PDA

View Full Version : Pro One-Handed Backhands


RoddickRook
04-16-2009, 06:45 PM
I know everyone says Gasquet's or even Wawrinka's one-handed backhand is better than Federers.

But I would like to know how, in the fullest details possible if anyone can explain. I haven't really understood this as of yet.

Videos, in-depth analysis', etc would be helpful.

Thanks.

kungfusmkim
04-16-2009, 06:51 PM
Um the thing with Gasquet's is he takes alot longer to prepare his backhand which can be good. This time allows him to be more accurate and shank less. However, federer's backhand is a very quick fast racquet head speed motion. He doesn't have a huge take back swing like gasquet so instead he has to make that up by swining alot faster meaning alot more errors. Thats how i interpret it anyway.

The_Steak
04-16-2009, 07:02 PM
Federer's back hand is not worse. Federer's backhand is great, just because of a mental breakdown does not mean in any way Fed's backhand is bad.

Gasquet on the other hand has the best backhand in the world. I think that it is his best because he works on it more.

RoddickRook
04-16-2009, 07:05 PM
Well I didn't really relate it to mental breakdown or say that it is worse (I personally believe Federer's is better, but I really can't say why).

The_Steak
04-16-2009, 07:14 PM
Well I didn't really relate it to mental breakdown or say that it is worse (I personally believe Federer's is better, but I really can't say why).

I think you may believe that Fed's backhand is the best because of the amazing passing shots he can pull off. For Fed, its mostly a consistency issue. Especially now.

DunlopDood
04-16-2009, 07:59 PM
Yawn..........

saram
04-16-2009, 08:07 PM
Sorry--Fed has the best one-hander out there....

Gasquet's is prettier--but Roger's is more effective and produces more results.

Look at their rankings.

icedevil0289
04-16-2009, 08:09 PM
Sorry--Fed has the best one-hander out there....

Gasquet's is prettier--but Roger's is more effective and produces more results.

Look at their rankings.

It could have something to do with fed's forehand being one of the best and gasquet's forehand being horrible.

saram
04-16-2009, 08:11 PM
It could have something to do with fed's forehand being one of the best and gasquet's forehand being horrible.

Good point.

nhat8121
04-16-2009, 08:29 PM
i think fed has one of the best backhands...

msc886
04-17-2009, 12:42 AM
Fed's backhand is a good attacking backhand but it looks like when it comes to solidity like hitting topspin backhand to backhand rallies, he'll lose to quite a few pros. But as mentioned he attacks with his backhands quite well.

prosealster
04-17-2009, 12:55 AM
fed's backhand might not be as good as gasquet's but certainly better than stan's...

thetennistimes
04-17-2009, 02:04 AM
Federer has a great backhand because he prepares early and then he can generate so much racquet head speed without looking like he is trying to hit it too hard.

Magnificent!
04-17-2009, 02:48 AM
Fed's b/h is good but not agressive enough or rivals wouldn't keep attacking it. I would like to see him make a bigger takeback and hit through it with more body rotation. I'm suprised that Fed' hasn't done this already, he must know he needs to make some changes quick.

Tempest344
04-17-2009, 03:07 AM
Federer seems too passive of his backhand side at the moment

matchmaker
04-17-2009, 04:58 AM
Sorry--Fed has the best one-hander out there....

Gasquet's is prettier--but Roger's is more effective and produces more results.

Look at their rankings.

I am sorry, I don't agree at all. Federer's onehander is flawed. Look at how Nadal and Murray can pound it and he will start making error after error.

Wawrinka's backhand would not break down like that. Just think of the Nadal-Wawrinka match two weeks ago.

To the OP:

The reason for Wawrinka's backhand being superior to Federer's is quite simple:Wawrinka hits his backhand with a straight arm. His movement is an example of how simple it really is to hit a good onehander. You set up the racquet in a sort of smiling mouth trajectory (like in this emoticon: :cool: ) and then release it with a blocked elbow.

Federer bends his elbow and has to compensate with a lot of wrist action, making his backhand very error-prone. The strange thing is, he hits his forehand virtually with a straight arm, so why does he bend his arm for the backhand?

federmann
04-17-2009, 05:05 AM
like i've said before in the following thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=253418&highlight=how+come+stan

"Federer's backhand is technically wrong. Wawrinka's is not. A backhand shouldn't be hit by dropping the wrist and turning it up again. But that's what Federer does.
It's as simple as that! There's no way to handle a heavy topspin on a consistent basis by making such a basic error."

