PDA

View Full Version : Gasquet's Backhand or Federer's Backhand?


JTJet
09-24-2012, 05:11 PM
What do you think?

man_untd11
09-24-2012, 05:14 PM
Federer takes his earlier (closer to the baseline) so he doesn't give up court positioning. It might not be as big or have as much spin but just being closer to the baseline opens up the court more and gives him more options. Plus, he has a sick slice. I'd rather take Federer's backhand.

Paul Murphy
09-24-2012, 05:23 PM
Federer takes his earlier (closer to the baseline) so he doesn't give up court positioning. It might not be as big or have as much spin but just being closer to the baseline opens up the court more and gives him more options. Plus, he has a sick slice. I'd rather take Federer's backhand.

Agreed. Gasquet stands too far back.
Fed's shot is more versatile.
But they are both beautiful strokes.

SStrikerR
09-24-2012, 05:24 PM
Gasquet can come up with some incredible shots, and can win backhand to backhand rallies against a lot of guys, but I think Federer's variety gives his a slight edge.

OddJack
09-24-2012, 05:27 PM
Consider variety, then find your answer easily.

RF20Lennon
09-24-2012, 05:47 PM
Gasquet has a beautiful topspin backhand!! but he stands too far back and his slice and underspin is pretty bad. Fed has a way more versatility hence fed

AnotherTennisProdigy
09-24-2012, 06:05 PM
Pure topspin backhand hitting ability Gasquet wins. However, Fed overtakes him with more variety, better positioning, and better ball striking ability.

Lefty78
09-24-2012, 06:07 PM
Option C: Almagro

Vlad_C
09-24-2012, 06:16 PM
Wawrinka's backhand.

gregor.b
09-24-2012, 06:18 PM
Henin.......

paulorenzo
09-24-2012, 06:20 PM
i've noticed gasquet trying to take the ball alot earlier than usual this year, even he wants a federer backhand :D

jaggy
09-24-2012, 06:30 PM
Gasckets has more ooo la la

Shaolin
09-24-2012, 06:32 PM
Andrei Pavel

Paullaconte1
09-24-2012, 06:38 PM
Definitely Roger for the variety and the slices

paulorenzo
09-24-2012, 06:38 PM
honestly though, gasquet taking nearly every backhand early wasn't very pretty, yet.

that says alot about fed's backhand, so the nod goes to fed.

Vcore89
09-24-2012, 06:40 PM
Henin.......

Henin's backhand is modeled from Federer's backhand with a twist uniquely Henin's.

Backhands? Federer, Kuerten and Gasquet.

ductrung3993
09-24-2012, 07:34 PM
Overall = Fed

RF20Lennon
09-24-2012, 07:37 PM
Wawrinka has the best topspin backhand, Fed has the backhand with the most variety

BevelDevil
09-24-2012, 07:45 PM
Henin's backhand is modeled from Federer's backhand with a twist uniquely Henin's.


I don't think so. She's only one year younger than Fed and I think she turned pro at age 16, so how could she have modeled her backhand after him?

In any case, her bh is very different from Fed's. Her forehand is actually more Fed-like.

MasturB
09-24-2012, 07:51 PM
Henin's backhand she has to hit uniquely because she's 5 foot tall. She has to take a lot of her backhands on the rise, otherwise she's going to be hitting most balls over her head.

ubermeyer
09-24-2012, 08:07 PM
I voted Gasquet but I'd actually say it's a wash. When you factor in Fed's BH slice which is probably the best in the world that more than makes up for any differences in their BH drive.

Timbo's hopeless slice
09-24-2012, 09:07 PM
Tommy Haas

Leelord337
09-24-2012, 09:38 PM
Federer has a better topspin crosscourt 1hbh, Gasquet has a slightly better down the line backhand A Tossup pretty much though

Sabratha
09-24-2012, 10:00 PM
I like both, but I'm going to have to pick Federer's.

PhrygianDominant
09-24-2012, 11:12 PM
Gasckets has more ooo la la

what would the Swiss equivalent of that be?

PhrygianDominant
09-24-2012, 11:12 PM
Tommy Haas

Tommy Haas has had the best onehander on the pro tour for years.

