Why is it a recurring theme that Americans have average backhands?

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

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?

dumb poast.

canadian is not "nearly american"

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by sureshs

What is the point taking the top 3 players as a comparison and saying that American players have bad backhands? And I don't agree that Fed has a better backhand than American players.

thats cuz you're a troll.

[Hawkeye7]

Why is it a recurring theme that trolls always survive way too long on this forum?

[axel89]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

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.

The fact that u say ferret has an avg backhand is amusing he easily is in the top ten ATM

[ark_28]

WHen you can hit a serve at 148 mph like John who cares about a back hand serve and forehand combo are more than enough to beat the worlds best which he has shown with wins over Novak and Federer last year

[Doubles]

Originally Posted by ark_28

WHen you can hit a serve at 148 mph like John who cares about a back hand serve and forehand combo are more than enough to beat the worlds best which he has shown with wins over Novak and Federer last year

Again with this Isner crap? Rare wins over Fed and Djokovic don't count. If he had a backhand that wasn't borderline terrible, he would be closer to the top five.

[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

Fed's backhand is gorgeous. it always has been. even in his match against aggassi as a teen (fed as a teen, not aggassi) people were commenting on how strong he was from the backhand. it's not just power, he has incredible variety from that wing. i can't think of a current american player that has a comparable backhand. can you name 2 please?

Fed's backhand is average, and is his weakness..

[Doubles]

Originally Posted by kidbourbon

Fed's backhand is average, and is his weakness..

Yeah if he had a better bh he would have 20+ slams

[always_crosscourt]

Originally Posted by Doubles

Again with this Isner crap? Rare wins over Fed and Djokovic don't count. If he had a backhand that wasn't borderline terrible, he would be closer to the top five.

He's being to Isner what *** is to Nadal.

[heninfan99]

I don't think it's an American thing...for once. I think it just so happens we had a few guys with weaker backhands and maybe not great technique. But Fish, DY, Querrey all have backhands that seem very good to me(as JRoger posted above).

And Sampras' backhand was a bit underrated.

I think it's just what they are naturally comfortable with too. Kei was trianed in the US and his two-hander is stellar.

[Clay lover]

I think some of you guys expect too much of a two handed backhand, maybe because Djokovic and Murray has set the bar so high.

I think people on this board have gone way too elitist because they have been spoiled by the big four, and by the media which glorifies success and nitpicks the slightest flaws.

I laugh so hard when people say Fed's or Nadal's backhand is bad, seriously.

[JMR]

Connors had possibly the best backhand of the open era. At the very least, he's in a select group with just a few other players. It was Jimbo's backhand that enabled him to continue to rally effectively against players half his age.

The best two-handers come from players who habitually put a lot of shoulder and torso rotation into the shot (Connors, Djokovic). Too many players, including some of the Americans mentioned in this thread, rely on wristy, arm-oriented strokes that make it very easy to set up for a forehand on the next shot. If you're a savant, you can pull off a backhand stroke like that (Borg). If you're not, you'll produce a Courier/Roddick backhand. Note that when Connors was coaching Roddick, Andy's backhand improved because he paid more attention to footwork and body position. He also developed a decent slice. But by then it was too late to acquire a backhand that was a genuine strength; Roddick's goal was just to prevent it from being too great a liability.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by SLD76

canadian is not "nearly american"

He meant "North American"...

[dominikk1985]

A good FH and serve are great. the americans should try to keep that strength. fed also does those shots kinda well.

however on top of that they need to improve athleticsm, BH and movement.

the big FH is an important part of modern tennis but just ripping 130 mp serves and 100 mph FHs with nothing to back that up is not going to get the job done on today's courts.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by kidbourbon

Fed's backhand is average, and is his weakness..

It's not average. His BH has always been pretty good. Of course age probably has something to do with it getting slightly worse. In his prime people said his BH was his weakness because going to his FH was a death wish. It is only truly exposed by Nadal's topspin, and the high bouncing courts of today. Put Federer on the court in Cincy or the WTF and his BH's fine.