PDA

View Full Version : Federer Backhand


SStrikerR
01-18-2011, 02:54 PM
If Federer used a two-handed backhand instead of a one handed one, how do you think his career would have turned out? Would there be no difference, would he be even more dominant, or would he fail miserably at it and never win a slam?

What do you think?

Scientist
01-18-2011, 03:01 PM
Federer has a good backhand

JeMar
01-18-2011, 03:02 PM
I was going to simply post that he'd have more Roland Garros titles and less everywhere else, but it's almost impossible for me to picture him with a two-handed backhand.

His all-court fluidity and the aggressive, swashbuckler-type quality of his game are way too perfectly complemented by his one-handed backhand.

BreakPoint
01-18-2011, 03:17 PM
If Federer used a two-handed backhand instead of a one handed one, how do you think his career would have turned out? Would there be no difference, would he be even more dominant, or would he fail miserably at it and never win a slam?

What do you think?
He'd be no better than the average 4.0 pusher. :shock:

Manus Domini
01-18-2011, 03:18 PM
If Federer used a two-handed backhand instead of a one handed one, how do you think his career would have turned out? Would there be no difference, would he be even more dominant, or would he fail miserably at it and never win a slam?

What do you think?

He'd be far less successful.

[Z]engin
01-19-2011, 12:54 AM
If he had Nably or Agassi's backhand, he would be more succesful.

His greatest weapon is still his forehand.

amaze
01-19-2011, 01:13 AM
Fed's BH >>>> Nadal's BH

Enough said.

henryshli
01-19-2011, 01:16 AM
.....................

henryshli
01-19-2011, 01:17 AM
......................

henryshli
01-19-2011, 01:17 AM
...........

henryshli
01-19-2011, 01:17 AM
.......................

henryshli
01-19-2011, 01:17 AM
Fed can't hit a two handed backhand to save his life and he has admitted to that in public on many occassions. Therefore he wouldn't even be in the top 50.

Sorry computer got jammed.

joeri888
01-19-2011, 01:44 AM
if Fed had a two hander it would depend on how good a two hander. In general, I wouldn't bet on him winning 16 Slams.

CityTennis22
01-19-2011, 05:06 AM
One thing would be different. Roddick would have three wimbledon titles. Fed wouldn't be able to beat Roddick if he didn't have the one hander.

Polaris
01-19-2011, 05:14 AM
He would be a reasonably good player. But, his tennis would be far less distinctive; he would just blend in with the herd.

forzamilan90
01-19-2011, 05:20 AM
if he still has the same godly footwork, i don't see why not, that is his ultimate weapon, the way he moves around the court, his awareness for it

Cooper_Tecnifibre4
01-19-2011, 05:22 AM
1HBH is for Dominant players. Fed Dominates.

2HBH is for pushers. Fed 'aint a pusher.

joeri888
01-19-2011, 05:26 AM
He would be a reasonably good player. But, his tennis would be far less distinctive; he would just blend in with the herd.

He wouldn't just blend in if he still had his forehand and footwork of course, but I agree he would be less of a special player. The variety is amazing.

dandelion_smiley
01-19-2011, 05:56 AM
Federer with Safin's or Nalbandian's double hander would be deadly but it would look weird..

BullDogTennis
01-19-2011, 06:01 AM
If Federer used a two-handed backhand instead of a one handed one, how do you think his career would have turned out? Would there be no difference, would he be even more dominant, or would he fail miserably at it and never win a slam?

What do you think?

this is the most original idea i have ever heard on this forum.

i award you a cookie for your thought.

sennoc
01-19-2011, 06:45 AM
If Federer used a two-handed backhand instead of a one handed one, how do you think his career would have turned out? Would there be no difference, would he be even more dominant, or would he fail miserably at it and never win a slam?

What do you think?

I think he would have 9 GS.

cknobman
01-19-2011, 07:04 AM
I'd never want to see Roger with a 2hbh.....period.