I know it's hard to believe for some of you out there, but it's true. When you're under pressure and you need to come up with some great passing shots it's necessary to use your wrist, otherwise you couldn't hit some shots. But playing a simple topspin or drive backhand back to your opponent when he stays at the baseline, it's quite simply wrong to use your wrist.

I really don't know what there is more to discuss about Fed's backhand.

Nadalfan89
04-17-2009, 08:14 AM
I think he should try and use a 2HBH against Nadal's moonballs. Could help a lot...

deltox
04-17-2009, 08:37 AM
I think he should try and use a 2HBH against Nadal's moonballs. Could help a lot...

you dont change your strokes at the end of your career. it would be more detremental than helpful for sure.


, its weird but you guys do realize roddick has massive spin on his non drive forehands, maybe not quite as much as nadal but alot none the less and fed handles it easily.

for fed v nadal its all about confidence which he is seriously lacking

nyc
04-17-2009, 09:01 AM
funny how you can find like a gazillion slo-mo Federer backhands on youtube and not a single one of Wawrinka's.

matchmaker
04-17-2009, 09:03 AM
like i've said before in the following thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=253418&highlight=how+come+stan

"Federer's backhand is technically wrong. Wawrinka's is not. A backhand shouldn't be hit by dropping the wrist and turning it up again. But that's what Federer does.
It's as simple as that! There's no way to handle a heavy topspin on a consistent basis by making such a basic error."

I know it's hard to believe for some of you out there, but it's true. When you're under pressure and you need to come up with some great passing shots it's necessary to use your wrist, otherwise you couldn't hit some shots. But playing a simple topspin or drive backhand back to your opponent when he stays at the baseline, it's quite simply wrong to use your wrist.

I really don't know what there is more to discuss about Fed's backhand.

I could not agree more with your analysis. There is at technical flaw at the basis of Fed's BH, it is as simple as that.

As I indicated above, he hits it with a bent arm, and as you indeed add, that means he has to compensate with his wrist. That might work on some flick of the wrist shots and produce some spectacular passings, but it will break down on deep and consistent topspin shot.

Compare that to Wawrinka's BH. Straight arm, firm wrist. Off course there is some wrist action, but no more than necessary. Wawrinka's BH is solid and he is able to drive it deep consistently.

Federer's backhand can come up with ingenious shots and then again with the most stupid shanks.

BTW, Sampras had the same flaw: bent arm.

Fed's BH is still better than Pete's and at a time it was a great shotmaking wing, but he has to correct his technique if he wants to resist the constant BH bombing Nadal and Murray too are implementing against him.

stormholloway
04-17-2009, 09:09 AM
like i've said before in the following thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=253418&highlight=how+come+stan

"Federer's backhand is technically wrong. Wawrinka's is not. A backhand shouldn't be hit by dropping the wrist and turning it up again. But that's what Federer does.
It's as simple as that! There's no way to handle a heavy topspin on a consistent basis by making such a basic error."

I know it's hard to believe for some of you out there, but it's true. When you're under pressure and you need to come up with some great passing shots it's necessary to use your wrist, otherwise you couldn't hit some shots. But playing a simple topspin or drive backhand back to your opponent when he stays at the baseline, it's quite simply wrong to use your wrist.

I really don't know what there is more to discuss about Fed's backhand.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's really as simple as that. Federer does not have an active wrist during his one handed backhand.

federmann
04-17-2009, 09:16 AM
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's really as simple as that. Federer does not have an active wrist during his one handed backhand.

I'm sorry but you don't have no clue at all. If you say Fed doesn't have an active wrist during his backhand then you simply do not, or cannot see it. Either way he does use his wrist!

federmann
04-17-2009, 09:31 AM
I could not agree more with your analysis. There is at technical flaw at the basis of Fed's BH, it is as simple as that.

As I indicated above, he hits it with a bent arm, and as you indeed add, that means he has to compensate with his wrist. That might work on some flick of the wrist shots and produce some spectacular passings, but it will break down on deep and consistent topspin shot.

Compare that to Wawrinka's BH. Straight arm, firm wrist. Off course there is some wrist action, but no more than necessary. Wawrinka's BH is solid and he is able to drive it deep consistently.

