Golden Retriever
Hall of Fame
Is this something historical if everyone in the top 10 has a 2HBH?
Federer is the last one standing in the top 10 with a 1HBH.
- Thread starter Golden Retriever
- Start date
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
that seems to be the trend, but a certain grigor dimitrov comes to mind, and it makes me feel better about the future of the one handed backhand.
P_Agony
Banned
I really hope you're right. I don't want this shot to go away, it's too pretty.
the damn frustrating thing about it is that one of the most solid backhands in the men's game is a 1h bh (gasquet) which proves pretty definitively that it's not the 1 or 2 hands, but the player which makes the backhand lethal. thankfully for 2hbh proponents, he's a nutcase and will probably never get himself together enough to be a consistent top 10 contender.
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
yeh, like many, i idolize gasquet's backhand, but i cannot stand to watch him use it defensively, which pretty much happens every match at some point - having to muscle shots 10 feet behind the baseline.
SaintClaires
Banned
In the top 50 there are 15 players with one-handed backhands right now.
Would you consider that a lot?
Would you consider that a lot?
I remember the days where they said to be a top Male player a two handed backhand was considered a limiting liability. Now it is the exact opposite and I have read articles about how at the elite level the men need a two hander. The only constant is change.
betovanbuuren
Rookie
Agree, Also Haas had a great 1HBH
oneguy21
Banned
His backhands is better than Roddick's or Monfils' imo.
SaintClaires
Banned
Monfils has the worst backhand in the top 10.
stormholloway
Legend
What are you talking about?
Wawrinka's got the best modern 1 hander - plenty of spin
DunlopDood
Semi-Pro
with the way Federer dominated the game the last couple of years, I think we will see a lot of kids within the next 5-10 years with one handers.
My opinion on why there are more two handers in the game is that kids looking to become professional players are very results oriented now a days. 1hbh take longer to develop than 2hbh and not only the stroke itself but a person has to develop the physical strength to make this an offensive weapon. I don't think that kids have the patience to develop it today. It's a bit of a shame because players no tour are starting to look like clones of one another in terms of their play.
My opinion on why there are more two handers in the game is that kids looking to become professional players are very results oriented now a days. 1hbh take longer to develop than 2hbh and not only the stroke itself but a person has to develop the physical strength to make this an offensive weapon. I don't think that kids have the patience to develop it today. It's a bit of a shame because players no tour are starting to look like clones of one another in terms of their play.
That's just sour grapes, perhaps just admit the two hander is better for the way elite level men's tennis is played now.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
The serve often kicks up higher and has a tremendous amount of spin and pace that makes it hard for one handers to handle.
But as mentioned, pros like Wawrinka and Gasquet have plenty good backhands and they both use 1 handers. It's hard to learn the 1hbh, but the rewards in variety are often worth it.
It's all just progression. We're in a phase right now, but I don't see the 1HBH becoming completely obsolete any time soon.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
hard to argue with.
the other drawbacks of a 1-hander (and i hit one) are preparation and recovery time.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
My coach tells me the two hander is much easier to learn. Pros are so competitive & pressured from an early age they go with the two hander as they want fast results.
Feds return of serve is equal to Agassi's. He does very well against huge servers.
Feds return of serve is equal to Agassi's. He does very well against huge servers.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I think all the 2HBH players that have lost to Federer on the pro tour would disagree.
Are you for serious? did you ever see andre play...like ever? IMO federer has THE most overrated return of anyone i can think of ever. I think the reason why everyone creams over it is because he manhandles roddick everytime they play.
roger just blocks returns back, whether it's going 88 mph or 145mph. When i saw roger play IW a couple weeks back in the semis vs. murray there was really only one return that i felt he "went" for on the return, and he hit a down the line forehand ripper from the ad court (stepped around the shot, the whole 9 yards). that was basically the only aggressive return that i can recall seeing. oh and by the by, it was a murray second serve at something like 80ish mph with no spin that murray had mishit.
the reason why that's so effective vs. roddick is because he can't back up the big serve by annihilating a blocked return either from the ground or by serving and volleying. the guys that consistently beat roger, nadal and djokovic can simply hit the hell out of the ball and punish roger for a weak reply. Murray plays cat and mouse and finds some new angle off of roger's weak reply which basically takes him off the court after which murray can move him around and/or finish the point.
