Did Koenig say "That's why I would use a 2HBH.."

Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by sportsfan1, May 19, 2013.

  1. sportsfan1

    sportsfan1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    .. so I wouldn't have to put up with this problem (or did he say "nonsense", after another shanked BH from Federer on a high topspin ball to his BH during his Rome 2013 final against Nadal)? Koenig quote, If I heard it correctly. He may have been speaking in general, not specifically about Federer though.

    Even as a Federer fan, it's obvious Federer has to change something, atleast when playing Nadal on clay. How can the result change when everything else remains the same?

    What in your opinion could Fed do differently?
    Mix up with a 2HBH against Nadal on clay, kind of like Tsonga sometimes uses a 1HBH?
    Or try develop a high bouncing top spin FH to Nadal's BH? Anything hit flat to Nadal's BH, he goes cross court easily with power.
     
    #1
  2. norbac

    norbac Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    8,490
    He could start looking at properties in Florida.
     
    #2
  3. damazing

    damazing Rookie

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    250
    I thought he said that he taught his son to use a two handed backhand so that if there was a great lefty in his generation he would be able to better deal with it.
     
    #3
  4. axel89

    axel89 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    he is 100% right look at hte top 4 3/4 are 2h top 10 7-8/10 are 2h top 100 75-80 are 2h
     
    #4
  5. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    There are 4 significant titles that belong to 1HBH players at this moment:

    - Wimbledon 2012 (Federer, grass)
    - Halle 2012 (Haas, grass)
    - Cincinnatti 2012 (Federer, fast HC)
    - Qatar 2013 (Gasquet, fast HC).

    Everything else is won by double-handers.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2013
    #5
  6. merwy

    merwy Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,058
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Well yeah because there are so many more players with 2HBHs so that isn't really a useful statistic.

    Although I'm more a fan of double handers, since I use one myself, I don't think that one handers are that bad actually. Dimitrov, Wawrinka, Gasquet and Almagro (his 1hbh is my favorite) use them just fine and they're not a weakness at all. I think it's just Fed who has a backhand that's clearly worse than his forehand, ESPECIALLY since recently. I just watched the Rome 2006 final and his backhand held up much better than today.
     
    #6
  7. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    With the exception of Dimitrov, most active 1HBH backhand players (Federer, Gasquet, Almagro, Haas, Kohlschreiber, Youzhny) are around 30 years old and are approaching retirement.

    I will not be surprized if, by the time Doha 2014 ends, there are no ATP 500, 1000 (Masters), 1500 (WTF) or 2000 (slam) titles held by one-handers.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2013
    #7
  8. cucio

    cucio Legend

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,913
    Location:
    Tonginchik
    At almost 32? Properties in Florida looks about right.

    Anyway, this is traditional TT lore: switch to a bigger frame, get a hotter girlfriend, hire Brad Gilbert, rush the net on every point (we saw how that worked yesterday, BTW), pump iron, buy his PEDs in the same chemist's Nadal does, hire someone to accidentally step on Nadal's knees...

    What should Federer do? Proudly recurring thread since 2005.
     
    #8
  9. Tenez101

    Tenez101 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,638
    I heard "so I don't have to put up with this nonsense."

    :lol:
     
    #9
  10. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,681
    I think we need to remember Fed is almost 32, and he's coming off an 8 week layoff, then factor in he's playing Nadal, on clay, and that's a quadruple whammy!!

    That being said, he did some good things, held serve pretty easily 1st game, but he also missed some opportunities, like that high backhand volley at 0-30 Nadal's serve, 1st game 2nd set. Then he gets broken twice in a row after that.

    I think he was also too aggressive from the backcourt too early. He basically announced to Rafa that he didnt think he could stay with him in rallies. But when he did rally, he won pts, or had opportunities to win pts.

    Not sure what his practice regimen is for when he's playing Rafa, but if by now he doesnt have a lefty practice partner on call to hit him a couple hundred lefty serves to his backhand to work on that, he's got his head in the sand. As much money as he has, it should have been done long ago.
     
    #10
  11. tennisbuck

    tennisbuck Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,052
    If I'm not mistaken Almagro holds Nice right now
     
    #11
  12. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Only Haas and Youzhny of that list are heading towards retirement (and despite this, they are playing extremely well right now), the others are in their tennis middle-age years. And Federer is old but is too much of an ambassador to the sport to retire too soon.

    It depends on the type of 1hbh you have as to whether it will be effective against Nadal's forehand. Mainly it depends on grip, but that's not all: swing path, height and strength have a role. Federer has a weak grip and doesn't cope well. Dimitrov and Wawrinka also have weak grips yet cope a lot better (when not tired or cramping). Almagro and Gasquet have more extreme grips, yet lose due to being useless headcases or having inadequate forehands. But none on tour has a more extreme backhand grip than Gustavo Kuerten had, and he was the tallest of the bunch as well. I have no doubt that an 'on' Kuerten could give Nadal hell at Roland Garros.

    There are two ways to deal with the high-bouncing Nadal forehand. You hit it on the rise, and I think the 2hbh has an inherent advantage at doing that. Or you hit it at the peak of the bounce or on the drop (like how Nadal himself plays tennis), and I think the 1hbh actually has the inherent advantage for doing this (provided an extreme grip is used) since there is more range-of-motion at the top of the swing path, and more potential to generate topspin.
     
    #12
  13. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    You clearly understood what I meant. Those guys are way past their prime and there are no up-and-comiung players to replace them. Dimitrov is the only young one-hander with a recognized potential.