Federer's backhand can come up with ingenious shots and then again with the most stupid shanks.

BTW, Sampras had the same flaw: bent arm.

Fed's BH is still better than Pete's and at a time it was a great shotmaking wing, but he has to correct his technique if he wants to resist the constant BH bombing Nadal and Murray too are implementing against him.

Nice to see that someone agrees :)
but I don't think he hits it with a bent arm:

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/85762116.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1937219EE721E785E4A889705AE2949B167 E30A760B0D811297

Have a look at the following picture. Starting the stroke the way he does (I mean grip and turned up wrist), there is no chance to hit the backhand correct and without wrist action.

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/85545939.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193B946C5A518E7D4C114A92022FF6A075F 284831B75F48EF45

matchmaker
04-17-2009, 09:40 AM
Nice to see that someone agrees :)
but I don't think he hits it with a bent arm:



So what is this?

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20061119elpepudep_4/XLCO/Ies/Roger_Federer_devuelve_pelota_durante_final_Copa_M asters.jpg

federmann
04-17-2009, 09:49 AM
So what is this?

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20061119elpepudep_4/XLCO/Ies/Roger_Federer_devuelve_pelota_durante_final_Copa_M asters.jpg

ok, this stroke looks like it doesn't work anyway. And the arm is bent, yes.

jmjmkim
04-17-2009, 09:54 AM
Your backhand is only as good as results. In the end, who wins . . . that's all that matters.

matchmaker
04-17-2009, 09:54 AM
Now, compare with this:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08Y135x4jC4VU/340x.jpg

And this:

http://d.yimg.com/ak/p//090116/getty/i28f3960591e14ae1794482a032a8747a-getty-tennis-aus-kooyong.jpg

matchmaker
04-17-2009, 10:02 AM
Look at the supination of Wawrinka's wrist, compare that to Fed and you will see that as the previous poster mentions Federer bends his wrist downwards, not the way to hit a good onehander.

nousername
04-17-2009, 10:18 AM
Look at the supination of Wawrinka's wrist, compare that to Fed and you will see that as the previous poster mentions Federer bends his wrist downwards, not the way to hit a good onehander.
absolutely right. and it should be noted that the reason for this is compensation for the grip used. wawrinka, gasquet, kuerten, et al use more of a western backhand grip suitable for higher bouncing balls. whereas fed uses a more traditional grip better for low balls. so when balls go high on fed, he had to bend his wrist down to compensate.

with all that is it no surprise fed's backhand looks so bad against nadal and on clay. (use guys were right that sampras suffered the exact same problem. also no wonder those guys excelled on grass)

so, on the other hand, if the grass season was 3 months long and the clay season was only 1/2 month, we would all be talking about how ineffective wawrinka's and gasquet's backhand are and why fed's is so good.

Josherer
04-17-2009, 10:26 AM
Take a look at Feds Backhand in 06 and 07 (after he regained form after mono).

I would defaintly rate his backhand overall better (ie. More consistently effective) than Gasquets.

stormholloway
04-17-2009, 10:31 AM
I'm sorry but you don't have no clue at all. If you say Fed doesn't have an active wrist during his backhand then you simply do not, or cannot see it. Either way he does use his wrist!

How could you possibly know this?

thejoe
04-17-2009, 11:30 AM
I'm sorry but you don't have no clue at all. If you say Fed doesn't have an active wrist during his backhand then you simply do not, or cannot see it. Either way he does use his wrist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CNiWdu4kLw
Wrist doesn't look too active to me.

You don't really know what you are talking about. And in the technique section, I've seen Wawrinka's backhand referred to as somewhat of a Windshiled Wiper backhand, so his wrist is likely to be more active than Roger's.

yellowoctopus
04-17-2009, 11:44 AM
So what is this?

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20061119elpepudep_4/XLCO/Ies/Roger_Federer_devuelve_pelota_durante_final_Copa_M asters.jpg

It looks like Federer is trying to adjust for the ball that came in too close to his body by bending the arm.

I don't have a transcript on this, but last year Federer mentioned that one of the things Higuera was working with him on was to get him to 'turn over' his backhand. I believe it's not about straight or bent arms with Federer's backhand, but it is really about his tendency to brush up on the ball more than hitting through and producing penetrating shots--as we see in Wawrinka's. Federer can and do hit penetrating shots at times, but it is that tendency to favor brushing up (creating spins) on the backhand that makes his backhand vulnerable.

