PDA

View Full Version : Navratilova says Nadal cannot be defeated by 1 hander


sureshs
05-25-2009, 08:55 AM
She said yesterday on Tennis channel that to defeat Nadal at the Fench Open, a right handled player needs to have a 2-handed backhand, otherwise it is impossible. This is very significant coming from someone who was famous for her one-handed backhand and won the FO twice.

Mick
05-25-2009, 08:57 AM
martina has like 18 singles grand slam titles, i believe :shock:

aceroberts13
05-25-2009, 09:01 AM
Visions of Monfils are flashing in my head...

Rabbit
05-25-2009, 09:12 AM
Yeah and Chris Evert said not too long ago that the days of a champion on the WTA being under 6' tall were over. Along came Justine Henin.

And, Martina once opined when she was #1 in the world, that she could beat the #100 man in the world. Vitas Gerulaitis called her hand on it saying he'd bet a Rolls Royce against her. She qualified the bet and said she could do it if she got to pick the surface. Gerulaitis then said he'd bet his $1M home against her. I believe the #100 man in the world at that time was Brad Gilbert.

Point being, I don't know how 'significant' it is.

Nadal_Freak
05-25-2009, 09:13 AM
It's simple physics. A one-hander can't handle shots above shoulder level. It looks painful to watch. RG clay is so high bouncing. It exposes that particular stroke when playing Nadal like no other conditions would.

NamRanger
05-25-2009, 09:15 AM
Yeah and Chris Evert said not too long ago that the days of a champion on the WTA being under 6' tall were over. Along came Justine Henin.

And, Martina once opined when she was #1 in the world, that she could beat the #100 man in the world. Vitas Gerulaitis called her hand on it saying he'd bet a Rolls Royce against her. She qualified the bet and said she could do it if she got to pick the surface. Gerulaitis then said he'd bet his $1M home against her. I believe the #100 man in the world at that time was Brad Gilbert.

Point being, I don't know how 'significant' it is.


Gilbert vs Martina on grass. I'd love to see that.

NamRanger
05-25-2009, 09:15 AM
It's simple physics. A one-hander can't handle shots above shoulder level. It looks painful to watch. RG clay is so high bouncing. It exposes that particular stroke when playing Nadal like no other conditions would.


Yeah I guess that's why Lendl never won the FO right :rolleyes:

Danstevens
05-25-2009, 09:16 AM
As much as Martina is very qualified to speak on this topic, I disagree. Federer, a one-hander probably has the best chance of beating Nadal on clay (or any surface for that matter) with Djoker being a fairly close second.

I can see why Martina said what she did, I just really can't see why I should agree. The Brazillian qualifier, Marcus Daniel managed to do OK with a one-hander (albeit against a Nadal who wasn't 100% by any stretch of the word). To conclude, I think that no matter what style of backhand you use, at Roland Garros, you're going to have trouble beating Nadal.

svijk
05-25-2009, 09:16 AM
Agree, she has only confirmed something pretty well known....however I would rephrase that by saying Nadal cannot be beaten by a single hander or 2 hander .....if he is playing his best

tudwell
05-25-2009, 09:17 AM
It's simple physics. A one-hander can't handle shots above shoulder level. It looks painful to watch. RG clay is so high bouncing. It exposes that particular stroke when playing Nadal like no other conditions would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIJfQ6adFqY

Nadal_Freak
05-25-2009, 09:18 AM
As much as Martina is very qualified to speak on this topic, I disagree. Federer, a one-hander probably has the best chance of beating Nadal on clay (or any surface for that matter) with Djoker being a fairly close second.

I can see why Martina said what she did, I just really can't see why I should agree. The Brazillian qualifier, Marcus Daniel managed to do OK with a one-hander (albeit against a Nadal who wasn't 100% by any stretch of the word). To conclude, I think that no matter what style of backhand you use, at Roland Garros, you're going to have trouble beating Nadal.
Fed's serve won him Madrid. He better hope he is serving out of his mind or that shot will be the downfall of him yet again. Djokovic is way tougher for Nadal.

Nadal_Freak
05-25-2009, 09:20 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIJfQ6adFqY
I should've been more specific. More like it won't hold up with relentless topspin combined with high bouncing surfaces. RG 2005 vs. Gasquet as an example of that.

gj011
05-25-2009, 09:21 AM
Navratilova is right.

Mick
05-25-2009, 09:22 AM
well, until someone with a one hbh beat nadal here at roland garros, martina's statement remains true, as he has never been beaten here in all the 'official' matches that he has played.

akv89
05-25-2009, 09:23 AM
Seems like an overstatement. A one-hander would obviously have a very difficult time but considering that Federer is one of Nadal's biggest threats at RG, I don't see why it can never happen.

Warriorroger
05-25-2009, 09:29 AM
Martina was great in tennis, the things that came out her mind were always a bit coloured and off.

bruce38
05-25-2009, 09:37 AM
If Federer had a two-handed backhand, Nadal would have 0 FO's.

flyer
05-25-2009, 09:39 AM
she didnt say it was completely impossible, like there was no way in a million years a onehander could beat nadal, thast not what she said...

she was asked what it would take to beat nadal on play and she said among other things a two handed bakchand, she just was saying a twohanded backhanded would be better suited...

Mick
05-25-2009, 09:40 AM
If Federer had a two-handed backhand, Nadal would have 0 FO's.

yeah but then he would not have his legion of fans here at talk tennis who are his fans because they love his 1hbh :)

380pistol
05-25-2009, 09:41 AM
She's wrong but not completely. A righty with a one handed backhand can beat Nadal at RG, but it will be extremely, and I mean extremely difficult. Someone like Lendl and Guga may have a shot. Both are tall with long limbs, and hit the ie one handed backhands with semi western grips which is conducive to handling the high ball.