The 1hbh is one of the remaining vintage qualities in tennis players that is slowly dying off.

Sentinel
01-19-2011, 07:28 AM
They should ban the 2 handed backhand, they should also ban rackets about 90 sqi.

They should consider a ban on left-handed players, too. ;)

sureshs
01-19-2011, 07:41 AM
Victor Hanescu has a better 1-handed backhand

rfm29
01-19-2011, 07:45 AM
Fed already has a great backhand. The only reason your questioning it is Nadals forehand on slow surfaces....And really, forehand to backhand isn't fair on any surface, no?

sureshs
01-19-2011, 07:49 AM
Fed already has a great backhand. The only reason your questioning it is Nadals forehand on slow surfaces....And really, forehand to backhand isn't fair on any surface, no?

Neither is it fair to Nadal, no?

rfm29
01-19-2011, 07:51 AM
Neither is it fair to Nadal, no?

If you mean Rogers forehand to Rafas backhand, then no, thats not a fair comparison either of course. But this thread is only questioning Rogers backhand.

If you meant something else.....well I didn't follow you.

sureshs
01-19-2011, 07:52 AM
If you mean Rogers forehand to Rafas backhand, then no, thats not a fair comparison either of course.

If you meant something else.....well I didn't follow you.

Yes, that.

I am also hearing that in the Simon match, Fed's BH once again retreated to its defensive mode. He ain't beating no Nadal this time.

rfm29
01-19-2011, 07:55 AM
Yes, that.

I am also hearing that in the Simon match, Fed's BH once again retreated to its defensive mode. He ain't beating no Nadal this time.

I'm not going to comment on that =P (besides this lol). Thats not what the thread is about.

ManFed
01-19-2011, 10:41 AM
Roger's backhand is Great, when it's in the hot zone. The only problem is its consistence. When it isn't in hot zone, it became a weakness.

For instance, take Roger's backhand in WTF against Nadal. Rafa hit everything to Roger's backhand, and Roger hit amazing winners with it. Nadal didn't know what to do.

When Roger's BH is OK, it is a great strenght of his game, and it is as great as his forehand.

SStrikerR
01-19-2011, 10:46 AM
I can agree with that. The only problem is when it's not on, it's not exactly an asset. And when someone can take it advantage of it (Well hi there Nadal) it doesn't end well.

I'd think with 2hbh it'd be more consistent, but not a weapon like it is at times now.

ManFed
01-19-2011, 10:58 AM
I can agree with that. The only problem is when it's not on, it's not exactly an asset. And when someone can take it advantage of it (Well hi there Nadal) it doesn't end well.

I'd think with 2hbh it'd be more consistent, but not a weapon like it is at times now.

The problem is that Roger grew up and he was taught to play tennis in much faster courts than nowadays. His 1HBH is great for faster courts, but in slower courts where the rallies go on and on, it's kind of difficult to be consistent. Roger's 1HBH is great for passing shots, slice shots and hitting flat winners in surface like 90's Wimbledon or Indoor. Also it's very good to be an approach shot to prepare a forehand winner. That's why his backhand is not really penetrating in slower courts like FO, and now HC slow courts like AO.

The_Question
01-19-2011, 10:59 AM
His one hand backhand looked pretty good against Simon; he was throwing bombs at him...well, I only caught the game @ 5-3, on 5th set...

SStrikerR
01-19-2011, 04:35 PM
The problem is that Roger grew up and he was taught to play tennis in much faster courts than nowadays.

New question then: What makes courts faster/slower? Is it how they're made, or what?

forehandshanker
01-19-2011, 05:05 PM
I think it is impossible to predict the results Federer would have gotten if he had a two-handed backhand starting from when he was a child. But for sure, he would not be the same player at all, simply because of the typical differences one would expect from the two strokes:

a) Doubt his slice backhand would be as good. It is at least top 2 of all time (the other being Rosewall's).

b) His footwork moving to his backhand would be totally different.

