Gasquet's Backhand or Federer's Backhand?

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheCanadian

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TheCanadian

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. Federer would hate that.

[boramiNYC]

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]

Originally Posted by man_untd11

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]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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

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

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by 0d1n

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]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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]

Originally Posted by 0d1n

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]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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]

I think that Federer is better with his backhand at hitting approach shots and drop shots. How deep has Gasquet been at Wimbledon?

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by movdqa

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/playe...w/atpg628.html

Semi.

[dangalak]

What do you think about Roddick then? he certainly didn't move like greased lightning either.

[Hawkeye7]

Originally Posted by movdqa

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]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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]

Originally Posted by 0d1n

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]

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]

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).