To be fair, Nadal picks on Federer's backhand more than he does with other players, due to the fact that Federer's forehand is that dangerous. When one is forced to hit that many backhands, your 'bad tendency' will show up eventually--the opponent then move in to take advantage. Nadal has executed this tactic, along with other tactics he employs on Federer, very well--better than any players right now.

RoddickRook
04-17-2009, 12:23 PM
Some pretty good information guys...but I fail to see an active wrist as well?

Cloudy
04-17-2009, 01:03 PM
Sorry--Fed has the best one-hander out there....

Gasquet's is prettier--but Roger's is more effective and produces more results.

Look at their rankings.

Gasquets backhand is better than Federer's it has to be because his forehand most of the time is one of the worst in the top 40. Federer though has a killer forehand and (except against Nadal) on the whole a far better mental attitude which explains his much higher ranking).

P_Agony
04-17-2009, 01:04 PM
Federer's backhand is much worse than Gasquet's and Wawrinka's. That's why he won 57 titles with it...

jamesblakefan#1
04-17-2009, 01:07 PM
Take a look at Feds Backhand in 06 and 07 (after he regained form after mono).

I would defaintly rate his backhand overall better (ie. More consistently effective) than Gasquets.

Fed didn't have mono until 08. Or was he just born with it?

Cesc Fabregas
04-17-2009, 01:09 PM
Federer's backhand is much worse than Gasquet's and Wawrinka's. That's why he won 57 titles with it...

He won in spite of his weak backhand the reason he has won all those titles is because he has the best forehand off all time.

P_Agony
04-17-2009, 01:16 PM
He won in spite of his weak backhand the reason he has won all those titles is because he has the best forehand off all time.

Wrong. His backhand has won him plenty of points. His variation, his ability to defend well with it, his backhand slice is IMO the best of all time, his ability to hit BH winners out of nowhere, and best of all - his BH passing shots, which are downright brilliant and are a joy to watch.

Plus, if you watched the match vs. Wawrinka, you should know that it was his backhand making the less erros and winning him points. When the two were exchagning backhands, it was Federer who more often than not won the point. It's his forehand and serve which were letting him down and losing him the match.

nousername
04-17-2009, 01:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CNiWdu4kLw
Wrist doesn't look too active to me.

You don't really know what you are talking about. And in the technique section, I've seen Wawrinka's backhand referred to as somewhat of a Windshiled Wiper backhand, so his wrist is likely to be more active than Roger's.
windshield wiper motion does NOT imply wrist action. actually the opposite is true. good "windshield wiper" motion involves a firm wrist, the "wiping" motion comes from rotation of the forearm and shoulder, not the wrist.

look at nalbandian here:
http://www.hi-techtennis.com/

soo ... you are correct that wawrinka has a windshield wiper backhand, but that does not mean "wrist action".

defrule
04-17-2009, 03:33 PM
Look at that. Federer staring at the ball while Wawrinka is looking at the target.

dugger5688
04-17-2009, 03:53 PM
Wrong. His backhand has won him plenty of points. His variation, his ability to defend well with it, his backhand slice is IMO the best of all time, his ability to hit BH winners out of nowhere, and best of all - his BH passing shots, which are downright brilliant and are a joy to watch.

Plus, if you watched the match vs. Wawrinka, you should know that it was his backhand making the less erros and winning him points. When the two were exchagning backhands, it was Federer who more often than not won the point. It's his forehand and serve which were letting him down and losing him the match.

Precisely, his backhand lately has been the more reliable shot. And again, Federer came out on top in the backhand-backhand rallies. I think Higueras really helped him hit through that shot, definitely a marked improvement. Even against Nadal in the 08 AO final his backhand didn't let him down. Something behind his eyes let him down.

defrule
04-17-2009, 04:10 PM
I jumped down his throat to make him choke in the AO final.

Bassus
04-17-2009, 07:26 PM
I jumped down his throat to make him choke in the AO final.

Well you did a good job because he definitely choked.

maverick66
04-17-2009, 07:29 PM
if you want a good one handed backhand look up guga kuerten. thats the best one ive ever seen. better than gasquet, warinka, and federer.