So it's not impossible, but very, and again, I mean very difficult.

NamRanger
05-25-2009, 09:46 AM
She's wrong but not completely. A righty with a one handed backhand can beat Nadal at RG, but it will be extremely, and I mean extremely difficult. Someone like Lendl and Guga may have a shot. Both are tall with long limbs, and hit the ie one handed backhands with semi western grips which is conducive to handling the high ball.

So it's not impossible, but very, and again, I mean very difficult.



Lendl had an eastern grip.

All-rounder
05-25-2009, 09:46 AM
It's simple physics. A one-hander can't handle shots above shoulder level. It looks painful to watch. RG clay is so high bouncing. It exposes that particular stroke when playing Nadal like no other conditions would.
Then what do you call Ivan lendl then and gaudio :roll:

bolo
05-25-2009, 10:03 AM
She said yesterday on Tennis channel that to defeat Nadal at the Fench Open, a right handled player needs to have a 2-handed backhand, otherwise it is impossible. This is very significant coming from someone who was famous for her one-handed backhand and won the FO twice.

certainly applies to federer. If federer had a seppi like two-hander this head to head with nadal would be very different. But having said that there have been several top notch 1 handers and its interesting to think how those guys would have done versus nadal.

NickH87
05-25-2009, 10:14 AM
I have a one hander, but it find it very difficult to hit the high backhander, so I practice double for those high balls, but my one hander is solid on regular and the two hander is **** on regular hits.

manny pacquiao P4P king
05-25-2009, 10:23 AM
wow - roddick has a better chance to beat nadal than federer

CyBorg
05-25-2009, 10:33 AM
Ridiculous statement.

If Federer had a bigger, more accurate serve and better volleys he'd have a fair shot.

Navratilova is guilty of the worst kind of reductionism here. She's isolating one element out of a slew of factors. That's just... bad.

oneguy20
05-25-2009, 10:56 AM
Fed's serve won him Madrid. He better hope he is serving out of his mind or that shot will be the downfall of him yet again. Djokovic is way tougher for Nadal.

Wawrinka and Almagro can crush high balls with their one hander.

oneguy20
05-25-2009, 10:58 AM
It's simple physics. A one-hander can't handle shots above shoulder level. It looks painful to watch. RG clay is so high bouncing. It exposes that particular stroke when playing Nadal like no other conditions would.

I meant to quote this one.

sureshs
05-25-2009, 11:00 AM
The fact that it takes a Federer to get so close to Nadal and yet he fails to beat him shows how handicapped the one handed backhand is. In spite of his serve and forehand, Federer is handicapped against Nadal at the French. A lesser person with a one hander would have absolutely no chance. But a lesser person with a two hander would have a chance. That is the point.

NamRanger
05-25-2009, 11:05 AM
The fact that it takes a Federer to get so close to Nadal and yet he fails to beat him shows how handicapped the one handed backhand is. In spite of his serve and forehand, Federer is handicapped against Nadal at the French. A lesser person with a one hander would have absolutely no chance. But a lesser person with a two hander would have a chance. That is the point.




Federer's topspin BH isn't even that good. People just highly overrate it because he was so dominant from 2004-2007.

stormholloway
05-25-2009, 11:06 AM
It's simple physics. A one-hander can't handle shots above shoulder level. It looks painful to watch. RG clay is so high bouncing. It exposes that particular stroke when playing Nadal like no other conditions would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIJfQ6adFqY

Mansewerz
05-25-2009, 11:08 AM
She may be right to a certain extent, but Navratilova annoys the living hell out of me. God she talks too much!!!!

sureshs
05-25-2009, 11:10 AM
Federer's topspin BH isn't even that good. People just highly overrate it because he was so dominant from 2004-2007.

It is so-so. Wawrinka and Gasquet's are much better.

bigmatt
05-25-2009, 11:21 AM
Yeah and Chris Evert said not too long ago that the days of a champion on the WTA being under 6' tall were over. Along came Justine Henin.

And, Martina once opined when she was #1 in the world, that she could beat the #100 man in the world. Vitas Gerulaitis called her hand on it saying he'd bet a Rolls Royce against her. She qualified the bet and said she could do it if she got to pick the surface. Gerulaitis then said he'd bet his $1M home against her. I believe the #100 man in the world at that time was Brad Gilbert.

Point being, I don't know how 'significant' it is.

I believe the #100 man at this time was Derek Tarr, former Auburn #1, and he was quite nervous about the "opportunity". Vitas had said he'd bet his house Martina couldn't beat Harold Solomon, then well past his prime, and that she couldn't even beat her coach, Mike Estep, who Vitas thought would only be about #1,000 if he came back on tour.
The finer point of the subject still bears noting, and Martina displays a lack of complete thought: one shot, no matter how many hands execute it, doesn't make or break someone. Federer has as good a shot as any top player at beating Nadal at RG because of his complete game. I hope we see a competitive final no matter who plays or how many hands they play with.

el sergento
05-25-2009, 12:42 PM
Federer never loses because of his backhand, Federer looses because his forehand breaks down and he doesn't convert break points.

In other words, it's not the backhand that lets fed down, it's what's between the ears.

P_Agony
05-25-2009, 12:47 PM
yeah but then he would not have his legion of fans here at talk tennis who are his fans because they love his 1hbh :)

True, I just love that one handed backhand, even if it's a weakness in the modern game.

drakulie
05-25-2009, 01:03 PM
Federer never loses because of his backhand, Federer looses because his forehand breaks down and he doesn't convert break points.