    And none of them work - hitting on the rise does not work with imperfect bounces (like clay), hitting on the way down forces the player to stay way behind the baseline.

    1HBH is an outdated, linear (as opposed to modern rotation-based), anatomically-limited (by the scapula bone) unstable shot breaking down under pressure as it greatly depends on timing and precise footwork. It cannot be hit late (in emergency) or in the open stance (for quicker recovery), it relies on footwork for power and therefore loses that power on the run, and is generally on its way to extinction, following the Continental forehand or Sampras-style linear forehand.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2013
    #13
  14. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    I am not considering ATP 250s and below.
     
    #14
  15. Bhagi Katbamna

    Bhagi Katbamna Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,076
    He did say that.
     
    #15
  16. Federer20042006

    Federer20042006 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,173
    Federer can't beat Nadal on clay other than on a pretty much perfect day while Nadal isn't playing particularly well. Period, the end. There's nothing he can change that's going to change the outcome.

    You may as well ask what Roddick needed to change to beat Federer. Nadal is better than Federer in all facets of clay court tennis. The two are not close on this surface.
     
    #16
  17. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,967
    Location:
    New York
    Ha ha best answer. Fed is 31 and has played all his career with a ohbh. He's not gonna develop a 2hbh now, just to face Nadal, that would be strong enough to withstand Rafa's assault. That is simply not feasible. In short, there is nothing Fed can do.
     
    #17
  18. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    What is the alternative to the 1hbh, then? The 2hbh. The 2hbh is even more linearly based and anatomically limited than the 1hbh. It is a very linear shot, and this is evidenced by the limited topspin that can be generated from it. The vast majority of players finish their 2hbh with a classical 'over-the-shoulder finish' where the tip of the racket points towards the opponent during the follow-through. This is just like an old-skool (Sampras-like) forehand follow through. Most players also hit their 2hbh backhands flat because of this, and also because the second hand on the racket limits the ability to create a windshield wiper finish like a modern forehand.

    With the 1hbh you're free to make that windshield wiper follow-through, and hit much heavier topspin than most 2hbh's can or do.

    If the game is shifting more and more towards heavier and heavier topspin, it should be noted that the 2hbh is holding back the amount of topspin that can be generated on the backhand side. Or maybe the trend is towards having heavier and heavier forehands, and flatter and flatter backhands?

    If you want to hit heavy topspin off of both wings, use the modern windshield-wiper finish forehand, and either an extreme-grip windshield-wiper 1hbh, or a Wozniacki-style 2hbh;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1-wyBFRHwwY#t=35s

    And the two methods I have outlined to deal with Nadal's forehand are the only two approaches you can take. Hit on the rise, or hit on the peak/drop. It's idiocy to say that neither of them work when they're the only things you can actually do - and Nadal has been beaten before by players adopting one of the two methods. What is your solution then - wait for the ball to bounce twice, then hit it?
     
    #18
  19. heninfan99

    heninfan99 Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,512
    I believe Koenig was referring to his kid or someone he's training. I'd love to see Fed try a bunch of stuff and see what sticks. Why can't he hit his backhand like Dimotrov? Does he watch tape on that? Can he hit giant moonballs? Something Rafa wouldn't expect. Fed has a ton of variety he could utilize.

    Dimitrov stands further back --not as far back as Gasquet but further back than Fed allowing him to taking it on the drop. Fed could try this even though he used to moving side to side along the baseline. Two steps back would make a difference.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2013
    #19
  20. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,967
    Location:
    New York
    Lol Rafa would not be destabilized by moonballs.
     
    #20
  21. heninfan99

    heninfan99 Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,512
    LOL Probably not but temporarily he would say WTF? if Fed did.
    Moonballs seem to help Gasquet a little against Rafa. Just a little.


     
    #21
  22. hersito

    hersito Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    399

    Did you read yourself? you either hit on the rise on peak or on the drop, so you basically hit it anywhere?
     
    #22
  23. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Well, yeah, and Netspirit was saying that all 3 of those options (rise, peak and drop) wouldn't work. And those are your only 3 options anyway. So basically, he is saying to just not bother hitting it when Nadal hits a forehand - let it be an automatic winner.
     
    #23
  24. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    Nope, 2HBH is based on trunk rotation (around the vertical axis). You do not have to "step into 2HBH" to generate power but if you ask "how do I get power for my 1HBH?" on any forum the answer will always be "make your stance more closed" (which you ideally do NOT want to do in baseline rallies) and "step into the shot" (which you often cannot afford in baseline rallies).

    You are confused, dude - I am not talking about topspin. The 1HBH indeed allows more VERTICAL rotation and therefore has more topspin potential.

    However, 1HBH has no HORIZONTAL rotation (around the vertical axis) - it is linear, "projected", the player "steps forward" into the shot in order to generate power. Attempts to rotate when hitting 1HBH lead to loss of control, while 2HBH players can use their big (and therefore reliable under stress) trunk muscles to rotate into the shot, and therefore can hit it well even when stationary. They sometimes even jump up to enable easier rotation (Safin was very famous for that, Djokovic does it often too).

    The trend is increasing reliability of baseline rallies (sometimes for hours), under pressure. 1HBH is not made for that - it is made for scooping up short balls and quick transitions to the net, which is impossible if you hit the ball on its way down from miles behind the baseline (Gasquet-style) or if it is clay and you mishit bad bounces taken on the rise.

