a stretch to say that Federer's serve is just as good as Sampras's. In fact, I personally think his second serve is much better with the significant action he gets off it.

I agree. Sampras's second serve is the most overrated shot. If it was that fantastic, George Bastl and Alex Corretja would never have beaten him on grass.

In fact, I think Fed has a better first and second serve.

rod99
08-17-2007, 03:45 AM
[QUOTE=federerGOAT;1671535]I agree. Sampras's second serve is the most overrated shot. If it was that fantastic, George Bastl and Alex Corretja would never have beaten him on grass.

In fact, I think Fed has a better first and second serve.[/QUO

ladies and gentlemen we have a winner....dumbest post of all time. congratulations!

sampras was well past his prime when he lost those matches. i couldn't stand sampras (as i was a huge agassi fan) but i can admit that he was a great player, arguably GOAT. his serve was the best of all time, and that is his first and second serve. if you're doubting that then you need to go back to the drawing board, watch some of the older matches (i'm guessing you're 15 or 16), and pay respect where it's due.

tennispro11
08-17-2007, 07:18 AM
I agree. Sampras's second serve is the most overrated shot. If it was that fantastic, George Bastl and Alex Corretja would never have beaten him on grass.

In fact, I think Fed has a better first and second serve.

Your dumb. Go do so some research and watch some old Sampras matches and then see what you think.

federerfanatic
08-17-2007, 02:15 PM
sampras was well past his prime when he lost those matches.

Maybe, but the fact he won the U.S Open that year shows he wasnt a limping old grandpa or anything.

his serve was the best of all time, and that is his first and second serve.

I dont think so. I think it was better then Federer's, I agree on that. However I dont think it is best ever, and while one could argue that it is far from obvious. Honestly I think Karlovic has a slightly better serve, and Ivanisevic definitely had a better first serve. I have seen all 3 of those players play many times, and I have seen Ivanisevic outserve Sampras quite a few times and still lose the match, since he doesnt play the big points nearly as well, and his all around game is weaker.

rod99
08-17-2007, 03:30 PM
ivansevic had more pace on his serve but he didn't serve as big in the clutch as well as sampras did. he was also prone to double faults in key points. that is why i would rate sampras' serve as better. if you are looking at the serve alone then karlovic is probably tops but sampras' net game is far superior and thus, his serve set up so many easy volleys at the net.

daddy
08-17-2007, 05:03 PM
Huh? Do you know how many times Haas has been injured this year? Don't you also remember that Haas was in the semifinals of the Australian Open this year - A Grand Slam? Haas has been consistenly a top player on the tour during his career, except for the many times he's been injured - but of course that has nothing to do with how good his backhand is.


I agree he is consisten hipoteticly when he would be fit but injuries are part of the game and when you get injured and thus fall out of form - I consider that a downfall. I do not blame him but that how it is .. He was a major talent back then, 10 years ago, for world nr 1 spot and many though hed dominate the sport for some time .. But you know, not all guys got the physicque.

daddy
08-17-2007, 05:05 PM
Haas is an occasional fringe top 10 player at best. Federer is far superior in every aspect of the game to Haas. The only way they ever have a tough match is if Federer goes on a walkabout halfway through the match, like their match in Australia 19 months ago.

Yeah he was in the semis of the Australian Open, good for him, only the 3rd Grand Slam semifinal he has ever been in, all at the Australian Open too, the weakest slam.

Haas was tipped by many , much more then federer, to be the force to reckon in tennis. Dont forget this , if youve watched tennis back then all the talk was about haas.

daddy
08-17-2007, 05:08 PM
The U.S Open and Wimbledon are still regarded as the two most important slams even today, with the French right behind. The Australian Open is still last in prestige and importance. If you ask any player which slam they would like to win from most to least, the Australian would come last to almost any non-Australian player.