In other words, it's not the backhand that lets fed down, it's what's between the ears.

Agree, I actually did stats on this in the 2007 FO open, and it was his FH that let him down>>> not his BH. To add, he hit way more BH's in that match, and got a larger percentage of his BH's in play than his FH.

ronalditop
05-25-2009, 01:04 PM
True, I just love that one handed backhand, even if it's a weakness in the modern game.

the one handed backhand is just a piece of art.

ninman
05-25-2009, 01:14 PM
Federer never loses because of his backhand, Federer looses because his forehand breaks down and he doesn't convert break points.

In other words, it's not the backhand that lets fed down, it's what's between the ears.

Yep totally agree, 1/17 bp's converted in the FO 2007 final, including 0/10 in set 1 in three separate Nadal service games. In fact I believe he had 6 break points in one service game alone.

Solomon
05-25-2009, 01:17 PM
Navratilova is right.

Navratilova is wrong.

Datacipher
05-25-2009, 01:22 PM
I believe the #100 man at this time was Derek Tarr, former Auburn #1, and he was quite nervous about the "opportunity". Vitas had said he'd bet his house Martina couldn't beat Harold Solomon, then well past his prime, and that she couldn't even beat her coach, Mike Estep, who Vitas thought would only be about #1,000 if he came back on tour.
The finer point of the subject still bears noting, and Martina displays a lack of complete thought: one shot, no matter how many hands execute it, doesn't make or break someone. Federer has as good a shot as any top player at beating Nadal at RG because of his complete game. I hope we see a competitive final no matter who plays or how many hands they play with.

Indeed. Furthermore, her bud Evert did not back her up on this. She admitted publicly that Martina had no chance and that her Evert's own brother and other coaches could beat her in practice.

As for the 1 hander, Martina is wrong. Of course, few, or no, one handers could currently do it, few, or no, two handers can currently do it. (at least at the level Nadal has been playing the last couple years). If he keeps that level it would take an exceptional player to beat him, regardless of 1 or 2 hands. However, I think any knowledgable observer would realize that Guga probably would have as good a chance as anybody to do it. Lendl might also....and there are others....her statement is "safe" in that, her chances of being proven wrong are low, but it is not correct.

THESEXPISTOL
05-25-2009, 01:24 PM
In other words, it's not the backhand that lets fed down, it's what's between the ears.

you really made me laugh :-)

bluegrasser
05-25-2009, 01:35 PM
She said yesterday on Tennis channel that to defeat Nadal at the Fench Open, a right handled player needs to have a 2-handed backhand, otherwise it is impossible. This is very significant coming from someone who was famous for her one-handed backhand and won the FO twice.

Last I heard Fed took Nadal at Madrid recently & Hamburg a year earlier, but yes it's tough going against Nadal, but never say never. I remember Pancho G.. saying " no one will ever win ' Wimbledom' with an OS frame - ever hear of Andre Agassi ?

World Beater
05-25-2009, 01:37 PM
Yeah I guess that's why Lendl never won the FO right :rolleyes:

or kuerten. or gaudio.

drakulie
05-25-2009, 01:39 PM
For Martina:

Stats from the 2007 FO:


Fed had more misses (unforced errors, forced errors, whatever) on his forehand than on his backhand>> 52 -46. And this, with WAY more shots directed to his BH. So, he had a way higher percentage of missed FH's than BH's.

Here are the stats:

351 backhands and missed 52 (14.8%).
229 forehands and missed 46 (20.1%).

His first two sets were clearly his best tennis, with a ton of breakpoint opportunities lost in the first, and winning the second.

In the first set he hit 113 backhands to 70 forehands.
In the second set he hit 106 backhands to 60 forehands.

In the first two sets he clearly played his best tennis, and received most of his break chances >>> They were provided by way of his backhand, and were lost by way of his forehand. He had 17 break opportunities, and broke once. This leaves 16. Of those 16, 3 were erased by way of an ace, and 2 clean backhand winners by Nadal. Of those 11, 7 were erased by missed forehands, and 4 by missed backhands. Additionally, his only "break of serve" came by way of a backhand.

In the third set he hit more forehands than backhands >>>54 to 52.

Furthermore, Nadal only hit 11 clean winners from short replies that came by way of backhand, vs 9 off the forehand. So again, the facts go against her argument. 3.13% (bh) vs. 3.93 (fh). So, in actuality >> Nadal hit more winners off of short replies from Fed's forehand.


We could clearly conclude that his forehand was the shot that let him down>>> not his backhand.

Of course, this is not subjective dribble or rhetoric.

Shaolin
05-25-2009, 01:45 PM
'Ratilova is wrong. Fed just beat Nadal last tournament and will do it again in the FO final.

l_gonzalez
05-25-2009, 01:49 PM
It's simple. Fed can't let Nadal dominate him with that one shot.

High % of 1st serves

Stay agressive and keep points short

Jump all over Nadal's serve when it drops short.

If Fed dicates play, he won't have to hit high one-handed backhands all day. It's very simple in principle but incredibly hard to execute... but I believe in Fed, it's just sooo perfectly set-up it could almost be a movie.

Fed dominates for ages, then along comes somebody that puts him in a world of hurt, makes him cry, beats him in 2 FO open finals, anhilates him in another, takes over his house (wimbledon) and then beats him again in Australia.... and seemingly the once great Federer has no answer and is doomed to being 2nd best to the freak from Mallorca (Agassi's nickname for Rafa, not mine...) and then with Nadal on the verge of history, at seemingly his strongest and most dominant time, at the place he has never lost a match, on the surface where has never lost a best of 5 set match, when everyone, absolutely everyone has already handed the title to Nadal without a ball being struck in anger, Federer goes and beats him.