Last edited:
Golden Retriever
Hall of Fame
Federer is playing like Moya now standing at the left corner looking to hit only forehands.
with the way his forehand has been looking of late i certainly hope not...
swedechris
Banned
He is a great great talent. i really hope he will make it. love this kind of players.. edberg, pete,federer .. the occasional rare talents with all the fluid shots and movement.
Everything is not about Fed. He is one guy who can pull it off. One of the two pros I quoted was John Isner. The other one was a former WTA player who I cannot recall. Interestingly, they didn't discuss reach, topspin, high ball groundies etc. It was just about the return of serve. My interpretation is that the fraction more time it takes to cross over the shoulder for a 1 handed backhand return of serve is the real issue. The open stance 2 hander keeps the returner in the right position all the time to catch the ball.
Fed is one guy, who happens to be one the of the greatest players if not the greatest ever. I'm not going to use him as an example of one handed backhands coming back into vogue.
N
nikdom
Guest
I have a simple theory and I could be totally wrong, but I think this is what explains the efficacy of the 2HBH vs 1HBH in today's game.
What a 1HBH gives a player is slightly greater reach. In fact that's the only option for a good slice or a defensive get when the ball is way off the court. The 2HBH trades that extra reach for power, stability and what I would call "vertical reach", i.e ability to handle higher bounces better*. The only prerequisite is that a player has to be in position to take the ball closer to his/her body.
With this in mind, I think the slowing of all surfaces and the increased athleticism of players has had a pretty drastic effect on the efficacy of the 2HBH shot. The ball doesn't skid through the court as much, bouncing higher in the process and athletic players like Nadal and Murray are able to make gets which were the exception a generation ago.
All this said, the one-hander will continue to be around, although in much less numbers. As for 1HBH top ten players, I bet the proportion will stay the same as for all the players in the ATP.
* In the case of the high backhand, swinging a single arm from back to front while keeping it raised involves smaller muscles like the deltoids. Adding another hand to the equation improves the situation drastically because now stronger muscles like the biceps brachii are helping. The other issue is wrist cocking to keep the ball down. Its far easier to turn a wrist towards the inside of the hand than outside.
What a 1HBH gives a player is slightly greater reach. In fact that's the only option for a good slice or a defensive get when the ball is way off the court. The 2HBH trades that extra reach for power, stability and what I would call "vertical reach", i.e ability to handle higher bounces better*. The only prerequisite is that a player has to be in position to take the ball closer to his/her body.
With this in mind, I think the slowing of all surfaces and the increased athleticism of players has had a pretty drastic effect on the efficacy of the 2HBH shot. The ball doesn't skid through the court as much, bouncing higher in the process and athletic players like Nadal and Murray are able to make gets which were the exception a generation ago.
All this said, the one-hander will continue to be around, although in much less numbers. As for 1HBH top ten players, I bet the proportion will stay the same as for all the players in the ATP.
* In the case of the high backhand, swinging a single arm from back to front while keeping it raised involves smaller muscles like the deltoids. Adding another hand to the equation improves the situation drastically because now stronger muscles like the biceps brachii are helping. The other issue is wrist cocking to keep the ball down. Its far easier to turn a wrist towards the inside of the hand than outside.
I know Edberg was awesome at the high one hander, maybe Guga too? Who actually Preferred it up high? We are talking some seriously skilled players who can pull of the high backhand at the highest levels and even they were better at the lower backhand.
gflyer
Professional
I don't think there is a better/worse BH.
I think there are better/worse players
The fact is that young kids pick up easier a 2HBH and therefore right now it's more popular.
Think about the women tour.
There are maybe 5-6 1HBH players in the first 100, and still if Justine didn't retire she still would be the undiscussed #1.
what is your conclusion?
Last edited:
There is a well-known tennis coach who posts in the Tips area and he has debunked this myth. The 2HBH is being preferred these days for a good number of reasons, not just strength limitations of youngsters.
