View Single Post
Old 01-13-2013, 08:46 AM   #4
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In The City
Posts: 11,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by always_crosscourt View Post
Isner, Harrison, Roddick, Raonic (nearly American) all come to mind as players that have really limited backhands. Exceptions to the rule include Agassi, and possibly, Fish.

Most Americans want to play 'big man tennis' which is dominating with serve and put away forehand.

They view their backhand as merely a damage limitation device - so that they can stay in a rally long enough to use a forehand. Federer, Djokovic and even Murray can do all sorts of things off their own backhands to make their opponent uncomfortable - for them hitting a backhand is not about merely staying in a rally.

Why do you think this is? For a start, the USTA is known to be very quick to mould all players into using a 2hbh, and 1hbh is pretty much banned. But even when you're using 2hbh's, the 'American 2hbh' seems to be especially bad... Mechanically, what is wrong with it?
The amount of generic and ugly 2 handed backhands is higher now than ever before. Complete opposite of the 90s when a lot of guys had hideous one handed backhands. It is not just the americans, guys like Ferrer, Tsonga, Monfils, Granollers, Monaco, Troicki etc. have average and ugly 2 handed backhands.
Sid_Vicious is offline   Reply With Quote