    This is why the only titles held by 1HBHs are on grass and fast HC, where the bounce is lower and the player can opt out of prolonged baseline rallies that 1HBH simply cannot sustain.

    First of all, there is no such thing as a "windshield wiper 1HBH". Your bones will not let you supinate as well as you can pronate, your scapula will not let you follow-through around your back (unless you are Dimitrov).

    My solution for 1HBH players is what they have already been doing for decades: attack the net whenever possible, stay out of a lefty's forehand whenever possible, play on faster/lower-bouncing surfaces whenever possible, and mix things up to confuse your opponent.
     
    #24
  25. Big_Dangerous

    Big_Dangerous Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,010
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Only option for high balls is to either take them early on the backhand wing, or run around them.
     
    #25
  26. sportsfan1

    sportsfan1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    That's what I heard Koenig say as well after yet another shank, but wasn't sure.

    Of course Koenig wasn't referring to Fed, but teaching a kid as others have said.

    If nothing else, Fed should atleast return the favor and hit a high bouncing top spin ball to Nadal's BH.
     
    #26
  27. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    Taking the ball early on clay leads to shanks because every bounce is different and has a random, unpredictable component that a human brain and body require time to accommodate to.

    Running around the backhand is another option, thanks. However, having to cover an inferior shot is hardly an argument in favor of it.

    Against a 2HBH that is not nearly as effective.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2013
    #27
  28. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,681
    As a one hander, I can tell you you're wrong. I hit WW backhands when the ball is high, it's the only way you can get topspin on it. And you dont need to follow thru around your back to hit it effectively. After your swing, if u are sideways, when ur arms are in a straight line, that's all the follow thru u need.

    Pretty sure Kuerten and Muster could hit high backhands pretty well. Part of the reason 1 handers are rare, I believe, is because kids are starting at younger ages, and at that age, its much easier to hit with two hands off that side.

    Also, it's easier to master the two hander so I believe coaches and student choose that path more.

    It'd be bad for tennis if everybody just hit with SW & W forehands, and 2HBHs. Then volleying would be extinct.
     
    #28
  29. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    As a one hander, I can tell you the same: you're wrong.

    No, you don't. They do not exist.

    Take your car and switch your wipers on. You will see what the term really means - they go from 3 to 9 o'clock, just like the WW forehand, unconstrained. Your 1HBH backhand stops when your arm is extended, and you do not just crash into that limit - your body starts to increases resistance ("push on the break pedal") long before you reach it. Shorter, stiffer swing means less power.

    Federer hits his high backhands well too, but runs around them whenever he can. 1HBH is biomechanically-limited and is a poor choice for a baseliner.

    Kids were roughly the same 50 years ago. Then they learned 1HBH because on fast, slick grass it gave them advantages. They are not learning 1HBH anymore because it means the end of their tennis career, since the slow courts have made it a predominantly baseline game.

    The fact that Federer is still competitive with his 1HBH should not fool you. He is not competitive because of his backhand, he is competitive despite it. He is competitive because he is Federer.

    This transition is almost complete.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2013
    #29
  30. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,681
    Try this. Take a racket, stick it straight out in front of u as if you're just going to block a backhand, but in a backhand drive grip, not a slice grip. So, if ur right handed, the head of the racket will be facing to ur left side.

    Now just supinate, rotate ur forearm, till the racket is vertical. Thats what I was taught to do to 'come over' high backhands. Thats what Im referring to as a WW backhand because thats the analogy my coach used when he was teaching it to me.

    Your thoughts???
     
    #30
  31. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,681
    When using the kids example, I was thinking specifically of Seles and the reasoning behind her hitting with both hands off two sides. The reason was because she wasnt strong enough to hit it any other way.

    Thats a big part of the reasoning behind the QuickStart program, isnt it??

    Also, because Seles was so successful using two hands off both sides, a lot of people chose to emulate that, correct??
     
    #31
  32. Rainalkar

    Rainalkar Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    231
    Just my 2cents. There is nothing intrinsically inferior in the 1hbh compared to 2hbh in terms that the latter is obviously superior in today's game. There is no player in the world, apart one, and on specific surfaces who can dominate Federer's backhand, and that has to do somewhat with the limited options he has.

    In case of Federer and Nadal, and, in fact, every single 1hbh out there, the only real way, on clay, to cope with Nadal is to stay 2m behind the baseline and have a strong, reliable spin on the run on both wings. You need to slug it out with Nadal, and take your chances when they come. However, of today's users of 1hbh's, all are either to slow to run laterally left and right all the time (Gasquet), or they simply don't like to play the backhand under such pressure (Federer), or whose backhand simply isn't incredible defense wise (Wawrinka). I'm still speaking of clay of course. Dimitrov has shown signs how it should be done, he is not afraid to endure pain, and is willing to take some beating. His backhand is really reliable, and his timing is good. In time, I think it will be enough.

    Clay aside, if we take indoors as an example, and not a very fast one, but low and, of course, reliably bouncing, Federer's backhand was able to murder Nadal over and over again. First, he can half volley it all day long, and second, the 1hbh has a far greater potential in creating short angles then the 2 hander does. This means, that Federer does not need to flatten and play a risky backhand for a winner, but simply go sharp cross court, and the ball will often bounce ahead of an opponent who is staying a couple of meters behind the base.

    I could agree with the notion that 1hbh's problem is hitting with an open stance on the run, but when looking what Wawrinka and Dimitrov can do with it in those positions, I don't agree any more.