The problem with a thread like this is that we tend to interject any level of tennis we want or our own biases. My responses were strictly based on the men's pro tour where I see the two hander's taking over right now.
gflyer
Professional
whatever is the reason do you agree that most of the players out there use a 2HBH?
About my point on justine henin? You didn't reply to that...
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Hmmm....did it ever cross your mind that perhaps having a one-handed backhand is one of the things that makes him one of the greatest players ever?
The other two players that most people mention as being the greatest ever are Laver and Sampras. Guess what? They also had 1HBH's, just like Federer. Not exactly a coincidence, is it?
gflyer
Professional
btw, it looks to me that Federer has been #1 for quite a while until great Rafa came and took his place. Where were all the other 2HBH players at that time?
You are gonna tell me that 2HBH became better in the last 9/12 months?
Again, I think there are better or worse players, not better or worse BH. IMO
You are gonna tell me that 2HBH became better in the last 9/12 months?
Again, I think there are better or worse players, not better or worse BH. IMO
In Laver's time, most players were 1 handers. It doesn't count.
Sampras was inspired by Laver, and Federer by Sampras. Sampras was also forced by his coach to switch. So it is more a tradition/coaching issue than talent. Federer even used the same frame as Sampras did, before switching to a bigger one.
Now the players who consistently beat Federer are all 2 handers. While 1 handers like Blake, Wawrinka and Haas give him no trouble at all.
I'm talking about the mens game now. Not a greatest players ever type thing.
gflyer
Professional
And now most players are 2 handers.
Can you reverse the concept???
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers? He plays more opponents that have 2-handers so of course he's going to lose more to opponents with 2-handers. It's common sense. He has also lost to one-handers in the past like Blake, Gasquet, Haas, Karlovic, etc.
BTW, don't Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt, Fish, Safin, etc. have two-handers?
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers? He plays more opponents that have 2-handers so of course he's going to lose more to opponents with 2-handers. It's common sense. He has also lost to one-handers in the past like Blake, Gasquet, Haas, Karlovic, etc.
BTW, don't Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt, Fish, Safin, etc. have two-handers?
Federer loses to players with good 2 handers like Murray, Nadal, Djoker and Nalbandian in backhand ralleys a good 2 hander will always beat a good 1 hander.
Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers? He plays more opponents that have 2-handers so of course he's going to lose more to opponents with 2-handers. It's common sense. He has also lost to one-handers in the past like Blake, Gasquet, Haas, Karlovic, etc.
BTW, don't Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt, Fish, Safin, etc. have two-handers?
He's going to lose to opponents who are able to exploit his weakness and the players that are able to do so right now have two handed backhands that they can bludgeon him with.
The guys on the pro tour with the two handers seem to make much less errors off that wing than the one handers do.
Yes if you take a high level two hander like Djoker and rally him against a high level one hander like Blake, the one hander will make more mistakes. These two handers just grind out the topspin all day
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
i wouldnt call blake a high level one hander, his rank is a result more of the fh than the backhand. and yeah, in a straight rally the 2hbh may be more consistent. but the two players mentioned most here, Wawrinka and Gasquet, don't tend to hit rally shots with their backhands, rather they tend to go for winners. Wawrinka with his 1hbh definitely stayed with Djokovic in....was it Rome? last year, the clay final. djokovic came out, because he's got more weapons over all. but Wawrinka's backhand was definitely not letting him down.
Blake crushes off the BH but like most of the one handed backhands I see on the tour it;s not as consistent as the two handers around his same ranking.
Both of you are saying the same thing. No, the argument cannot be reversed. Today, players can see what has happened in the past, when there were both 1 handers and 2 handers, and yet they go with the 2 hander. It was different when only 1 handers were available for study. Today's upcoming pros could have looked at Sampras, Edberg, Laver, Navratilova, Graf and chosen to go that way, but instead they went the direction of Borg, Courier, Agassi, or Evert. It is like most people today buy cars with automatic transmissions even though manual transmissions are available.
Similar threads