It's just too perfect a story for it not to happen.

sureshs
05-25-2009, 02:20 PM
Last I heard Fed took Nadal at Madrid recently & Hamburg a year earlier, but yes it's tough going against Nadal, but never say never. I remember Pancho G.. saying " no one will ever win ' Wimbledom' with an OS frame - ever hear of Andre Agassi ?

Fed defeated a tired Nadal who had won 3 tournaments in a row and was hammered by Djokovic in the semifinals. Had Fed faced Djokovic or Murray (the two handers), he would not have made it to the final. Nadal also tanked the match to shift the focus to Fed at RG.

sureshs
05-25-2009, 02:23 PM
Fed's FH appears to breakdown only because he is busy running around his backhand, afraid of Nadal's ball there. By that time, the forehand is wide open, and Nadal causes an error there. Plain and simple. Serve to the BH, hit to the BH, open up the FH, or get a weak reply from the BH, and then cause an error on the FH. In Madrid, Fed left the forehand open, but Nadal did not bother to utilize the opportunity. If he had, the stats would show "forehand errors."

Mick
05-25-2009, 02:30 PM
last year, after the match, mcenroe asked borg what federer could have done differently. borg said federer should have been more patience. in his opinion, federer went for the winners too soon and thus committed too many unforced errors.

ChanceEncounter
05-25-2009, 02:33 PM
Federer never loses because of his backhand, Federer looses because his forehand breaks down and he doesn't convert break points.

In other words, it's not the backhand that lets fed down, it's what's between the ears.

This kind of reductionism is the same kind of issue that Navratilova has. Just because he's not shanking or 'losing' points outright because of his backhand doesn't mean that he's not losing because of his backhand. His lack of ability to threaten Nadal with his backhand means that Nadal can repeatedly hit it to that side without any backup strategy. His inability to hit winners off his backhand means that his forehand and serve have to be on in order for him to stand a chance.

If Federer had Gasquet's or Murray's backhand, Nadal may only have 1 or 2 French Opens instead of 4.

Citing Federer's backhand vs forehand shots is a misleading statistic, because if given the choice, Nadal will hit to his backhand unless he has an opportunity for a clean winner or he has to hit to his forehand because he's off-balance. This means that Federer's forehand shots are likely to be attempts at putting away the point, or that he's off-balance and has to chase down a winner attempt from Nadal.

Giggs The Red Devil
05-25-2009, 02:34 PM
Fed defeated a tired Nadal who had won 3 tournaments in a row and was hammered by Djokovic in the semifinals. Had Fed faced Djokovic or Murray (the two handers), he would not have made it to the final. Nadal also tanked the match to shift the focus to Fed at RG.

Tanked the match? Maybe next time you’ll accuse him of fixing the match. It makes more sense.

bolo
05-25-2009, 02:39 PM
For Martina:

Stats from the 2007 FO:

Well let's keep in mind it's one match and imo that was fed's best backhand day against nadal at RG, although I have seen other clay matches against nadal where federer had similar forehand and backhand UE counts (Rome 06 IIRC).

In any case there is a simple explanation that pulls together these stats. and martina's and wilander's identification of fed's backhand as the primary weakness on clay. The most important thing imo is that federer doesn't do anything special with his backhand on any surface (except for passes) and so his serve and forehand in essence are always bailing it out. That's where the risk happens for fed. if he wants to be aggressive and win ponts.

But on clay fed. takes a hit on the effectiveness of both his serve and his forheand + he is also forced to take some more chances on his fearhand because otherwise nadal is able to continually feed federer high backhands. Basically to cover for the backhand targetting Federer is hitting worse forehands than he would on hard or on grass courts and so his forheand % is going to look worse.

Wilander has said it's ok for fed. to stay in the backcourt if he gets stronger and improves the high backhand. It's not a bad idea, fed. first got really good because he improved his backhand and got fitter, which allowed him to stay in rallies longer until he found a good forehand he can crunch. It would be the same principle applied again on clay versus nadal. He should consider it although it looks like he will try the high risk/high reward shortcut.

bolo
05-25-2009, 02:41 PM
This kind of reductionism is the same kind of issue that Navratilova has. Just because he's not shanking or 'losing' points outright because of his backhand doesn't mean that he's not losing because of his backhand. His lack of ability to threaten Nadal with his backhand means that Nadal can repeatedly hit it to that side without any backup strategy. His inability to hit winners off his backhand means that his forehand and serve have to be on in order for him to stand a chance.

If Federer had Gasquet's or Murray's backhand, Nadal may only have 1 or 2 French Opens instead of 4.

Citing Federer's backhand vs forehand shots is a misleading statistic, because if given the choice, Nadal will hit to his backhand unless he has an opportunity for a clean winner or he has to hit to his forehand because he's off-balance. This means that Federer's forehand shots are likely to be attempts at putting away the point, or that he's off-balance and has to chase down a winner attempt from Nadal.

exactly. sorry I just wrote something similar below your post.

tennis stats. have to be interpreted carefully, that's for sure.

Cesc Fabregas
05-25-2009, 02:42 PM
certainly applies to federer. If federer had a seppi like two-hander this head to head with nadal would be very different. But having said that there have been several top notch 1 handers and its interesting to think how those guys would have done versus nadal.