    In short: 1hbh has more potential for power, it's far easier to be agressive against a low ball. It also has a greater spin potential. However:
    2hbh is mechanically simpler and therefore more reliable, and it is superior on return. To tell you the truth, for a long time I thought that the return will spell the doom on the 1hbh but I don't any more. It has improved so vastly that's incredible imo.
    2hbh is something that can work everywhere but it excels best on slow court (not clay!). Me, if I could choose, I would take an extreme 1hbh on clay and eastern one everyhere else any day.
     
    #32
  33. sportsfan1

    sportsfan1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    It's gotta be a more complex problem to solve than just grips or swing paths. We are talking about the top players in the world with the best coaches. Wawrinka himself said after the Madrid final that Nadal got the ball too high to his BH and caused problems.

    You can see the same with Almagro - it's too hard to consistently hit that high bouncing heavy ball with power, and eventually Nadal's able to draw the weak shot. Even if the ball is hit CC, it's back to Nadal's FH for the same pattern to repeat. The winning shot typically is DTL and no player with 1HBH has demonstrated that he can consistently redirect Nadal's high topspin ball DTL.

    And in fact this discussion isn't about whether the 2HBH is better; there have been many threads on that. It's just a comment that the 1Handers, especially Federer, make it too easy for Nadal and he just has to do the one thing over and over - hit his FH to the BH. It's different from Fed vs Roddick, where Roddick was overwhelmed with sheer variety and superior movement.

    Would just like to see Fed try something different since same strategy, same shots has resulted in same outcome each time on clay. What does he have to lose anyway at this stage?
     
    #33
  34. vegasgt3

    vegasgt3 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    If you hit a OHBH you need to use it to its advantage and attack the net. If you don't play that style, you should use a THBH.

    The next generation may use a THBH on returns and high balls and OHBH for attacks and drives. I've personally played with both and can switch between with ease, but prefer a OHBH as I attack on every short ball I can.

    I also switch between a continental on the return of serve forehand and a SW forehand depending on the shot I need to hit.

    Not that hard if you practice it really.
     
    #34
  35. tennisbuck

    tennisbuck Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,052
    ok cause then we would count Zeballos as well.
     
    #35
  36. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,681
    I do the same thing. There was a Tennis magazine article way back by Stan Smith suggesting people try it. His son Ramsey did as well. A couple of guys I know that got a few pts did as well, but none got very high.

    I think if people grow up doing it, hitting both, it'll be second nature. I also think it's easier for a two hander to add a one hander, than the other way around though.
     
    #36
  37. tennisbuck

    tennisbuck Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,052
    Doha is a 250 and you are considering it
     
    #37
  38. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Nope, 2HBH is based on trunk rotation (around the vertical axis). You do not have to "step into 2HBH" to generate power but if you ask "how do I get power for my 1HBH?" on any forum the answer will always be "make your stance more closed" (which you ideally do NOT want to do in baseline rallies) and "step into the shot" (which you often cannot afford in baseline rallies).

    There is so much regurgitated nonsense in your post. You say you hit with a 1hbh? What grip do you use? Because most of the stuff you are saying is only really applicable to a continental grip 1hbh, like they used in the 80's and 90's.

    Yes the 1hbh likes to be hit in a closed stance, and that hurts it laterally. But the 2hbh has less lateral reach and is more uncomfortable to hit on the run because you cannot use your off-hand for balance so it evens out in the end. I have seen Wawrinka hit some excellent running backhands from an open position.

    You don't need to necessarily 'step into the shot' the generate power on the 1hbh. I remember Gasquet hitting a 100+mph backhand winner whilst leaning backwards in the 2010 French Open.


    You are confused, dude - I am not talking about topspin. The 1HBH indeed allows more VERTICAL rotation and therefore has more topspin potential.

    And if the 1hbh has more potential for topspin, it also has great potential to hang around in long rallies as topspin gives you margin for error. You can hit a nice, high, loopy ball, as everyone is trying to do on their forehands nowadays. Why should you have to hit a flat, risky shot just because it's on your backhand?

    However, 1HBH has no HORIZONTAL rotation (around the vertical axis) - it is linear, "projected", the player "steps forward" into the shot in order to generate power. Attempts to rotate when hitting 1HBH lead to loss of control, while 2HBH players can use their big (and therefore reliable under stress) trunk muscles to rotate into the shot, and therefore can hit it well even when stationary. They sometimes even jump up to enable easier rotation (Safin was very famous for that, Djokovic does it often too).

    This is antiquated. Please watch any footage of Wawrinka and Gasquet. They both hit modern-style 1hbh, and both have extremely significant torso rotation in their shots. In fact, I'm feeling nice so I'll provide the link to let you know you're wrong;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZpIDzwuW1c

    The trend is increasing reliability of baseline rallies (sometimes for hours), under pressure. 1HBH is not made for that - it is made for scooping up short balls and quick transitions to the net, which is impossible if you hit the ball on its way down from miles behind the baseline (Gasquet-style) or if it is clay and you mishit bad bounces taken on the rise.

    This is why the only titles held by 1HBHs are on grass and fast HC, where the bounce is lower and the player can opt out of prolonged baseline rallies that 1HBH simply cannot sustain.