NamRanger
04-17-2009, 07:33 PM
Wrong. His backhand has won him plenty of points. His variation, his ability to defend well with it, his backhand slice is IMO the best of all time, his ability to hit BH winners out of nowhere, and best of all - his BH passing shots, which are downright brilliant and are a joy to watch.

Plus, if you watched the match vs. Wawrinka, you should know that it was his backhand making the less erros and winning him points. When the two were exchagning backhands, it was Federer who more often than not won the point. It's his forehand and serve which were letting him down and losing him the match.


His backhand looked much better than it really was because his movement was there to make his backhand appear better. Federer before was able to consistently keep the ball in play and deep, and occasionally force a short ball with his slice BH.


However, even during Federer's prime, there were moments when his BH was exposed greatly. Safin did it at the AO, Nadal did it at the FO, Gasquet at Monte Carlo, etc. Federer's BH during his prime was a 7.5 (on a scale of 10) at best.




Federer's backhand isn't technically wrong; however, he is using the wrong shot for his court positioning. The problem is that he keeps his wrist too loose, and he turns his arm too early, resulting in a backhand with marginal amounts of spin, and mild amounts of pace. Couple that with the fact that he generally likes to take the ball early and on the rise, you can see why his BH has been exposed greatly as of late, and why it is so awfully inconsistent.



When Federer kept his wrist firm and hit flat, he was much more consistent off this side; although it still wasn't enough for him to beat Nadal on the clay. Thus why he made a change to add more spin for consistency on clay, but as you see, his results overall have deteriorated. He essentially ran into the same problem as Roddick; he changed his game to beat one guy, but that actually made him worse.

saram
04-17-2009, 07:34 PM
if you want a good one handed backhand look up guga kuerten. thats the best one ive ever seen. better than gasquet, warinka, and federer.

Guga's was sublime and then some.

NamRanger
04-17-2009, 07:36 PM
Guga's was sublime and then some.


Guga's backhand was also very unorthodox, and extremely difficult to replicate. It also probably contributed to the end of his career, due to how violent his hip rotation was (on his BH and FH).

maverick66
04-17-2009, 07:48 PM
very true but it was the best one ive ever seen. no one went down the line better than guga. i wish he had stayed healthy so we could have seen him play nadal at the french.

saram
04-17-2009, 07:49 PM
A prime Guga vs a prime Rafa would be epic in a FO final....

maverick66
04-17-2009, 07:50 PM
i know he was my hero growing up. i watched him play mirnyi at the us open and was just amazed how good he was.

VivalaVida
04-17-2009, 07:58 PM
Man Kuerten was soo good on clay but I have no doubt in my mind that Nadal would make him look like junior on clay. RG 2008 was domination and out of the 83 times nadal's oppenents served in that tournament, nadal broke them 51 times!

83/51= 61 percent of the time. :shock:

NamRanger
04-17-2009, 08:33 PM
Man Kuerten was soo good on clay but I have no doubt in my mind that Nadal would make him look like junior on clay. RG 2008 was domination and out of the 83 times nadal's oppenents served in that tournament, nadal broke them 51 times!

83/51= 61 percent of the time. :shock:



Kuerten at his very best is no slouch on clay. A bum hipped Kuerten still beat Federer very easily at the 2004 FO. A healthy and on Kuerten would be no joke for Nadal; Nadal may have a very slight edge, but if he isn't playing at his very best, Kuerten can take the match.

VivalaVida
04-17-2009, 10:17 PM
Kuerten at his very best is no slouch on clay. A bum hipped Kuerten still beat Federer very easily at the 2004 FO. A healthy and on Kuerten would be no joke for Nadal; Nadal may have a very slight edge, but if he isn't playing at his very best, Kuerten can take the match.
I doubt it. Kuerten is definitely no slouch on clay but if Nadal is any where near his RG 08 form, Kuerten would receive a very sound thrashing.

maverick66
04-17-2009, 11:10 PM
kuerten could win. not saying i would favor him but he had the potential to beat him. the guy was unreal on clay. nadal is the best clay claycourt player out there but its really hard to say he would easily beat guga.

OTMPut
04-17-2009, 11:28 PM
For all those experts here.

Why hitting with a bent arm is flawed? And why hitting with a straight arm is technically correct?