If Federer had a great 2 hander he might not have as great a forehand as he currently has so that would mean he is on Murray/Djokovic level who Nadal regulary beats on clay :)

bolo
05-25-2009, 02:44 PM
If Federer had a great 2 hander he might not have as great a forehand as he currently has so that would mean he is on Murray/Djokovic level who Nadal regulary beats on clay :)

lol. that's why I picked a seppi like two hander. Just good enough to get a few more victories versus nadal, but fed. still keeps the same great forehand. :)

Breaker
05-25-2009, 02:46 PM
For Martina:

Stats from the 2007 FO:

Additional stat - Nadal is 29-0 against players who hit one handed forehands at Roland Garros.

Maybe the one handed forehand for the right hander is going to go extinct on clay?

ChanceEncounter
05-25-2009, 02:47 PM
If Federer had a great 2 hander he might not have as great a forehand as he currently has so that would mean he is on Murray/Djokovic level who Nadal regulary beats on clay :)
So you're saying it's impossible to have a great forehand and backhand at the same time?

ChanceEncounter
05-25-2009, 02:48 PM
Additional stat - Nadal is 29-0 against players who hit one handed forehands at Roland Garros.

Maybe the one handed forehand for the right hander is going to go extinct on clay?
Uhm... what's Nadal's overall record at Roland Garros?

jelle v
05-25-2009, 02:49 PM
It's simple physics. A one-hander can't handle shots above shoulder level. It looks painful to watch. RG clay is so high bouncing. It exposes that particular stroke when playing Nadal like no other conditions would.

I agree with this.. for once I agree with you. :shock: That why I also tend to think Djokovis is a better match up with Nadal than Federer is. (Unless Federer plays his absolute 100% for 4 sets long and Nadal is at about 97%. A 100% Federer is better than Djokovic against Nadal, regardless of the one handed backhand I think.)

I do not think however that it is "impossible" for a one hander to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. It is a very big disadvantage however. There are a few one handers on tour that have very little trouble with hitting high backhands. They are exceptions however.

el sergento
05-25-2009, 03:27 PM
This kind of reductionism is the same kind of issue that Navratilova has. Just because he's not shanking or 'losing' points outright because of his backhand doesn't mean that he's not losing because of his backhand. His lack of ability to threaten Nadal with his backhand means that Nadal can repeatedly hit it to that side without any backup strategy. His inability to hit winners off his backhand means that his forehand and serve have to be on in order for him to stand a chance.

If Federer had Gasquet's or Murray's backhand, Nadal may only have 1 or 2 French Opens instead of 4.

Citing Federer's backhand vs forehand shots is a misleading statistic, because if given the choice, Nadal will hit to his backhand unless he has an opportunity for a clean winner or he has to hit to his forehand because he's off-balance. This means that Federer's forehand shots are likely to be attempts at putting away the point, or that he's off-balance and has to chase down a winner attempt from Nadal.

Well, just look at his BP conversion % (same for W. 2008 btw). His BH was good enough to get him a ton of BP's, but the sad reality is that Fed choked a ton of those chances, playing tentatively and not forcing the issue on the return. This OHBH argument is bunk. Yes it's the weaker wing, but not enough to make it a liability. If Fed serves well and is clutch on the FH then his BH is a non factor.

See Djokovic; great two hander, top 3 imo, and yet still hasn't beat Nadal on clay.

pmerk34
05-25-2009, 03:38 PM
Well, just look at his BP conversion % (same for W. 2008 btw). His BH was good enough to get him a ton of BP's, but the sad reality is that Fed choked a ton of those chances, playing tentatively and not forcing the issue on the return. This OHBH argument is bunk. Yes it's the weaker wing, but not enough to make it a liability. If Fed serves well and is clutch on the FH then his BH is a non factor.

See Djokovic; great two hander, top 3 imo, and yet still hasn't beat Nadal on clay.

Has Nadal ever been beaten by a one-handed backhand player at the French?

Rhino
05-25-2009, 03:39 PM
Thats bull*****. if you can take a set off of Nadal, then you can take two sets. If you can take two then you can take three.

pmerk34
05-25-2009, 03:49 PM
Thats bull*****. if you can take a set off of Nadal, then you can take two sets. If you can take two then you can take three.

Yeah and last year Fed was lucky he got three games off Nadal in the final. The fact is that in last years final Nadal showed absolutely no respect for Rogers backhand and with good reason. He can't hurt Nadal with it on clay and could barely stay in the rallies with it as Rafa's forehand kicked up high on Rogers backhand side. It's just too difficult a shot to sustain vs Nadal on clay over 5 sets.

pmerk34
05-25-2009, 03:54 PM
She's wrong but not completely. A righty with a one handed backhand can beat Nadal at RG, but it will be extremely, and I mean extremely difficult. Someone like Lendl and Guga may have a shot. Both are tall with long limbs, and hit the ie one handed backhands with semi western grips which is conducive to handling the high ball.

So it's not impossible, but very, and again, I mean very difficult.

A 50 year old Lendl has no shot and a lame Guga has no shot with his bad hip. She's not talking about players coming out of retirement to try and beat Nadal.

This isn't boxing LOL.

Lionheart392
05-25-2009, 03:58 PM
Has Nadal ever been beaten by a one-handed backhand player at the French?

Nope coz he's never lost at the French ;)

Mick
05-25-2009, 04:01 PM
Nope coz he's never lost at the French ;)

I got this from tennis.com:

>>Rafael Nadal now holds the men's record for consecutive victories at the French Open. His 7-5, 6-4, 6-3 win over Marcos Daniel was his 29th straight match victory at the tournament, one more than Bjorn Borg's previous record of 28.

