Gasquet's Backhand or Federer's Backhand?

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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]

Can I take Federer's slice and Gasquet's topspin? Or is that cheating?

[Polvorin]

Originally Posted by 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).

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

[Federer20042006]

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]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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]

Originally Posted by Polvorin

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]

Originally Posted by paulorenzo

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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]

Originally Posted by 0d1n

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.

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]

Originally Posted by ace10is

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]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

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.

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]

Originally Posted by ace10is

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]

It's not who wins or loses - it's who's the prettiest. Fed's is the prettiest.

[ace10is]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

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]

Originally Posted by Candide

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]

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.