We have had these "correct" f/h strokes propounded by experts and we have guys like Agassi, Nadal who make all these experts look like fools.

I want to know if Federer and Sampras hit with bent arm and have 27 GS among them, why hitting with bent arm is technically flawed?

World Beater
04-18-2009, 12:04 AM
federer is much better than gasquet, kuerten, wawrinka when it comes to defending from the bh side on any surface. take the ball out of federer's strike zone and he can still stay in points...take the ball out of kuerten's strike zone and he's dead meat.

the difference is of course, kuerten's strike zone is bigger so if he gets a hit, its a really good consistent one. federer's drive is not as reliable as these other guys on higher bouncing surfaces.

but on grass, and slick courts i would take federer's bh over these guys any day of the week.

stormholloway
04-18-2009, 03:16 AM
He won in spite of his weak backhand the reason he has won all those titles is because he has the best forehand off all time.

The biggest myth in tennis is that Federer's backhand is weak. Agassi probed Federer's backhand for years and never won a single match after 2002. It's one of the best one handers of all time, if not one of the best backhands overall. If it were such a weakness then he wouldn't have won so often, plain and simple.

People who believe this myth come out of the woodwork when Federer is in a slump. Apparently you've missed all of the downright magical backhands he's been hitting for the past 5 years or so. Frankly, I think his forehand is more erratic these days than his backhand.

L.M.F PRECISION
04-18-2009, 04:38 AM
james blake backhand i also very good

NamRanger
04-18-2009, 11:18 AM
The biggest myth in tennis is that Federer's backhand is weak. Agassi probed Federer's backhand for years and never won a single match after 2002. It's one of the best one handers of all time, if not one of the best backhands overall. If it were such a weakness then he wouldn't have won so often, plain and simple.

People who believe this myth come out of the woodwork when Federer is in a slump. Apparently you've missed all of the downright magical backhands he's been hitting for the past 5 years or so. Frankly, I think his forehand is more erratic these days than his backhand.


That is because Agassi hit a straight flat ball to the Federer BH, right into his strike zone. Also, Federer in general was just a really bad match-up for Agassi in pretty much every aspect. The only guy that I've seen hit through Federer, was Safin. And that's because he hits a clean 10 mph faster than Agassi on average.


His backhand cannot be considered one of the best all time, when it has been greatly exposed so many times. Just because Sampras won 14 slams doesn't mean he had one of the best backhands of all time.




It is not a myth that his backhand is a fairly tame shot, especially now. His movement made his backhand look alot better than it really was. Now that his movement has gone down abit, you can see the results. His backhand is not a weapon, and never really was.

NamRanger
04-18-2009, 11:28 AM
For all those experts here.

Why hitting with a bent arm is flawed? And why hitting with a straight arm is technically correct?

We have had these "correct" f/h strokes propounded by experts and we have guys like Agassi, Nadal who make all these experts look like fools.

I want to know if Federer and Sampras hit with bent arm and have 27 GS among them, why hitting with bent arm is technically flawed?



Agassi hits a very orthodox forehand. I don't know what you're talking about here. Nadal himself may appear unorthodox to the untrained eye, however, he still uses the same basic principals with some advanced variations. He establishes a hitting structure, does not break this hitting structure, and hits cleanly.



Hitting with a bent arm is technically flawed because it leads to inconsistencies, injuries, and usually a much weaker ball than someone who hits with a straight arm. Basic physics will tell you that a longer lever with the same applied force will produce a greater amount of product force. Thus why it is better to hit with a straight arm on the 1HBH.


Sampras covered up for his BH "relative" weakness by going for broke on this side, and slicing alot. He also S&Ved, and relied heavily on ending points quickly, so that he would not have to ralley with his BH. Thus why he actually didn't have to deal with his BH breaking down as often as Federer did.



Federer got away with his BH because he was superbly fast, and like Sampras sliced alot for awhile. He also did hit his BH flatter from 2006 and before, which resulted in much more consistency and overall better results. Also, when Federer had an opportunity, he would quickly end points with his lethal inside out FH.




Federer however, ran into the problem of movement, as he is primarily a baseliner, while Sampras was always a S&V player with an allcourt game.