If Nadal wins his next match, he will hold the overall record with 30 straight victories, surpassing Chris Evert's mark of 29.<<

bolo
05-25-2009, 04:05 PM
I got this from tennis.com:

>>Rafael Nadal now holds the men's record for consecutive victories at the French Open. His 7-5, 6-4, 6-3 win over Marcos Daniel was his 29th straight match victory at the tournament, one more than Bjorn Borg's previous record of 28.

If Nadal wins his next match, he will hold the overall record with 30 straight victories, surpassing Chris Evert's mark of 29.<<

now that is really interesting. Nadal is getting so dominant that he is a threat to women's records. amazing. lol.

dh003i
05-25-2009, 04:46 PM
Considering as Federer is one of the only players to beat Nadal on clay, period, and he as a 1 HBH, that kind of bellies said point.

For sure, that makes it harder for Federer than if he had a 2 HBH, but I don't see any 2 HBH players beating Nadal on clay either. Outside of Federer, who's beat Nadal on clay? Gaudio and, err, who was it last year?

BreakPoint
05-25-2009, 04:50 PM
Yeah I guess that's why Lendl never won the FO right :rolleyes:
Nor did Guga Kuerten. In fact, just like Lendl, Kuerten never won the FO 3 times. :?

BreakPoint
05-25-2009, 04:55 PM
well, until someone with a one hbh beat nadal here at roland garros, martina's statement remains true, as he has never been beaten here in all the 'official' matches that he has played.
But Nadal has also never been beaten by a 2-hander at RG either.

So instead of Navratilova saying that Nadal cannot be beaten by a right-handed 1 -hander, she should have also said that he can't be beaten by a left-handed 1 -hander nor a right-handed 2 -hander nor a left-handed 2 hander, either.

BreakPoint
05-25-2009, 04:56 PM
If Federer had a two-handed backhand, Nadal would have 0 FO's.
And Federer would have 0 Wimbledons.

Rhino
05-25-2009, 05:01 PM
Yeah and last year Fed was lucky he got three games off Nadal in the final. The fact is that in last years final Nadal showed absolutely no respect for Rogers backhand and with good reason. He can't hurt Nadal with it on clay and could barely stay in the rallies with it as Rafa's forehand kicked up high on Rogers backhand side. It's just too difficult a shot to sustain vs Nadal on clay over 5 sets.

Look, even Toni Nadal said that it wasn't the normal Federer in last years final. Roger has already taken 11 sets off Rafa on clay, including three at Roland Garros.
I'm not saying it's easy, but of course it can be done, there are many factors involved in sport.

Benefactor
05-25-2009, 05:01 PM
I'm not really sure. I think there are probably no players in the world with a one handed backed hand that have a chance (Federer aside), but I don't think it's because they have a one handed backhand. I don't think Gasquet would have a problem with Nadal's spin, it's just that he's not a good enough player when it comes to everything else for it to matter - for it to simply come down to how good his backhand is. There have been tons and tons of dominant clay court players with one handed backhands, even in the days where two handed backhands were common if not the norm. Kuerten, Henin, Lendl, Muster etc.

BreakPoint
05-25-2009, 05:01 PM
or kuerten. or gaudio.
Or Noah or Vilas or Panatta or Nastase or Muster or Costa or Rosewall or Laver or.......

JoshDragon
05-25-2009, 05:13 PM
Yeah I guess that's why Lendl never won the FO right :rolleyes:

....or Guga.

BorisBeckerFan
05-25-2009, 05:13 PM
Prior to coaching Andre, Gilbert said no man under 6 feet would ever win another slam event.

ChiefAce
05-25-2009, 05:34 PM
Navratilova is right, unless Rafa's level slips it's basically inevitable. Unless you've played against something even remotely close to the kind of ball Nadal can hit you really aren't qualified to comment on it. What's even funnier is people posting clips of Gasquet playing Nadal on an indoor hardcourt, I've got news for ya, those surfaces aren't even remotely similar in terms of bounce. And Gaudio beat Nadal before he was the Nadal we know today.

As far as Roger making more forehand errors in the 2007 final, and that shot letting him down. Well I wonder why that was? Maybe because he was actually going for shots on that side instead of just keeping the ball in play? The true question is how was he handling the balls hit to his backhand? Was he aggressively ripping balls or just rolling and knifing them back into play so he wouldn't make many errors? Where were his backhands landing int he court? Close to the lines or shorter and not as well placed? People take the subject matter personally instead of actually looking at it from an appropriate perspective.

Nadal_Freak
05-25-2009, 05:45 PM
Let's just say winning with a one-handed backhand is harder than a two-handed backhand. Nothing is impossible in professional tennis.

!Tym
05-25-2009, 05:49 PM
The two greatest one-handers of all-time that I've seen as far as being able to handle high-bouncing shots as if they were a normal shot?

Gustavo Kuerten and Thomas Muster hands down. Kuerten's limbs seemed like they stretched forever, and although listed at 6'3" I could've sworn he was AT LEAST 6'4" (he was a good deal taller than the 6'2" Bruguera who according to Mal Washington is actually taller than that: commentator A, Bruguera seems taller than 6'2", Mal: laughs, yeah, he's taller than that. He's 6-3). Whatever the case, combine his extreme length and height WITH his extreme western, CLOSED face, topspin backhand grip as well? My God, I almost felt like high-bouncing topspin to his backhand on clay wasn't an offensive play, it was hitting the ball INTO his sweet spot! His ideal strike zone.