Two handers have an easier time moving to an open stance, but a one hander prefers to set up in a closed stance. On the other hand once the ball has left the opponent's racquet and you move to the ball and you've switched grips, the one hander has both hands free to run the ball down. A two hander needs time just before they contact the ball to get the right grip for their non-dominant hand.

c) Looking at Fed's current game under Annacone's influence: he is looking to approach the net, hit inside forehands, or mix the pace up with slices. If you had a powerful two hander (even one like Djokovic or Nalbandian's) that can also create angles, there's less incentive to try these things out. The zone where the ball is headed in which you would try a different shot than a drive topspin backhand changes. It's more likely to the middle, especially if your two hander DTL is good.


d) Finally, if he had a two hander, he would be a better version of Fabrice Santoro :)

www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=X9B7-Rbwu9o

phnx90
01-19-2011, 05:14 PM
Yes, that.

I am also hearing that in the Simon match, Fed's BH once again retreated to its defensive mode. He ain't beating no Nadal this time.

To be fair it's difficult to beat a guy with two forehands :p

...and I also have this feeling Rafa runs fast because he's in such a hurry to get his undies out of his ***

I know I would

Manus Domini
01-19-2011, 05:50 PM
Fed already has a great backhand. The only reason your questioning it is Nadals forehand on slow surfaces....And really, forehand to backhand isn't fair on any surface, no?

depends whose forehand and whose backhand. JMac's to Edberg's wasn't fair on either end (backhands would own).

Those whose strength is their backhand would eat a weak lefty FH up, and would stay even with a same strength lefty fh (presuming bh guy is righty)

rfm29
01-19-2011, 05:53 PM
depends whose forehand and whose backhand. JMac's to Edberg's wasn't fair on either end (backhands would own).

Those whose strength is their backhand would eat a weak lefty FH up, and would stay even with a same strength lefty fh (presuming bh guy is righty)

Touche, touche. In general, I stand by what I said, but there are of course exceptions to every rule.

Bobby Jr
01-19-2011, 05:53 PM
I think it is impossible to predict the results Federer would have gotten if he had a two-handed backhand....

a) Doubt his slice backhand would be as good. It is at least top 2 of all time (the other being Rosewall's).
This ^

Fed has, by far, the best slice backhand in the game - possibly ever as you say. No-one with a two-handed backhand has ever come close to the class of 1bhb players with their slice (whether one handed or not).

mcenroefan
01-19-2011, 06:04 PM
If it was a great 2BH, like Murray's, he would have more than 16 GS's b/c it would entirely change the dynamic of the match-up with Nadal. There really is no reason that he shouldn't be able to hit both.

In any case, I do agree that it would affect the aesthetics of his game so I much prefer to watch his one hander. I've never seen a pretty two hander and they seem to be getting uglier by the minute.

I also agree that his one hander was more suited to the faster surfaces of the past. The AO and Wimby slowing down and becoming higher bouncing have hurt Fed against Rafa and the latest up and comers.

AM95
01-19-2011, 06:15 PM
hes repeatedly stated that he had a two hander but he couldnt hit a backhand well so he switched when he was really young, like 6. so really he didnt have a two hander, but you know what i mean.

sandiegoman
01-19-2011, 10:28 PM
has anyone seen federer try a two handed backhand just for fun?

MichaelNadal
01-19-2011, 10:33 PM
Fed's BH >>>> Nadal's BH

Enough said.

Overall, I definitely agree. When both are at their absolute best though, give me Rafa's. 2009 AO, enough said.

Cooper_Tecnifibre4
01-19-2011, 11:22 PM
has anyone seen federer try a two handed backhand just for fun?

Yeh there is a clip on the Tube of him doing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqNR0KWzLMw

SStrikerR
01-20-2011, 05:32 PM
^ Yeah let's be glad he doesn't use that. Nowhere near as graceful, and he can't do it that well...