    UTTERLY no dude. The 1hbh is doing better on clay season right now. The highest bouncing surface ever, and the 1hbh is doing the best it will do all year on it. A 1hbh just beat Djokovic on clay. Took a set off Nadal on clay. Two 1hbh's contested an ATP 250 on clay in the final. Two 1hbh's reached clay Masters finals, another reached an ATP 500 final and each time it took the greatest of all time on clay to stop them. Whenever Nadal has reached a clay final this year - think about it - more often than not a 1hbh has been at the other side of the net. Everytime Nadal beat up on a 2hbh player to reach that final, how come everyone wasn't proclaiming the death of the 2hbh? The 1hbh sees nowhere near such success on lower, faster surfaces. The evidence is right in front of your eyes, so don't just regurgitate the cr@p that commentators say about the 1hbh being best for grass, slice and volleys. May have been true in the 90's (even then there was Kuerten proving them wrong), but not now.

    The 1hbh's of the modern game are doing great on clay because they can hit superior topspin to the 2hbh's. They have more safety built into the shape of their shot - and that is vital on clay.

    First of all, there is no such thing as a "windshield wiper 1HBH". Your bones will not let you supinate as well as you can pronate, your scapula will not let you follow-through around your back (unless you are Dimitrov).

    Windshield wiper means that your strings face the net during your followthrough instead of turning to face the side fence during your follow through. Try to hit a 1hbh with a semi-western grip, and you'll find it's impossible not to hit your 1hbh with a windshield-wiper followthrough.

    My solution for 1HBH players is what they have already been doing for decades: attack the net whenever possible, stay out of a lefty's forehand whenever possible, play on faster/lower-bouncing surfaces whenever possible, and mix things up to confuse your opponent.

    Again, you're blind to the fact that the 1hbh is doing best right now in the clay season. It will NOT be as successful as it is right now in the grass and fast hardcourt season later. There are plenty of 1hbh players that use a modern style 1hbh stroke and can't volley or slice for **** and just use their backhands as topspin-monkey baseline machines. Wawrinka and Gasquet are bad examples because although they could fit this category, they are too talented at the net. Almagro and Berlocq certainly fit this description, however. Man, if Almagro ever approached the net to finish off the opportunities he earned with his groundstrokes, he could have taken Nadal out in straights at Barcelona this year.

    The 1hbh is currently on a resurgence at the elite level. Out of the current top 200, probably 3% hit a 1hbh. Out of the current top 15, 33% hit a 1hbh. The numbers speak for themselves.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2013
    #38
  39. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    Thanks. Then there are only three 500+ titles held by 1HBHanders, all won last year. The party can be over this fall, when the last bastion (Cincy) falls to 2-handers.
     
    #39
  40. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    I thought there was a lot of regurgitated nonsense in my post - before you started agreeing.

    This is pure BS. If the ball is too wide for 2HBH to hit, it is too wide for 1HBH to hit also and most players resort to slicing it back.

    1HBH is hit in front of the body, quite far in front compared to 2HBH, and most of that "reach" is wasted by extending the arm forward vs. parallel to the baseline.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    So you have seen one player on tour sacrificing control for power in a particular situation, and drew far-reaching conclusions from it (that 1HBH can be hit from the open stance, on the run, and remain consistently excellent?).

    You do. This is where the power comes from for 1HBH. Ask it on any forum on tennis technique, including this one, and enjoy reading people telling you the same thing.

    Gasquet is a freak of nature, and his 100+mph backhand reflected the power of the incoming shot more than anything. If you played tennis yourself just a little bit, you would know that all 1HBH players try to step forward into the shot as there is no pronounced body rotation that helps, and not enough strength in that shoulder muscle.

    Logic fail. It shanks, breaks down under pressure, relies on perfect timing, uses more delicate and capricious body muscles, is poor on the run, forces you to turn away from the court (which slows recovery down), etc.

    Who cares if in vacuum, a spherical stationary horse can produce more topspin from a 1HBH?

    Look at all 2HBH-ders - they are all baseliners and win matches from the baseline. Look at all 1HBH-ders - they all have to utilize the "all-court" game, all run around their backhands whenever they have a chance, slice back half their backhands, and succumb to Nadal's topspin.

    When they do it (at times) they are sacrificing control for that extra power. They are quite literally incorporating a bit of the motion that is the foundation of 2HBH to begin with.

    Oh, let's see. I can count more than 8 clay-court events this season that were won by 2-handers, and zero won by a righty one-hander. So 1-handers are "doing better"? LOL

    Wrong. Windshield wiper means a motion that resembles the trajectory of a winshield wiper - from 3 to 9 o'clock. There is no tennis term "windshield wiper backhand" in any credible book or article, because supination cannot be as extreme as pronation, and because the scapula bone prevents the arm from completing a true WW follow-through.

    By winning none of the tournaments?

    Says you? ) Well, thank you for you opinion, and I will stick to my fact: the only 500+ titles held by 1HBH players are Wimbledon, Halle and Cincy, all grass or fast HC.

    Yes, they do - most those 33% out of the current top 15 are over, or close to, 30 years old and will be retiring soon, while all the young, promising, up-and-coming players (except one) are using 2HBH. The march of 1HBH towards extinction has never been more obvious.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2013
    #40
  41. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    This is pure BS. If the ball is too wide for 2HBH to hit, it is too wide for 1HBH to hit also and most players resort to slicing it back.

    1HBH is hit in front of the body, quite far in front compared to 2HBH, and most of that "reach" is wasted by extending the arm forward vs. parallel to the baseline.