You post this and survive ? Cmon, in europe us open is nosidered nothing compared to wimbledon and french. Because french is the only slam on clay its considered prestigue slam, since so few players can convert hard court game to clay, and on the othet hand wimbledon is the oldest and onlyon grass which makes it equally prestigue - unofficial world champs. AO and USO are behind, or at least thats how its considered in europe, I rank the ALL THE SAME, but I just tell you what people feel like here.

Dopnt forget about the feast of aussie players , best of the best - crem de la crem of world tennis in the past ! Pls watch it when you write these things ..

stormholloway
08-17-2007, 05:12 PM
Why does Andy Murray rate the US Open his favorite slam?

daddy
08-17-2007, 05:14 PM
Why does Andy Murray rate the US Open his favorite slam?

Ha ha ? MAybe personall issues, maybe likes the surface most, whatever ? Does andy murrays opinion means anything as to which smal is the most prestigious ?

anointedone
08-17-2007, 05:15 PM
Haas was tipped by many , much more then federer, to be the force to reckon in tennis. Dont forget this , if youve watched tennis back then all the talk was about haas.

Please get real. I watched tennis back then too and Haas's potential was never talked about in the same breath as Federer's. Haas is a player who had alot of hype, along with Kiefer, in Germany, since they are of course looking for the heir apparent to Boris Becker, but realisticaly the question was always if he could even win 1 slam (and it is looking the answer is no, not a big surprise to most people). Haas was never talked about as a guy who had a chance to win alot of slams ever. Guys like Safin and Phillipousis were talked about that way before he was always, even before Federer, Hewitt, Roddick began to come on the scene.

anointedone
08-17-2007, 05:18 PM
I agree he is consisten hipoteticly when he would be fit but injuries are part of the game and when you get injured and thus fall out of form - I consider that a downfall. I do not blame him but that how it is .. He was a major talent back then, 10 years ago, for world nr 1 spot and many though hed dominate the sport for some time .. But you know, not all guys got the physicque.

Many thought Haas would dominate the sport for a long time??! :lol: I am glad I dont live in your crazy neck of the woods. That is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard, Haas once projected to dominate mens tennis for some time, ROTFL!!!

daddy
08-17-2007, 05:18 PM
Please get real. I watched tennis back then too and Haas's potential was never talked about in the same breath as Federer's. Haas is a player who had alot of hype, along with Kiefer, in Germany, since they are of course looking for the heir apparent to Boris Becker, but realisticaly the question was always if he could even win 1 slam (and it is looking the answer is no, not a big surprise to most people). Haas was never talked about as a guy who had a chance to win alot of slams ever. Guys like Safin and Phillipousis were talked about that way before he was always, even before Federer, Hewitt, Roddick began to come on the scene.


Are you from europe ? For a few years I was watching nothign but haas promiotions and stuff, I am only stating facts here. I hated him cause I though hes not good enough for nr1 but for nr5 but I am real, people in germany put so much in him thinking this and he was all over the place like baghdatis who was like all over the place 3 - 4 years ago - when you could not live from him as a young but surely new all time great player.

Whjere are you from ?

daddy
08-17-2007, 05:19 PM
Many thought Haas would dominate the sport for a long time??! :lol: I am glad I dont live in your crazy neck of the woods. That is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard, Haas once projected to dominate mens tennis for some time, ROTFL!!!

Read below, where I am from , we were bombarded with this. I said amny not including me. Get a grip, read carefully. Okay ? No insults, he sucks by me but I told you that 80% of tennis europe saw him as new and improved boris becker.

superman1
08-18-2007, 06:57 AM
If Gasquet's forehand suddenly started improving by leaps and bounds, his backhand would probably degrade a little. I think that's what happened to Federer. If you watch his old matches, there's no question that he used to rip that backhand consistently harder than he does today.

NamRanger
08-18-2007, 09:15 AM
If Gasquet's forehand suddenly started improving by leaps and bounds, his backhand would probably degrade a little. I think that's what happened to Federer. If you watch his old matches, there's no question that he used to rip that backhand consistently harder than he does today.