Leelord337
09-24-2012, 11:31 PM
One of Feds Best Backhand vids (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWoKA21Bm4k)

Gasquets Backhand Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPnD89sZIiE)

Federer20042006
09-24-2012, 11:32 PM
Gasquet's backhand, while an impressive shot to watch, seems to compromise his movement. Not only does he stand way back, but it takes a ton of preparation.

Federer can successfully half volley from the baseline if he wants. The only place I'm taking Gasquet's is clay.

Leelord337
09-24-2012, 11:37 PM
Gasquet's backhand, while an impressive shot to watch, seems to compromise his movement. Not only does he stand way back, but it takes a ton of preparation.

Federer can successfully half volley from the baseline if he wants. The only place I'm taking Gasquet's is clay.


Hamburg 2005 comes to mind when Gasquet beat Federer in that 5 set epic saving match pts (when federer only lost 4 matches all year and the only guy he didn't have match points against was Guga Kuerten in the French Open that year)

heftylefty
09-25-2012, 02:50 PM
Tommy Haas

Agreed! Haas' backhand is tennis porn.

dangalak
09-25-2012, 03:01 PM
I don't think so. She's only one year younger than Fed and I think she turned pro at age 16, so how could she have modeled her backhand after him?

In any case, her bh is very different from Fed's. Her forehand is actually more Fed-like.

How so?

Federer has a better topspin crosscourt 1hbh, Gasquet has a slightly better down the line backhand A Tossup pretty much though

:lol:

In what parallel universe does Federer have a better CC BH? His lands short very often and isn't very heavy.

And gasquet's BH DTL is alot better.

Hamburg 2005 comes to mind when Gasquet beat Federer in that 5 set epic saving match pts (when federer only lost 4 matches all year and the only guy he didn't have match points against was Guga Kuerten in the French Open that year)

So much wrong lol.

Federer lost to Guga in 2004, not 05. He didn't lose to Gasquet in Hamburg it was in Monte Carlo. And he didn't have matchpoints against nadal in the French Open.

Tommy Haas

Also, this. :)

sunof tennis
09-25-2012, 03:16 PM
Agreed! Haas' backhand is tennis porn.

I completely agree. Classic, simple, less likely to break down.

PrinceMoron
09-25-2012, 10:14 PM
Who's asking whose is better? Everybody knows it is Federer's.

Vcore89
09-26-2012, 12:20 AM
I don't think so. She's only one year younger than Fed and I think she turned pro at age 16, so how could she have modeled her backhand after him?

In any case, her bh is very different from Fed's. Her forehand is actually more Fed-like.

You have to scour the net and surely you will find how Henin modeled her backhand from Federer's. Gosh, it doesn't have to be age-gap related.

And, btw, I said: ''...uniquely Henin's''

TennisLovaLova
09-26-2012, 12:38 AM
Fed's BH from 2003 to 2007 was one of the greatest shots in tennis
just watch some of his wtf matches of that period

NadalDramaQueen
09-26-2012, 12:51 AM
Fed's BH from 2003 to 2007 was one of the greatest shots in tennis
just watch some of his wtf matches of that period

You're wrong! Even JMac knows that Federer's backhand and serve are so much better now than they ever have been.

Back to reality, Fed's backhand was much better back then. He could cause damage from that side much more easily. Currently, I am happy if it doesn't break down completely in a match.

I still would take Federer's backhand over Gasquet's. Better variety and all the other crap that has already been mentioned. :)

dangalak
09-26-2012, 01:36 AM
Federer's BH is more consistent now than in his prime.

Except maybe for 2006.

Fyrepower
09-26-2012, 11:00 AM
federer point blank. me and my riend used to always practice our one handed BH saying that especially good ones were "federer backhands".

veroniquem
09-26-2012, 11:04 AM
Gasquet's backhand is aesthetically beautiful, a pleasure to watch. Fed's chipped backhand is one of the ugliest shots I've ever seen. Makes me cringe every time.

TheCanadian
09-26-2012, 11:08 AM
Federer's BH is a relative weakness. Gasquet's is an objective strength. I'm pretty sure Federer would prefer to have Gasquet's mechanics. If Gasquet was in the top ten, it's thanks to his BH, in part. His FH is a relative weakness and his serve is rather weak.

dangalak
09-26-2012, 11:31 AM
Federer's BH is a relative weakness. Gasquet's is an objective strength. I'm pretty sure Federer would prefer to have Gasquet's mechanics. If Gasquet was in the top ten, it's thanks to his BH, in part. His FH is a relative weakness and his serve is rather weak.