    Optimally the 1hbh is hit more in front of the body - but that depends on your grip. But we are talking about extremely wide balls, which are not optimum for a 1hbh or a 2hbh. On very wide balls, the 2hbh will be forced to take a hand off the racket and block back - which they will have less feel in doing so because the 1hbh does this sort of motion all the time.

    If we're talking about running drive backhands, the running 2hbh is more awkward than the running 1hbh because you have no off-arm to counter-balance your weight as you swing into it. I have seen Nadal pretty much fall over as he is hitting a running two-hander, and his running two-hander almost always has to be a point-finishing shot as he knows he will be falling after he hits it so can't recover, so he hits it very hard and flat - sometimes for spectacular winners.

    Despite this, I can decide no winner for the wide backhand out of the 2hbh and 1hbh for running drive backhands, because on one hand you have Djokovic's crazy slide-two-handed backhands, and Federer's insane backhand flick passing shots. Both shots are highly idiosyncratic to each player, but both are, essentially the defensive strengths of each style of backhand taken to extreme levels of proficiency.

    So you have seen one player on tour sacrificing control for power in a particular situation, and drew far-reaching conclusions from it (that 1HBH can be hit from the open stance, on the run, and remain consistently excellent?).

    I have already discussed running backhands, and, yes, in general, the 1hbh is accepted to compromise control in favor of power. But then the 2hbh is commonly accepted to sacrifice power in favor of control. It is a trade-off.

    Gasquet is a freak of nature, and his 100+mph backhand reflected the power of the incoming shot more than anything. If you played tennis yourself just a little bit, you would know that all 1HBH players try to step forward into the shot as there is no pronounced body rotation that helps, and not enough strength in that shoulder muscle.

    I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Obviously all groundstrokes benefit from having your weight going forward into the shot - including forehands. Yet the torso is free to rotate and generate some forwards momentum whilst moving backwards in the 1hbh as Gasquet and Wawrinka prove, and they can both hit 100+ mph winners whilst leaning backwards. Oh, they're 'freaks of nature, are they?' I guess that renders my argument useless. The fact is that there are at least two styles of 1hbh - the conservative style that remains in a closed position, and the extreme-grip style that lets the torso freely rotate. Don't tar all 1hbh's with the same brush.

    Logic fail. It shanks, breaks down under pressure, relies on perfect timing, uses more delicate and capricious body muscles, is poor on the run, forces you to turn away from the court (which slows recovery down), etc.

    Who cares if in vacuum, a spherical stationary horse can produce more topspin from a 1HBH?

    Look at all 2HBH-ders - they are all baseliners and win matches from the baseline. Look at all 1HBH-ders - they all have to utilize the "all-court" game, all run around their backhands whenever they have a chance, slice back half their backhands, and succumb to Nadal's topspin.


    Nahh, you're failing here. Some people have stronger backs than they do chests. I am an example. I can't bench press for **** but I can strap 70kg of weight to my waist and bang out 5 chin ups with that. I can do a chin up with one arm. Guess which is my stronger shot? My backhand. Guess how many hands I use on it? One. I am willing to bet that Gasquet, Almagro, Berlocq and Wawrinka all have stronger backs than chests. Not everyone is built the same and it's narrow-minded to think that.

    Talking of Berlocq and Almagro, they are also fairly one-dimensional baseliners but they have 1hbh's. They suck at volleys and slice and other 'all-court-y' things. Their 1hbh complements their baseline style, not detracts from it, because they have greater racket-head-speed and potential to generate clay-court specific heavy topspin than all the legions of 2hbhs, and they win their matches from the baseline - out-topspinning the 2hbh. Gasquet, in particular also wins a LOT of matches this way against baselining 2hbh players, but he also has all-court skills as another option.

    Oh, let's see. I can count more than 8 clay-court events this season that were won by 2-handers, and zero won by a righty one-hander. So 1-handers are "doing better"? LOL

    Now this is obnoxious. You don't want to look stupid by backing down, I get it. We know Nadal is the greatest clay courter that has ever lived, don't you? Well, of the five clay finals Nadal has participated in, four of them have been 1hbh's. It took the greatest clay court player of all time to stop Zeballos, Almagro, Wawrinka and Federer from winning clay court titles this year. The 1hbh is a rare species, I am not arguing that. There are not many 1hbh's out there on tour. And despite that, the few 1hbh's that are still out there have been beating the huge majority of the field of 2hbh's and making finals left right and center. And this is CLAY - the surface with that terrible high bounce that is meant to smother all of those delicate little 1hbh's. Maybe, just maybe the superior topspin potential of the 1hbh is not, in fact, working in a vacuum as you've suggested, but has found a home on a real, gritty, clay-court to provide high kicking bounce and hooking angles to give nightmares to all those 2hbh's?

    Let's compare how the 1hbh did in the hardcourt swing of late February to March. Gulbis df. Vasselin at Delray beach, Nadal df. Del-Potro at Indian Wells, Murray df. Ferrer at Miami, Djokovic df. Berdych in Dubai... nope, I haven't seen a single 1hbh reach a final on these faster, lower-bouncing conditions. Instead, they're busy out-topspinning the 2hbh's in the clay season. Just admit you've been owned, why don't you?

    The above argument is similar to my observation that there are probably 3% 1hbhs in the top 200, yet 33% 1hbh's in the top 15. That is proof right there that the 1hbh is very viable at the highest level of the sport, and I might add that (apart from Federer), those top players who do have 1hbh's are players for whom the backhand is a legitimate weapon, not a stay-in-the-rally type shot like the backhands of Tsonga, Nadal and Ferrer.