That's because Federer developed a consistent backhand rather then an attacking backhand. Because of this, he's lost his abilities to rip backhands or even hit the effective slices he used to. Thus, why his backhand = down the pooper now to be honest.

rod99
08-18-2007, 09:40 AM
That's because Federer developed a consistent backhand rather then an attacking backhand. Because of this, he's lost his abilities to rip backhands or even hit the effective slices he used to. Thus, why his backhand = down the pooper now to be honest.

i wouldn't even say his backhand is consistent. it has a lot of variety and he can make some incredible shot but it's also a shot that will break down if hit to enough and a shot that doesn't have the pace as the best backhands in the world.

NamRanger
08-18-2007, 09:49 AM
i wouldn't even say his backhand is consistent. it has a lot of variety and he can make some incredible shot but it's also a shot that will break down if hit to enough and a shot that doesn't have the pace as the best backhands in the world.


His backhand's pretty consistent, especially on clay. He hit more backhands then I could seriously count against Nadal. It's just that his forehand has been letting him down lately. He hits an unbelivable amount of backhands, it's just that he's lost the ability to attack with it like he used to.


From what I'm seeing (watching Federer vs Hewitt Cincy) he's starting to use the slice abit more to bring back variety in his game. Seems to be giving Hewitt all sorts of fits with that slice.

David L
08-18-2007, 09:55 AM
That's because Federer developed a consistent backhand rather then an attacking backhand. Because of this, he's lost his abilities to rip backhands or even hit the effective slices he used to. Thus, why his backhand = down the pooper now to be honest.Federer has'nt lost any of his ability, he just plays smart tennis and his opponents are going for it even more against him now. Let's not forget, they are not amateurs, but extremely talented and able tennis players in their own right. While everyone on here is speculating about his various abilities and prospects, with their limited tennis knowledge, Federer is busy breaking records and winning Grandslams.

NamRanger
08-18-2007, 10:00 AM
Federer has'nt lost any of his ability, he just plays smart tennis and his opponents are going for it even more against him now. Let's not forget, they are not amateurs, but extremely talented and able tennis players in their own right. While everyone on here is speculating about his various abilities and prospects, with their limited tennis knowledge, Federer is busy breaking records and winning Grandslams.


He's also making more errors then he ever has. It's obvious that he's lost variety in his game. He uses the slice alot less then he used to. His topspin backhand is predictable, he hardly rips backhand winners down the line anymore. His obsession with trying to beat Nadal's topspin forehand with his backhand on clay has really hurt his hardcourt game alot, just look at his results this year. He made small in ways on clay, but he's lost more on hardcourts then he ever has in awhile.

LafayetteHitter
08-18-2007, 10:05 AM
He's also making more errors then he ever has. It's obvious that he's lost variety in his game. He uses the slice alot less then he used to. His topspin backhand is predictable, he hardly rips backhand winners down the line anymore. His obsession with trying to beat Nadal's topspin forehand with his backhand on clay has really hurt his hardcourt game alot, just look at his results this year. He made small in ways on clay, but he's lost more on hardcourts then he ever has in awhile.

Please keep in mind he ONLY won 3 slam events last year.

The tennis guy
08-18-2007, 10:09 AM
His obsession with trying to beat Nadal's topspin forehand with his backhand on clay has really hurt his hardcourt game alot, just look at his results this year. He made small in ways on clay, but he's lost more on hardcourts then he ever has in awhile.

Maybe he doesn't care about non-slam events as you used to. Look at his slam result this year. Wait after the US Open before talking about his ability on hardcourt.