Muster's the other guy. This guy was only 5'11", but he was built like an absolute OX. Probably only Vilas rivaled this guy from a pure upper body strength perspective. He also used a CLOSED faced grip to hit the shot. I think this is really an important factor. If you use a classical grip like Sampras it can get hairy quick. Stich used a classical grip, but again height plays such a huge factor here. Stich like Guga had long limbs and legs that stretched forever. He also handled high top to his backhand well simply because he was so tall.

Muster just visciously MUSCLED high-topspin balls to his backhand with seemingly even MORE topspin it often seemed. The guy looked like hwas tearing his shoulders out when hitting the shot. He could do it open-stance or semi-open stance too without seemingly loosing a lick, which is what really made it so astonishing.

These days, I don't see any one-handers really BUILT to handle high topspin the way Muster and Guga were.

So in this sense, Martina's probably right.

sh@de
05-25-2009, 06:03 PM
Let's just say winning with a one-handed backhand is harder than a two-handed backhand. Nothing is impossible in professional tennis.

I'll agree with that statement if you're talking about at the RG against Nadal. Otherwise, I think the two backhands are equal.

RalphNYC
05-25-2009, 06:17 PM
Did anyone watch Nadal's match against Marcos Daniel today? There's a 1-hander who did fine with his 1HBH both offensively and defensively. He didn't have the required stamina (31 years old in July) or the consistency to beat Nadal, but he gave Nadal a very tough match, and his 1-hand BH was clearly not a culprit for his loss.

zagadka
05-25-2009, 06:22 PM
last year, after the match, mcenroe asked borg what federer could have done differently. borg said federer should have been more patience. in his opinion, federer went for the winners too soon and thus committed too many unforced errors.

Totally agreed. patience is the key for Fed.

BreakPoint
05-25-2009, 06:39 PM
Let's just say winning with a one-handed backhand is harder than a two-handed backhand. Nothing is impossible in professional tennis.
Marcos Daniel (a qualifier ranked #100) certainly did better than most 2-handers do against Nadal on clay.

Sentinel
05-25-2009, 08:46 PM
If Federer had a two-handed backhand, Nadal would have 0 FO's.
If Nadal was right handed, he would have 0 slam titles.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_201.gif

thalivest
05-25-2009, 08:49 PM
If Nadal was right handed, he would have 0 slam titles.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_201.gif

If Federer had Edberg's forehand he wouldnt even be a top 50 player. :)

Mick
05-25-2009, 08:53 PM
If Nadal was right handed, he would have 0 slam titles.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_201.gif

yeah but nadal is really right handed -- he only uses his left hand to play tennis :)

sh@de
05-25-2009, 08:58 PM
yeah but nadal is really right handed -- he only uses his left hand to play tennis :)

YEAH lol. That's true.

Sentinel
05-25-2009, 09:04 PM
yeah but nadal is really right handed -- he only uses his left hand to play tennis :)

owned ! :(

Wait, i got you, he uses his left hand to do one more thing ... in between serves! Reverse ownage ;-)

Tennis_Bum
05-25-2009, 09:22 PM
Agree, I actually did stats on this in the 2007 FO open, and it was his FH that let him down>>> not his BH. To add, he hit way more BH's in that match, and got a larger percentage of his BH's in play than his FH.

I just hope Fed whoop Nadal this year to prove all the critics wrong, including those HOF's. Fed lost most of his matches because his forehand broke down for no apparent reason. I just hope he could his A game whenever he meets Nadal. I hope it's this year at the FO. Well, it's tough to beat Nadal but it's not impossible by any stretch of imagination. If Fed plays his A game with his well thought-out plan of attack, he has a real good shot at beating Nadal.

rafan
05-25-2009, 09:34 PM
I love the one handed back hand but the two handed back hand is how tennis has evolved - ugly as it looks - like baseball. Having said that it's unfair to say Rafa would not have won if he was right handed. Its nothing to do with which hand he plays tennis with. Rafa has that will and determination that makes a great player. John LLoyd said he saw him pracice his serve for a solid hour at Wimbleon last year when everyone else had gone home - that is what matters. The determination to get there and he did

Grizvok
05-25-2009, 09:39 PM
owned ! :(

Wait, i got you, he uses his left hand to do one more thing ... in between serves! Reverse ownage ;-)

Good try, but you failed.

Dilettante
05-25-2009, 09:40 PM
Thats bull*****. if you can take a set off of Nadal, then you can take two sets. If you can take two then you can take three.

By that logic, if you can eat a bagel from Nadal at RG, then you can eat two bagels. If you can eat two bagels, then you can eat three bagels.

The last set both played at the FO was a bagel. Now go and tell Federer the good news!




PS: Yes, I'm using his logic and being ironic.

Nadal_Freak
05-25-2009, 09:40 PM
Good try, but you failed.
Pure ownage. I wouldn't show my face after that. lol

HipHerring
05-25-2009, 09:50 PM
It's simple. Fed can't let Nadal dominate him with that one shot.

High % of 1st serves

Stay agressive and keep points short

Jump all over Nadal's serve when it drops short.

If Fed dicates play, he won't have to hit high one-handed backhands all day. It's very simple in principle but incredibly hard to execute... but I believe in Fed, it's just sooo perfectly set-up it could almost be a movie.

Fed dominates for ages, then along comes somebody that puts him in a world of hurt, makes him cry, beats him in 2 FO open finals, anhilates him in another, takes over his house (wimbledon) and then beats him again in Australia.... and seemingly the once great Federer has no answer and is doomed to being 2nd best to the freak from Mallorca (Agassi's nickname for Rafa, not mine...) and then with Nadal on the verge of history, at seemingly his strongest and most dominant time, at the place he has never lost a match, on the surface where has never lost a best of 5 set match, when everyone, absolutely everyone has already handed the title to Nadal without a ball being struck in anger, Federer goes and beats him.