Yeah Federer's BH is a relative weakness. That's because his game is vastly superior superior to Gasquet. That doesn't mean his backhand must be inferior.

TheCanadian
09-26-2012, 11:42 AM
Of course, it is. I've heard Federer complain about his BH in the past. I think he would probably take Gasquet's BH over his.

dangalak
09-26-2012, 11:45 AM
Of course, it is. I've heard Federer complain about his BH in the past. I think he would probably take Gasquet's BH over his.

Trust me he wouldn't. Gasquet has a horrible slice and he can't take it on the rise consistently. :lol: Federer would hate that.

boramiNYC
09-26-2012, 12:04 PM
Easy to compare when you see them playing a match. Fed's backhand is superior to Gasquet's every time they play. Tho Gasquet has great timing on his backhand it's too topspin oriented and less versatile.

0d1n
09-26-2012, 12:34 PM
Federer takes his earlier (closer to the baseline) so he doesn't give up court positioning. It might not be as big or have as much spin but just being closer to the baseline opens up the court more and gives him more options. Plus, he has a sick slice. I'd rather take Federer's backhand.

This...and many other arguments from people who favor Fed's backhand over Gasquet's ... have nothing to do with the stroke itself. The same arguments are used when comparing Fed's backhand with Wawrinka's, and they are frankly excuses.
Fed takes it earlier...because he has better footwork and his game is based on totally different court positioning.
The reason Gasquet stands so far behind the baseline has nothing to do with his backhand stroke. He can take it plenty early when he wants to and when his footwork allows him.
Just watch some of his grass matches...maybe a certain Wimbledon match against Roddick ???
I'd take Gasquet's from these 2 options, but yes...I liked other backhands as well...maybe more than Gasquet's.
From the retired guys...I'd take Korda's, Pavel's, Guga's (maybe Pioline's...which is actually very similar to Guga's/Gasquet's) for example...and from the current guys some good examples were already given...people like Haas, Wawrinka and even Kohlschreiber have close to perfect backhands. Not necessarily better than Gasquet's ... but certainly in the same league.

0d1n
09-26-2012, 12:35 PM
Trust me he wouldn't. Gasquet has a horrible slice and he can't take it on the rise consistently. :lol: Federer would hate that.

Give Gasquet some Federer footwork and he would be very much able to take it on the rise consistently.

dangalak
09-26-2012, 12:39 PM
This...and many other arguments from people who favor Fed's backhand over Gasquet's ... have nothing to do with the stroke itself. The same arguments are used when comparing Fed's backhand with Wawrinka's, and they are frankly excuses.
Fed takes it earlier...because he has better footwork and his game is based on totally different court positioning.
The reason Gasquet stands so far behind the baseline has nothing to do with his backhand stroke. He can take it plenty early when he wants to and when his footwork allows him.
Just watch some of his grass matches...maybe a certain Wimbledon match against Roddick ???
I'd take Gasquet's from these 2 options, but yes...I liked other backhands as well...maybe more than Gasquet's.
From the retired guys...I'd take Korda's, Pavel's, Guga's (maybe Pioline's...which is actually very similar to Guga's/Gasquet's) for example...and from the current guys some good examples were already given...people like Haas, Wawrinka and even Kohlschreiber have close to perfect backhands. Not necessarily better than Gasquet's ... but certainly in the same league.

What about Almagro?

Also, Gasquet's footwork is great as well.

0d1n
09-26-2012, 12:55 PM
What about Almagro?

Also, Gasquet's footwork is great as well.

Almagro has a very good backhand as well, but having seen both him and Gasquet live on clay...frankly...Gasquet's has more work on it.
Gasquet's backhand jumps like crazy even on indoor carpet (yes...I've seen him play live on that surface as well).

P.S. Yes...Gasquet has good footwork, but Federer's is in the "all time great" category from that point of view.

P.P.S When coming up with arguments on "stroke compared to stroke" threads people should understand that court positioning has most of the time little to do with stroke technique.
Murray stands pretty far back as well and it's NOT because he can't take his backhand (or his forehand for that matter) early. It's a choice based on personality/game style, it has pretty much nothing to do with how he hits his backhand.

Edit.
An opposite example to this "far back court positioning" was Andre A. Do people actually think he stood so close to the baseline ALL THE TIME (even when the situation demanded something else) because of his stroke technique and timing only ??
He stood there because he could time the ball well...but ALSO he stood there because he lacked speeed/court coverage. He KNEW that he didn't stand a chance running balls down (something that people like Murray and Gasquet can do very well) from 3-4 meters behind the baseline...so he stood closer and took a chance.
Even when put in defense...and hence the situation would have asked for him to move 2 meters back from his usual positioning he took the gamble of sitting close and swinging at the ball. If somebody could have given him the Murray/Djokovic type of speed and court coverage, he would have chosen very differently in certain situations...you can be certain of that !

dangalak
09-26-2012, 01:03 PM
Almagro has a very good backhand as well, but having seen both him and Gasquet live on clay...frankly...Gasquet's has more work on it.
Gasquet's backhand jumps like crazy even on indoor carpet (yes...I've seen him play live on that surface as well).

P.S. Yes...Gasquet has good footwork, but Federer's is in the "all time great" category from that point of view.

P.P.S When coming up with arguments on "stroke compared to stroke" threads people should understand that court positioning has most of the time little to do with stroke technique.
Murray stands pretty far back as well and it's NOT because he can't take his backhand (or his forehand for that matter) early. It's a choice based on personality/game style, it has pretty much nothing to do with how he hits his backhand.

I disagree. Why would players stay behind and therefore give up an advantage for no reason? Most people stay behind because they like to have time on their shots. Why don't we see guys like Agassi or Davydenko stay 10 feet behind the baseline? Becuase they don't need to. Their shots are simple and compact so it's not really necessary. However, if you have bigger swings, you will find it harder to time your shots.

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

Man, I hate it when people underestimate Gasquet's talent. Just because he dodn't fulfill his promise, it doesn't mean he doesn't have it. The fact that some people consider MONFILS more talented than him is hilarious.

0d1n
09-26-2012, 01:11 PM
I disagree. Why would players stay behind and therefore give up an advantage for no reason? Most people stay behind because they like to have time on their shots. Why don't we see guys like Agassi or Davydenko stay 10 feet behind the baseline? Becuase they don't need to. Their shots are simple and compact so it's not really necessary. However, if you have bigger swings, you will find it harder to time your shots.

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

Man, I hate it when people underestimate Gasquet's talent. Just because he dodn't fulfill his promise, it doesn't mean he doesn't have it. The fact that some people consider MONFILS more talented than him is hilarious.

Haha...funny coincidence, I was actually thinking about the Agassi example before reading your post and gave you an answer in the edited post above. He stood so close to cut angles because he couldn't cover the court.
Davydenko stands so close for some similar reasons and also for some different reasons to Andre A. Similar reasons are to take time away and take the initiative in rallies and then move their opponents side to side.
Different reasons are because Davydenko would lack the power to outhit people from further back. He doesn't have a problem with speed (like Andre did) and as a result, he will actually move back when put on the defensive (at least will do it much more often than Andre did).

movdqa
09-26-2012, 01:33 PM
I think that Federer is better with his backhand at hitting approach shots and drop shots. How deep has Gasquet been at Wimbledon?

0d1n
09-26-2012, 01:42 PM
I think that Federer is better with his backhand at hitting approach shots and drop shots. How deep has Gasquet been at Wimbledon?

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/players/overview/atpg628.html

Semi.

dangalak
09-26-2012, 01:44 PM
What do you think about Roddick then? he certainly didn't move like greased lightning either.

Hawkeye7
09-26-2012, 03:02 PM
I think that Federer is better with his backhand at hitting approach shots and drop shots. How deep has Gasquet been at Wimbledon?

One shot doesn't make him the better player. People are making this very easy for themselves. Federer is the GOAT and therefore he must have a better BH than a player who has never even been to a slam final...

Gasquet's BH is better. Federer's BH is the weakest part of his game. Well at least in his prime. These days the lack of speed might become the bigger issue. How early they hit the ball has nothing to do with the stroke itself.

dangalak
09-26-2012, 03:07 PM
One shot doesn't make him the better player. People are making this very easy for themselves. Federer is the GOAT and therefore he must have a better BH than a player who has never even been to a slam final...

Gasquet's BH is better. Federer's BH is the weakest part of his game. Well at least in his prime. These days the lack of speed might become the bigger issue. How early they hit the ball has nothing to do with the stroke itself.

Who gives a damn if it is the wekest part of his game?

"Federer's BH is the weakest part of his game. That means it is worse than any guy he is compared with."

It still can be better than Gasquet's.

movdqa
09-26-2012, 03:14 PM
I have seen the variety of Federer's backhand and how he uses it to exploit weaknesses and opportunities. I have seen Gasquet's backhand, his DTL winners, the high loop, cross-court passing shots, etc. Does Gasquet chip and charge? Hit drop shots off the backhand side like Federer?

How has Gasquet done against Nadal? That's a good measure because Nadal likes to pound the opponent's backhand side and we know that Federer has had problems against this for a time in his career.

0d1n
09-27-2012, 02:42 AM
What do you think about Roddick then? he certainly didn't move like greased lightning either.

He didn't move like greased lightning, but he did have better speed than Andre A. Also...he had (has) different qualities. He knew he didn't have the technique to control the game from the baseline as well as Andre did, especially on the backhand side.

To make it general, in my opinion the strokes are just one of the many reasons why people choose their court positioning the way they do, and it's far from being the most important one.
The most important one is personality/style of play, how aggressive one's game is, and how he was taught the game from childhood. Whether or not they feel they can be the aggressor and control the points against a certain (specific) opponent is another factor. The surface one grew up on makes a big difference as well (people growing up on clay are more likely to stand a bit further back because of the high/unpredictable bounces).
Another very important reason is speed/ability to cover the court, to cover longer distances.
The court positioning is a calculated risk and all these factors go into this decision.
Like previously said, this decision can be taken for different reasons by different players, and it can be slightly different when in offensive and defensive as well. The previous example of Davydenko who stands very close to the baseline when on the offensive but is willing to stand further back and scramble when put on the defensive, when compared to Andre A. who was generally unwilling to give up on his advanced position when in defense because he knew he lacked the speed for scrambling and getting that one more ball back into play...is an obvious one.
Somebody like Djokovic can also take the ball just as early as Agassi when on the offensive but he can stand as far back as Murray or Nadal when put on the defensive. The reason for this is his movement. He knows his legs allow him to play defensively like that, and Andre knew his legs DID NOT allow him that kind of court position. In his case the risk/reward equation was better when standing closer and using his timing to half volley balls from the baseline, in the case of Djokovic that equation is better if he stands further back and lets his speed take care of things. The difference that changes that risk/reward equation is IMO not the difference in length of stroke or hand-eye coordination and timing, but it's the difference in movement.
In the case of Gasquet versus Federer, the difference in court positioning is more of a combination than in the more extreme example of Agassi versus Djoko (where movement is the overwhelming factor)...but it's certainly not only defined by strokes.
If anything the difference in strokes that provokes this choice is the fact that he can't dominate and push opponents around with his forehand the way Fed can...the backhand is a non issue. It's also the style of play/personality thing...and the movement and footwork thing. I'm not saying Gasquet doesn't have good footwork, but he's no Federer when it comes to it. Federer's ability to turn defense into offense with his strokes ... but also with his feet is (or at least was) probably the best in the world.

dangalak
09-27-2012, 03:11 AM
He didn't move like greased lightning, but he did have better speed than Andre A. Also...he had (has) different qualities. He knew he didn't have the technique to control the game from the baseline as well as Andre did, especially on the backhand side.

To make it general, in my opinion the strokes are just one of the many reasons why people choose their court positioning the way they do, and it's far from being the most important one.
The most important one is personality/style of play, how aggressive one's game is, and how he was taught the game from childhood. Whether or not they feel they can be the aggressor and control the points against a certain (specific) opponent is another factor. The surface one grew up on makes a big difference as well (people growing up on clay are more likely to stand a bit further back because of the high/unpredictable bounces).
Another very important reason is speed/ability to cover the court, to cover longer distances.
The court positioning is a calculated risk and all these factors go into this decision.
Like previously said, this decision can be taken for different reasons by different players, and it can be slightly different when in offensive and defensive as well. The previous example of Davydenko who stands very close to the baseline when on the offensive but is willing to stand further back and scramble when put on the defensive, when compared to Andre A. who was generally unwilling to give up on his advanced position when in defense because he knew he lacked the speed for scrambling and getting that one more ball back into play...is an obvious one.
Somebody like Djokovic can also take the ball just as early as Agassi when on the offensive but he can stand as far back as Murray or Nadal when put on the defensive. The reason for this is his movement. He knows his legs allow him to play defensively like that, and Andre knew his legs DID NOT allow him that kind of court position. In his case the risk/reward equation was better when standing closer and using his timing to half volley balls from the baseline, in the case of Djokovic that equation is better if he stands further back and lets his speed take care of things. The difference that changes that risk/reward equation is IMO not the difference in length of stroke or hand-eye coordination and timing, but it's the difference in movement.
In the case of Gasquet versus Federer, the difference in court positioning is more of a combination than in the more extreme example of Agassi versus Djoko (where movement is the overwhelming factor)...but it's certainly not only defined by strokes.
If anything the difference in strokes that provokes this choice is the fact that he can't dominate and push opponents around with his forehand the way Fed can...the backhand is a non issue. It's also the style of play/personality thing...and the movement and footwork thing. I'm not saying Gasquet doesn't have good footwork, but he's no Federer when it comes to it. Federer's ability to turn defense into offense with his strokes ... but also with his feet is (or at least was) probably the best in the world.

Well, not THAT early, I reckon. :)

But I understand.

tennisdj
10-03-2012, 08:43 PM
To me RF is 10x better than RG (we all know that)...but talking about OHB have to say that Richard's is a rifle... check this out Rome 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=RTyJHz9W_3w
Not to happy about the outcome..lol but it was a very good match..

NadalAgassi
10-03-2012, 09:53 PM
If Gasquet had an inferior backhand he probably would have never beaten Roger, let alone done it twice and won sets on other occasions, as he is signifcantly inferior in every other aspect of the game (maybe only slightly inferior in volleys).

dangalak
10-03-2012, 11:36 PM
If Gasquet had an inferior backhand he probably would have never beaten Roger, let alone done it twice and won sets on other occasions, as he is signifcantly inferior in every other aspect of the game (maybe only slightly inferior in volleys).

He probably has a better PEAK BH than Federer. :) On an average day though, his BH requires too much timing to take on the rise. Federer doesn't even need to play that well to do it consistently.

Also, you underestimate the difference form can make. If Federer plays subpar and Gasquet plays well, you have Federer being unable to break Gasquet's serve and Gasquet hitting not only BH but also FH winners for fun.

Prisoner of Birth
10-03-2012, 11:52 PM
He probably has a better PEAK BH than Federer. :) On an average day though, his BH requires too much timing to take on the rise. Federer doesn't even need to play that well to do it consistently.

Also, you underestimate the difference form can make. If Federer plays subpar and Gasquet plays well, you have Federer being unable to break Gasquet's serve and Gasquet hitting not only BH but also FH winners for fun.

Federer is the only player I've seen who can beat some of the best players in the world even when he's playing terrible Tennis (by professional standards, not just his). He seems to have the power to make his opponents play even worse than he does. I can't explain it.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 01:26 AM
Federer is the only player I've seen who can beat some of the best players in the world even when he's playing terrible Tennis (by professional standards, not just his). He seems to have the power to make his opponents play even worse than he does. I can't explain it.

He is a pretty good match player.

Nadal is even more brilliant in that area.

Polvorin
10-04-2012, 03:06 AM
Can I take Federer's slice and Gasquet's topspin? Or is that cheating?

Polvorin
10-04-2012, 03:08 AM
If Gasquet had an inferior backhand he probably would have never beaten Roger, let alone done it twice and won sets on other occasions, as he is signifcantly inferior in every other aspect of the game (maybe only slightly inferior in volleys).

Hard to argue with that statement 'cuz it's true.

Federer20042006
10-04-2012, 06:01 AM
Both of Gasquet's victories over Federer were on clay, though. That's Gasquet's strongest surface...where he has time behind the baseline to slug it out.

As I said before, I'd rather have Gasquet's backhand on clay, but give me Federer's everywhere else.

paulorenzo
10-04-2012, 06:46 AM
He is a pretty good match player.

Nadal is even more brilliant in that area.

one can't tell as of late, but that's a good observation. i read somewhere that fed would get pushed around in his junior years by yves allegro, or another swiss, during practice but fed would end up winning in match play.

sunof tennis
10-04-2012, 06:51 AM
Can I take Federer's slice and Gasquet's topspin? Or is that cheating?

I like to cheat too :) and agree with this idea

dangalak
10-04-2012, 06:58 AM
one can't tell as of late, but that's a good observation. i read somewhere that fed would get pushed around in his junior years by yves allegro, or another swiss, during practice but fed would end up winning in match play.

I think it was Chiudinelli.

Also, this year he has been a great match player IMO.

World Beater
10-04-2012, 02:00 PM
gasquet uses a more extremem grip than federer, and thus needs more of a loop to generate the additional topspin that his grip will allow him to generate.

Because of this his stroke is longer and he needs more time. Its not just the footwork.

Gasquet cant take bhs as consistently early as federer. Federer has a very moderate eastern grip, and he generates his spin through his wrist snap.

Different mechanism.

roberttennis54
10-04-2012, 02:45 PM
I take it we are comparing their backhands at their peak right? If that is the case then Gasquet's was better on clay and on slower hardcourts. However, Federer's is better overall. Federer took his backhand earlier, giving him better court position and the opponent less time to relax. Federer passed significantly better of this side, Federer had a better slice and on anything low bouncing Federer would beat Gasquet in backhand rallies.

paulorenzo
10-08-2012, 03:29 AM
I think it was Chiudinelli.

Also, this year he has been a great match player IMO.

certainly better than the 2-3 years prior, i guess.

ace10is
11-17-2012, 01:22 PM
An opposite example to this "far back court positioning" was Andre A. Do people actually think he stood so close to the baseline ALL THE TIME (even when the situation demanded something else) because of his stroke technique and timing only ??
He stood there because he could time the ball well...but ALSO he stood there because he lacked speeed/court coverage. He KNEW that he didn't stand a chance running balls down (something that people like Murray and Gasquet can do very well) from 3-4 meters behind the baseline...so he stood closer and took a chance.
Even when put in defense...and hence the situation would have asked for him to move 2 meters back from his usual positioning he took the gamble of sitting close and swinging at the ball. If somebody could have given him the Murray/Djokovic type of speed and court coverage, he would have chosen very differently in certain situations...you can be certain of that !

0d1n, you have great insight. I've talking about this for years. I can tell you're very wise. I'll get to Agassi after my opinion on topic.

I love Federer!!! I don't love his topspin BH. Federer's topspin backhand in a BH to BH exchange with say Gasquet or Djokovic or Haas or even Nadal DTL, Federer will lose. IMO, it has something to do with technique and his strategy/stubbornness. Technique wise I feel Federer brings his right elbow too low on the take back, with a continental/eastern grip. He begins with the forward swing with the racquet too low and brushes up on it too much causing numerous miss hits (one of the smallest racquet head's on the market doesn't help). It also creates incredible angles:).

Federer is versatile because that's his strategy. It's a double edge sword. He escalates the BH to BH exchange for no apparent reason. The worst and greatest is the DTL topspin that fades towards the sideline with a little sidespin. It is AMAZING and TERRIBLE! I use numerous video clips of him with my students on why not to fade your shots. As a huge fan, it is incredibly frustrating to watch him do this over and over into defeat. :confused:

I also see Federer hitting at the peak, not really on the rise all that much (when he does the miss hits go up), which is weaker for a topsin backhand. Since he has so much versatility he should flatten it out from this area.

Off topic, Agassi did have incredible timing, but he was given way too much credit for hitting on the rise. After numerous discussions with "high performance" coaches, who encourage hitting on the rise, I proved that Agassi didn't hit on the rise 1/2 the time. He would stand near or on the BL, but over 1/2 the balls were dropping to him. I've only watched 3 or 4 Agassi matches to prove my theory. I think it's a good strategy for mobility issues or playing against moon ballers, but for developing juniors or "high performance" players this should be used as an exception not as a rule.

After all this, I say Gasquet has a better topsin backhand, but Federer has more strategy.

Federer20042006
11-17-2012, 10:08 PM
0d1n, you have great insight. I've talking about this for years. I can tell you're very wise. I'll get to Agassi after my opinion on topic.