Serendipitous
04-18-2009, 11:30 AM
Speaking of one-handed backhands.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFn7D4t1kUA

stormholloway
04-18-2009, 11:39 AM
That is because Agassi hit a straight flat ball to the Federer BH, right into his strike zone. Also, Federer in general was just a really bad match-up for Agassi in pretty much every aspect. The only guy that I've seen hit through Federer, was Safin. And that's because he hits a clean 10 mph faster than Agassi on average.

First, Agassi hits with plenty of spin, no more, no less than the average player on tour. Anyone who plays from the baseline and has a "weak" backhand should be a tremendous matchup for Agassi, having one of the strongest and most consistent backhands on tour. You think Agassi would criticize Federer's backhand after years of being dominated by him, even if he were required to be honest?

As for Safin, I assume you're referring to one match right? The 2005 Australian Open semi? Safin is 2-10 versus Federer.

His backhand cannot be considered one of the best all time, when it has been greatly exposed so many times. Just because Sampras won 14 slams doesn't mean he had one of the best backhands of all time.

First, how has his backhand been exposed so many times? He has had the most dominant run in open tennis history. Sampras is a serve and volleyer. His backhand wasn't nearly as important for him as Federer's has had to be. Federer has been in 3 French Open finals playing baseline tennis, unlike Sampras.

It is not a myth that his backhand is a fairly tame shot, especially now. His movement made his backhand look alot better than it really was. Now that his movement has gone down abit, you can see the results. His backhand is not a weapon, and never really was.

Utter nonsense. Your argument is a failure. His forehand is just as unreliable now as his backhand, if not more.

NamRanger
04-18-2009, 11:52 AM
First, Agassi hits with plenty of spin, no more, no less than the average player on tour. Anyone who plays from the baseline and has a "weak" backhand should be a tremendous matchup for Agassi, having one of the strongest and most consistent backhands on tour. You think Agassi would criticize Federer's backhand after years of being dominated by him, even if he were required to be honest?





Agassi hits far less spin on average than most players on tour actually. A study by John Yandell showed that Agassi on average hits with FAR less spin than most of the players during his study, including the likes of Sampras. I'll take his word over yours. Only someone like Henman produced less spin than Agassi. This is actually not too surprising, considering Agassi started tennis much earlier before the popularization of "windshield wiper" motions.



This is why Agassi was unable to expose Federer's BH. It was always in his strike zone. Couple that with the fact that Federer was a supreme mover when he played Agassi, you can easily see why Federer was a really bad match-up for Agassi.




I used the Safin match as a reference as to how hard it is to overpower Federer. Your counterargument actually just reinforces mine.





Federer's BH has been exposed many times. Canas, Volandri, Gasquet, Kuerten, Safin, Nadal, Simon, Murray and Nalbandian have all exposed that side with varying degrees of success. That's not a handful of names; that's alot.


Edit : The reason why he errors off his FH is because he's trying to go for too much to compensate for his BH wing. This was very evident in the AO final against Nadal. His BH didn't break, however he was unable to consistently pressure Nadal off this wing.

swong09
04-20-2009, 10:19 AM
Watching Wawrinka/Kohlschreiber's backhand, they drive through the ball and step in (extend their arm more forward) more than Federer even though they are hitting topspin.

If you watch Federer play against murray or especially nadal, when he hits his backhand, he tends to just loop it up without extending and most of his weight is on his back foot, instead of transferring to his front foot.

David_Is_Right
04-20-2009, 11:05 AM
i think fed has one of the best backhands...

Way to go out on a limb there!

Gugafan
04-20-2009, 11:43 AM
if you want a good one handed backhand look up guga kuerten. thats the best one ive ever seen. better than gasquet, warinka, and federer.

Agreed....Guga was able to manufacture some crazy angles with his backhand. The fact that he used an extreme grip along with being 6 ft 3, made high balls no such problem for Guga. I loved seeing him hit jumping one handed backhand winners on the clay.

Guga's backhand was also very unorthodox, and extremely difficult to replicate. It also probably contributed to the end of his career, due to how violent his hip rotation was (on his BH and FH).

I dont think it was Gugas backhand that was the cause of the hip problems.It was a very loose and smooth action. The only thing unorthodox about it was the high takeback, which is also employed by Gasquet. Both players have a massive shoulder turn. Head tucked under shoulder.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0115/ten_g_kuerten_400.jpg



http://z.about.com/d/tennis/1/0/G/F/richard-gasquet-backhand-01.jpg