    You're right the new generation is not being taught the 1hbh - but that is due to sheer cowardice and/or lack of imagination of the coaches - forcing everyone they ever meet to play in the same way. That is killing tennis. The 1hbh has proven how good it can be even in this modern topspin-monkey era, even (actually, especially) in the high-bouncing claycourt season. It actually makes sense for the 1hbh to be doing well now because it would allow really heavy topspin to be hit from both wings, not just the forehand. Anyway, the veterans have proven the utility of the shot by virtue of their ranking spots - it's just up to the coaches to take notice. Not that they will - but I hope to be proven wrong.

    Wrong. Windshield wiper means a motion that resembles the trajectory of a winshield wiper - from 3 to 9 o'clock. There is no tennis term "windshield wiper backhand" in any credible book or article, because supination cannot be as extreme as pronation, and because the scapula bone prevents the arm from completing a true WW follow-through.

    This is just semantics. My coach instructs what he himself calls a WW-finish 1hbh, and says it is WW finish because the strings point towards the net during the followthrough. This is what he defines as WW, and you're defining it differently, so whatever.

    Says you? ) Well, thank you for you opinion, and I will stick to my fact: the only 500+ titles held by 1HBH players are Wimbledon, Halle and Cincy, all grass or fast HC.

    Well, I bet that we will not see such a variety of 1hbh's reaching finals over the coming grass and HC seasons. I am happy to be proven wrong, though, cuz I love seeing the 1hbh succeed.

    The way in which you and I differ is that I see the 1hbh as a legitimate weapon at the top level of the sport and you do not. But the ATP Top 15 supports me, not you. I am not anti-2hbh, I am merely pro-1hbh. You are anti-1hbh, so I consider my argument more reasonable than yours.

    I see pluses and minuses for both.

    2hbh is better for;

    Returning serve, control, change of direction, hitting balls before they get too high (on the rise), forgiving contact point, sliding backhands on the run

    1hbh is better for;

    Hitting topspin, greater maximum power, hitting balls when they're already too high, flick backhands on the run. Many would also say that 1hbh has advantages in learning slice and volleys, but I do not because I consider them separate shots that need to be learned separately.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2013
    #41
  42. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    tennis_hack, thanks for the discussion. I cannot continue it due to a busy job.

    If one-handers lose Wimbledon, Halle and Cincinnatti, having no 500+ titles, or if Wawrinka or Almagro wins RG, let's revive this talk.
     
    #42
  43. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Sure. But it's not only you and I in this argument.

    I spent a solid 15 minutes on the above poast. I want someone to shoot it down.
     
    #43
  44. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Add another 1hbh that has made a clay final or won a clay tournament this 2013 clay season: Albert Montanes df. Monfils in Nice.
     
    #44
  45. Gyswandir

    Gyswandir Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Messages:
    264
    Strike zone

    I've probably read more than a 100 discussions on 1 vs. 2 handed backhands on this board. Usually, the discussion descends in quality very quickly and it becomes about how much prettier the 1hbh is and Federer uses it, so better.

    I play with a 1hbh and have occasionally tried to hit 2h under coaching supervision. In my opinion, the main issue is the limited "strike zone" - I believe that is the correct term, but not sure - of the 1h.

    Allow me to explain. There is a video by the Bolleteri guy (Dougherty I think) where he talks about it for the FH. It is not height, but depth. Essentially, on the FH, you can hit all the way from your side to about a foot in front of you and still have good power and control. So, this gives you a margin of error on timing.
    On the 1hbh drive, it is a much smaller window. This is mainly due to the nature of the stroke, where your elbow has to be almost straight, or straight, upon contact and having no more room for "extension" beyond that.
    I sometimes feel that you only have about an inch of leeway to hit a solid stroke. Before, or after, and it won't work. So, timing your swing against the incoming ball is critical. As a result, you have to have excellent ball reading skills.

    Now, for serve returns and taking the ball on the rise, if you are a single hander and tried this at a decent level, you quickly discover that sometimes you have to start the swing at, or even before the bounce, if you want to hit within the strike zone due to the forward contact point and shallow strike zone. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that very difficult if before the bounce. Now, add an opponent who hits with good topspin, but more importantly, varies the amount of spin well, and it becomes a task of Herculean proportions. I think that is why most 1h players on clay stay far behind the baseline to make it easier for timing the stroke and why it is hard for a 1hander to be a good on the rise player.

    Some people also reference the difficulty in hitting the 1hbh due to vision issues inherent in the stance involved especially for players with a dominant left eye. The 2hbh allows an open stance, which facilitates 2 eyes focusing on the ball from the same relative position making "vision" easier (check Revolutionary Tennis for some info on vision). For the 1hbh, you have to have 1 eye in front (right for righties) and can occasionally even have to use only 1 during the stroke due to the more closed stance. I personally think this is just another factor that makes the timing harder.

    As for the high ball, if you are capable of opening your shoulders on the shot and controlling it sufficiently (like Wawrinka), you are not gonna have too much trouble. Referencing Nadal here ignores the main issues, which are the speed, spin and variation in both. If he were just hitting slow constant spin, it wouldn't be that big a problem to take it on the rise or even hit it from head height. The problem is that his ball is still relatively fast, has varying depth and varying degrees of high spin, which make timing the shot on the rise almost impossible to do consistently. So you end up having to either park behind the baseline sacrificing position or accept a high error rate.

    At the end, I personally think that the 2h is a better option for today's game and technology.

    Disclaimer: only my opinion and am not a coach
     
    #45
  46. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    ^^ All good points, and, as you said, things the 1hbh will never be able to match the 2hbh on include;

    1). Flexibility of contact point (2nd hand can 'muscle through' shots not hit ideally)
    2). Ease of viewing the ball (traditionally hit with more open stance)
    3). Ease of hitting on the rise (2nd hand provides stability and accuracy)
    4). ease of changing direction (2nd hand provides stability)
    5). Ease of returning serves (2nd hand provides stability)

    Yet, there are some things the 2hbh will never match the 1hbh on;

    1). Ability to generate maximum pace (swing is longer and freer)
    2). Ability to generate maximum topspin (no 2nd wrist to inhibit supination, longer and freer stroke)

    As you can see, the 2hbh is better than the 1hbh at most things, but the 1hbh has advantages in only two areas: maximum topspin and maximum pace. Yet, on a slow court, these two advantages are significant enough to ensure that the 1hbh still puts up good results in the clay season by allowing greater angles to be hit, greater kick off the court, and greater potential to hit outright winners off the backhand side.

    I frequently see it as a pattern that on a clay court the 1hbh will use the advantage in topspin they have over a 2hbh to kick the ball higher and higher off the court, angle the opponent more and more into the tramlines, then hit a flat DTL winner. In this way, the backhand of the 1hbh is sort of acting like a lefty Nadal forehand. Gasquet exemplifies this point construction, but I have seen Kohlschreibier, Wawrinka and Almagro do it on several occasions.
     
    #46
  47. Gyswandir

    Gyswandir Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Messages:
    264
    Better potential?

    Agree that 1h can have more spin. Not sure about pace, though, as 2h still uses the core muscles, which are very strong. Even Wawrinka's style doesn't use them to the same extent.

    As for better results on clay, and other surfaces, given the prevalence in top 15 vs top 100, if we believe the vision and timing requirements for the 1h, that may indicate that the successful 1h players actually have better "talent" i.e if there is a top 100 ATP with a 1h, he is probably gonna be above average overall.
     
    #47
  48. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    #48
  49. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Yes I read that article, and I see that pretty much all of the points you have argued with me have been based on that article.

    And a quick google search yields only that article forming any sort of debate for or against the two-handed backhand. Not a lot of analysis has actually been done.

    Anyway - I'll ask everyone this question;

    Eventually, will the one-handed forehand become extinct? If not - why not? After all, two hands on the racket obviously means better stability and consistency, better ability to hit on the rise, better ability to change direction, it's easier to deal with different contact points...etc... Sounds like a no-brainer to me...

    Except it isn't. The major advantage to the one-handed forehand over the two-handed forehand is the ability to hit greater topspin, because the stroke is freer and not inhibited by a second wrist. More reach is also a small advantage. But the ability to hit greater topspin is such a major advantage in that it allows a skilled player to open the court up more with angles, and expose space to hit winners into. And this advantage makes most stick with the one-handed forehand.

    In this way - it's a similar situation with the 1hbh vs 2hbh. But because of the mechanics of the backhand, the 2hbh is better at nearly everything, I agree. But it isn't better at hitting topspin - the advantage there goes to the 1hbh. And, as discussed, that is such a major advantage that many guys out there at the moment are willing to sacrifice all the benefits of the 2hbh for it - and hopefully there will be others willing to do the same in the future. So far the data guys have been slow on the uptake of measure Gasquet/Wawrinka/Almagro's average topspin backhand rpm's and comparing it to Ferrer/Djokovic/Murray's backhand topspin rpm's, but I can almost guarantee that the 1hbh's would be significantly higher. Maybe some 40% higher.

    Again, the greater ability to hit topspin allows angles to be opened up to create space to hit winners into - and if a player has a heavy topspin forehand as well - they would be doubly difficult to play against as they're capable of hooking you off the court from both wings. Watch pretty much any Gasquet match and you'll see how he hooks people off the court with a very heavy topspin backhand, then has an easy put-away. That heavy dipping angle is simply not as available to the 2hbh. People rag on Federer's backhand to no end here, but even he can do it;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWoKA21Bm4k

    The 1hbh is, obviously more difficult a shot than the one-handed forehand, and the 2hbh as well, but the same increased possibilities for hitting angles are there. The difference is that the majority of pro's opt for the topspin potential of the one-handed forehand over the stability of the two-handed forehand, but the majority of pro's opt for the stability of the 2hbh over the topspin potential of the 1hbh.

    But I think there will always be a market for those willing to sacrifice stability for increased topspin potential on the backhand side as well, so that they can open up plays more easily and create angles off of both wings instead of only the forehand. At least there better be - it would be a crying shame if they didn't. It seems on clay, the ability to do this is most apparent, hence, as we're seeing, the 1hbh does best in the clay season.

    Also, if you buy into the notion that most people with 1hbh's learn to hit better backhand slice (I don't necessarily buy into that), then not only is the 1hbh better at heavy topspin than the 2hbh to hook people off the court with, it is also better at low skidding slice. So you can alternate between extreme hooking, high topspin, and low biting slice to make people just generally miserable going into you backhand corner by messing with making them hit different contact heights, making them move up the court to scoop up slices then next shot making them hit deep, head-height balls, hooking them into the tramlines with the heavy topspin...etc... make them struggle to get grooved.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2013
    #49
  50. Sartorius

    Sartorius Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,471
    Good insight, thanks.
     
    #50

Share This Page