I love Federer!!! I don't love his topspin BH. Federer's topspin backhand in a BH to BH exchange with say Gasquet or Djokovic or Haas or even Nadal DTL, Federer will lose.


Nope. Federer wins the majority of backhand battles with those guys. His backhand was stronger than Djokovic's in the WTF final, for example.

Haas doesn't even deserve mention in any discussion of backhands. It's a solid stroke at best.

ace10is
11-17-2012, 10:16 PM
Nope. Federer wins the majority of backhand battles with those guys. His backhand was stronger than Djokovic's in the WTF final, for example.

Haas doesn't even deserve mention in any discussion of backhands. It's a solid stroke at best.

:confused: Did you watch the final? That last match is a prime example of why he loses the majority of the BH to BH exchanges. It's also the latest video examples I give my students on the DTL, side spin, fade BH that was so key to him giving the match away. Yeah it worked for a couple of points, but let's be honest, it was extremely frustrating to watch him miss those over and over.

Federer20042006
11-17-2012, 10:21 PM
:confused: Did you watch the final? That last match is a prime example of why he loses the majority of the BH to BH exchanges. It's also the latest video examples I give my students on the DTL, side spin, fade BH that was so key to him giving the match away. Yeah it worked for a couple of points, but let's be honest, it was extremely frustrating to watch him miss those over and over.

Did you?

Federer was overpowering Djokovic in the backhand exchanges. He lost the first set by 2 points and then blew a break lead serving for the 2nd set. Federer's weakness in that match was moving to his forehand, not his backhand.

Federer's backhand was terrible in that matches LEADING UP TO the Djokovic match, but it came alive against Djokovic.

Sometimes, I think people just talk in general terms based on what announcers say rather than actually watching how matches play out. "Oh, the announcer just talked about how Federer can't afford to get into too many cross court backhand rallies with Djokovic. Never mind that Federer is winning most of them and looks stronger off that wing than Djokovic today."

Candide
11-18-2012, 02:44 AM
It's not who wins or loses - it's who's the prettiest. Fed's is the prettiest.

ace10is
11-18-2012, 07:20 AM
Did you?

Federer was overpowering Djokovic in the backhand exchanges. He lost the first set by 2 points and then blew a break lead serving for the 2nd set. Federer's weakness in that match was moving to his forehand, not his backhand.

Federer's backhand was terrible in that matches LEADING UP TO the Djokovic match, but it came alive against Djokovic.

Sometimes, I think people just talk in general terms based on what announcers say rather than actually watching how matches play out. "Oh, the announcer just talked about how Federer can't afford to get into too many cross court backhand rallies with Djokovic. Never mind that Federer is winning most of them and looks stronger off that wing than Djokovic today."

Argh, you're right. Federer's backhand was overpowering Djokivic's. Federer actaully won 4 more points than Djokivic in the first set. I agree Federer's main problem was when Djokovic would hit a DTL BH during the BH to BH exchange and then Federer was on the run hitting a FH. Both players would do this but Djokovic had an easier time executing this play. Why do you think that is?

ace10is
11-18-2012, 07:22 AM
It's not who wins or loses - it's who's the prettiest. Fed's is the prettiest.

+1

Federer does have beautiful strokes. He's an artist.

Steve0904
11-18-2012, 07:46 AM
I said Gasquet's BH. He needs more time, but it's a better stroke IMO. If we include slice, Federer wins wins by a mile, but for a strictly topspin BH I'd say Gasquet.

Federer20042006
11-18-2012, 10:46 PM
Argh, you're right. Federer's backhand was overpowering Djokivic's. Federer actaully won 4 more points than Djokivic in the first set. I agree Federer's main problem was when Djokovic would hit a DTL BH during the BH to BH exchange and then Federer was on the run hitting a FH. Both players would do this but Djokovic had an easier time executing this play. Why do you think that is?

As I recall, Federer had more trouble getting to Djokovic's CC forehands than DTL backhands. Even when Federer did get to his forehand in time, he wasn't able to do enough with it. His running FH has really nose-dived since his peak years, and that's the main difference with him today. Like most players, he leaves his forehand side more exposed, but he can't make up the ground anymore.

That's also why he has problems with the big hitters these days when he used to have no such problems.