David L
08-18-2007, 10:24 AM
He's also making more errors then he ever has. It's obvious that he's lost variety in his game. He uses the slice alot less then he used to. His topspin backhand is predictable, he hardly rips backhand winners down the line anymore. His obsession with trying to beat Nadal's topspin forehand with his backhand on clay has really hurt his hardcourt game alot, just look at his results this year. He made small in ways on clay, but he's lost more on hardcourts then he ever has in awhile.Just because you don't see Federer do something as often, does'nt mean he's lost it. Also, his results this year have been good. He's had 3 early round exits in Masters Series events. He had the same in 2004 when he won 3 Grandslams. He's made the final of everything else. He also had quite a few close matches last year that he could easily have lost. Match point down to Rochus and Roddick etc. He's good, but human. As I said, he's not playing amateurs, he's playing the best in the world. At the end of the day, he usually gets the win. As he's said before, he would prefer to play badly and win, than play well and lose.

As for Federer being obsessed with Nadal's topspin forehand or not being able to rip his backhand or slice as well. This is all in your head. Federer can still do all the things he used to. Just because you can, does'nt mean you should. Federer plays the percentages, he plays smart tennis. He can't win everything.

NamRanger
08-18-2007, 04:06 PM
Just because you don't see Federer do something as often, does'nt mean he's lost it. Also, his results this year have been good. He's had 3 early round exits in Masters Series events. He had the same in 2004 when he won 3 Grandslams. He's made the final of everything else. He also had quite a few close matches last year that he could easily have lost. Match point down to Rochus and Roddick etc. He's good, but human. As I said, he's not playing amateurs, he's playing the best in the world. At the end of the day, he usually gets the win. As he's said before, he would prefer to play badly and win, than play well and lose.

As for Federer being obsessed with Nadal's topspin forehand or not being able to rip his backhand or slice as well. This is all in your head. Federer can still do all the things he used to. Just because you can, does'nt mean you should. Federer plays the percentages, he plays smart tennis. He can't win everything.



Federer wins Indian Wells and Miami back to back multiple times, and has yet to be challenged untill this year. His hardcourt game IS suffering, period. The results this year speak for themselves. He's had alot of bad matches that he barely got out of. He's struggling in alot of his matches.


Federer's backhand is not the same backhand as it was before. His slice was more penetrating, he was able to rip backhands down the line at will. Now that he's been trying to "improve" his backhand he's gone 1 step foward, but 2 steps backwards. He should have stuck to his same old game and be content with winning 3 out of 4 slams every year without even being challenged.


All in my head? No, it's from watching his matches since 2001 till now. He used to be ALOT more agressive, now he's more tenative, and is just rolling the backhand back into play, which allows his opponents to take control of the match. Anyone who watches Federer at all knows how horrid he's been playing this year by his standerds. He had one good tournament this year, the Australian Open, where he took it without losing a set. That's it. Otherwise he's been barely winning matches all year to insignificant players, or losing to them such as Canas or Volandri.



At the French Open he played horrible. At Wimbledon he played horrible against Nadal and allowed a non-grass factor Ferrero push him and take a set off of him. In his match against Hewitt today he made more errors then I've seen in a long time. Against Djokovic in Montreal his supposedly good backhand looked worse then a top 200 pro's backhand, no pace, hardly any spin, and no depth. He may not be losing slams yet, but he's going to lose them eventually if he keeps this up.

daddy
08-18-2007, 09:40 PM
Many thought Haas would dominate the sport for a long time??! :lol: I am glad I dont live in your crazy neck of the woods. That is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard, Haas once projected to dominate mens tennis for some time, ROTFL!!!

I just could not control myself , I had to tell you this. You are >>>>> mate, if there was no injuries to haas, how far do you think he could have gone ? It was the time, when he was young and upcoming , when there was a lag in tennis. Skinny hewitt and others, haas would have been nr1 easilly if he had more luck with injuries and development of his career.

Now pull my tongue once more, he was nr2 as far as I can remember ? For a whole 2002 and I checked the progress, whenever he was okay with health he was moving rapidly up, only to slip as far back as 400 or so when injured for 2 years. Try getting back to top 10 like he did at relativly old age, like now, after 2 year brake ..

tennissavy
08-19-2007, 06:26 AM
No, but I have seen Haas play so that's more than enough.

Oh, that is a great indication of one's level-watching only one player and not the other.:rolleyes: