Was Roddick an example of someone who should've had a One Handed Backhand?
 

Personally, from watching Roddick I always got the feeling that his backhand slice came much more naturally to him, and the two hander restricted him.

Do you think Roddick would have fared better with a One Handed Backhand?

exactly!! his early coach probably talked him into using a two hander as it was the new thing if you will but he really shouldve been a one hander!

Roddick didn't have nearly enough talent to hit a 1hbh. It requires a lot more timing, footwork and feel.

I think EVERYONE would have fared better with a one-handed backhand. :)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha Roddick couldn't even manage a two-hander, explain to me how he would have acquired the feel, footwork and timing necessary to take a 1-hander to the top of the game?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

yeah i agree with you guys i don't think he would be able to pull it off. it was a shot for him that was just to put it back into play. it was his weakest wing.

This is idiotic. What logic led you to this conclusion?

Hes strikes me as someone who should have worked on his footwork, movement, speed and net game. Which would have helped him have a solid backup for his big serve and FH.

You don't have to have a GREAT BH to be very successful.. Neither Fed or Pete had this. But you do have to have to fantastic footwork, movement and speed. Something Roddick was short on which killed him

I beg to differ. I think both Sampras and Federer have great backhands. Watch some of Sampras' matches from the early-90's to see what a great backhand he had.

But I agree that Roddick needed to work on his footwork and movement more.

I dunno, but Roddick seems to have a tense swing, it seems like he almost muscles the ball. Also, his problem with the two hander was that he relied to much on the left hand. Take away that left hand? Disaster.

If he had a Wawrinka backhand it would have made a good match with his forehand(pre-pushing era).

I think you have a point. It is impossible to know without seeing him hit the one handed backhand. His slice actually developed into a great shot and was the second best on tour after Federer's.

Look at someone as talented as Federer and he could not hit a proper two handed backhand. Players are different and I think you need some flexibility when coaching. The two hander is certainly not easier for everyone and Roddick may have been one of those people.

You people laughing are proving OPs point. Roddick's backhand always looked extremely uncomfortable and "restricted." His slice over the past few years looked much more natural, and during his best matches he hit it very well.

So maybe if he practiced a 1 hander from age 5 or whatever, it would've been a much more natural shot for him. It doesn't involve at all taking the Roddick we know today and applying a new backhand. It could have changed his entire game.

I don't think it would have won him another slam or anything but it's an interesting question. Maybe hill whip it out on the Legends tour.

Roddick is fast enough and he does not have great hands. He was never going to become an Edberg. Having said that he improved his volleys until they were decent. What cost him slams is that Federer was better. Worse still Federer not only matched up well game wise, but had the freakish ability to read his serve. If Safin had not got injured in 05, then things would have been different for Roddick. Roddick could always beat Safin no matter how well he played. Had there been a 4 way rivalry, then Roddick would not have changed his game so drastically and with a lucky draw won a couple of slams.

By the way Federer DOES have a GREAT backhand. This is why Federer could beat guys like Davydenko, Agassi and Murray going backhand to backhand for most of the match. When it mattered Federer's backhand was a huge weapon.

Sampras did not have a great backhand, but he had a good solid backhand. It did not really break down in his prime. No matter how much you attacked it. He was very conservative with it though apart from on big points or when he got tired. When a big point came along he would hit it well and aggressively more often than not.

Prime Pete was not the Sampras of the late 90s. His serve and volleys improved post his prime. His backhand deteriorated dramatically as did his forehand, his returns and movement.

Not sure I agree. There's a fair number of people I'd say slice better.

Around 2009 I would like to hear those names. Henman and Santoro were gone. Maybe there was someone else lower I have forgotten, but off the top of my head cannot think of a top 30 player around that time with a better slice.

One aspect of both the 1hbh and 2hbh is proper weight transfer. Roddick does this poorly. Check out the 2nd top-rated comment on this vid, then watch and decide for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULefIkMyZ7c

He'd be in big trouble if he used this kind of footwork on a 1hbh.


On the other hand... maybe the poor weight transfer is a product of him trying to muscle the ball with his left hand, which wouldn't be an issue with a 1hbh.

Also, if he ended up with a weak 1hbh, perhaps that would have forced him to attack the net more, and develop better volleys, earlier in his career....

i agree. eg. despite james blake not being nearly as successful as roddick, i felt he was more competitive against federer and agassi off the ground than roddick ever was because his footwork and and movement backed up his aggressive forehand.

I think a more pertinent question (in terms of human mehanics) would be whether Roddick could have translated the obvious strength in his right arm and back to an effective OHBH. If we look at Almagro and Wawrinka, for example, we'll see that they have a lot of snap on their backhands and their 1st serves are nothing to sneer at. Would it be possible to reverse-engineer a comparison for an hypothetial OHBH for Roddick?

I must congratulate the OP for coming up with a very interesting talking point and I look forward to the experts' opinions.

dub postdubstep wahwahwah