It's just too perfect a story for it not to happen.

The last paragraph could be from a tennis movie preview. Flare for the dramatic, have we?

Dilettante
05-25-2009, 09:59 PM
The last paragraph could be from a tennis movie preview. Flare for the dramatic, have we?

Yeah, the guy really made a great introduction for a Federer-Nadal.

Mick
05-25-2009, 10:07 PM
Yeah, the guy really made a great introduction for a Federer-Nadal.

then two sundays from now, the final is between murray-djokovic :shock:

sh@de
05-25-2009, 10:12 PM
then two sundays from now, the final is between murray-djokovic :shock:

I wouldn't watch it then. :p.

swedechris
05-26-2009, 12:41 AM
[QUOTE=gj011;3462173]Navratilova is right.[/QUOTE

Wish for feds sake it wasnt but it seems like it is .

Sentinel
05-26-2009, 01:15 AM
Pure ownage. I wouldn't show my face after that. lol
Damn, I owned myself !

But that's what happens when you comment about a player you dont watch cos his game is just not interesting enuff.

sureshs
05-26-2009, 04:28 AM
But Nadal has also never been beaten by a 2-hander at RG either.

So instead of Navratilova saying that Nadal cannot be beaten by a right-handed 1 -hander, she should have also said that he can't be beaten by a left-handed 1 -hander nor a right-handed 2 -hander nor a left-handed 2 hander, either.

She didn't say that, because it is not what she wanted to say. She was projecting into the future, using historical information.

pc1
05-26-2009, 04:56 AM
Maybe Navratilova is just thinking how tough it would be for her, with her one handed backhand to handle that type of topspin but I think there are some one handers that can handle it fairly well. As a lot of you have written already, Nadal's topspin bothers two handers also.

I think Lendl, as a lot of you have mentioned would be able to handle it fairly well. He would overplay his shots and Lendl had great patience.

The one guy in recent years that I think would handle is superbly would be Kuerten. If Kuerten was on his game, with his great backhand I think that would be some great match.

I think guys like Laver and Vilas, with their powerful wrists would be able to handle that type of high topspin also.

Rabbit
05-26-2009, 10:01 AM
I have a one hander, but it find it very difficult to hit the high backhander, so I practice double for those high balls, but my one hander is solid on regular and the two hander is **** on regular hits.

I have a one hander and am of average height :) the key to hitting a high bouncing ball with a one-handed backhand is to swing through the ball. Don't try to bring it down.

Fed defeated a tired Nadal who had won 3 tournaments in a row and was hammered by Djokovic in the semifinals. Had Fed faced Djokovic or Murray (the two handers), he would not have made it to the final. Nadal also tanked the match to shift the focus to Fed at RG.

Your making excuses for one loss is really embarassing.

Why not try this "Nads got whupped on clay, at home, by a guy who was playing better that day."

She didn't say that, because it is not what she wanted to say. She was projecting into the future, using historical information.

Then if she were to use historical information accurately,she'd say that neither a two-handed or one-handed backhand will beat Nads since he has yet to lose at RG.

veroniquem
05-26-2009, 10:09 AM
That's funny! Navratilova doesn't believe in Fed's chances at all :lol:

sureshs
05-26-2009, 10:48 AM
Then if she were to use historical information accurately,she'd say that neither a two-handed or one-handed backhand will beat Nads since he has yet to lose at RG.

That is where the prediction part comes in. She is not a computer, just someone who has gut feelings about tennis. I met a D2 woman player the other day, and she can hit a mean 1 hander, but plays with a 2 handed BH. She teaches part time and teaches the 1 hander to those who want it. She said she switched because she found it difficult to handle topspins and to hit powerful backhands with a 1 hander.

bolo
05-26-2009, 11:50 AM
That's funny! Navratilova doesn't believe in Fed's chances at all :lol:

Heavy underdog. It took nadal 4 RGs to knock some sense into tennis watchers. :) But I don't expect it to last for very long, if federer is in the final I am sure more than 50% of TW will again vote for him to win. :) I expect a retun of the "it's destiny" rationale this year for picking federer.

sh@de
05-26-2009, 05:31 PM
That's funny! Navratilova doesn't believe in Fed's chances at all :lol:

Do you? :-? I'd say he doesn't have much of a chance really. Nadal on RG clay is nasty :p.

pmerk34
05-26-2009, 05:47 PM
Heavy underdog. It took nadal 4 RGs to knock some sense into tennis watchers. :) But I don't expect it to last for very long, if federer is in the final I am sure more than 50% of TW will again vote for him to win. :) I expect a retun of the "it's destiny" rationale this year for picking federer.

Nadal will wreck Rogers backhand again.

nn
05-26-2009, 09:11 PM
If Federer had a two-handed backhand, Nadal would have 0 FO's.

I agree with you and also Novak is in way of Roger (semi) if Roger and Nadal has to play final.

It will be very interesting match for Roger where he has to show how good he is to play Nadal in Final.

Wish Nadal , Roger and Novak come through the final and see the fun.. (not sure about Murry though)

Rhino
05-31-2009, 02:59 PM
By that logic, if you can eat a bagel from Nadal at RG, then you can eat two bagels. If you can eat two bagels, then you can eat three bagels.
SODERLING: I won the first set, and I felt if I can win one set, why not the second one and then the third one?