So Federer's backhand is better than Wawrinkas too?LOL at the thread...It's 20 slams vs 0.. / Thread..
If you'd watched either of them play live, there is NO contest. Fed's BH is vastly superior. And yes, Fed's BH is superior to Stan's, you must be joking. Just during the USO, the question was asked, "who has the greatest one handed BH in history?" to Lendl, Mac, Becker and Wilander. All said with no hesitation, "Roger Federer."LOL at the thread...It's 20 slams vs 0.. / Thread..
Stan is a joke compared to Fed's BH. ZERO variety! He has a great topspin BH when he's in Stanimal mode, which is once every three years.So Federer's backhand is better than Wawrinkas too?
So Federer's backhand is better than Wawrinkas too?
Fed better server tham Karlovic confirmedLOL at the thread...It's 20 slams vs 0.. / Thread..
So Federer's backhand is better than Wawrinkas too?
Yes, absolutely. Wawrinka's bh is an excellent "gruelling rally" shot. But it is also limited; almost weak in the forecourt and a below average return-shot. The only weakness of Federer's bh is the inconsistency, which sometimes occurs. The variety is pretty extreme. His all over game is more advanced than Stan's and Thiem's.
If the question was: Who has the best backhand from two metres behind the baseline, I would say:
Wawrinka
Thiem
Federer
Thiem and Gasquet hit harder than Wawrinka. Stan's backhand is a more consistent, aggressive weapon. It's essentially his 2nd forehand. He can rip it when he wants, but even otherwise it's a solid, accurate shot that doesn't break down on defense as much as Fed's does. Now his slice is nowhere near Federer's, but his regular backhand is GOAT 1-hander IMO.People only think Wawrinka's is good because he can hit it hard. He usually does not hit it well when it is out of his strike zone. People who think Theim's backhand is better did not watch fed in 2005-2010. However Thiems is better against Nadal on clay.
If the question was: Who has the best backhand from two metres behind the baseline, I would say:
Wawrinka
Thiem
Federer
Using this logic, Nadal has a better serve than Isner.LOL at the thread...It's 20 slams vs 0.. / Thread..
Thiem can handle the high bounce, Fed can't. Huge difference, but Fed also has his slice backhand. I would say they are comparable... But Fed's looks better.
Whether by his silly jump or stepping back, he simply deals with it better.By handle, do you mean retreat 4m behind the baseline and blaze away .. or step in and drive the half volley?
If you'd watched either of them play live, there is NO contest. Fed's BH is vastly superior. And yes, Fed's BH is superior to Stan's, you must be joking. Just during the USO, the question was asked, "who has the greatest one handed BH in history?" to Lendl, Mac, Becker and Wilander. All said with no hesitation, "Roger Federer."
Stan has no slice BH and no BH return of serve. Velocity isn't the biggest factor in a BH, variety is.
True. Paire would have a great chance to win "the best FH poll" but he doesn't have any fans unfortunately...These polls are usually responded by fanboys. Fed had decent chance of winning even if question was about the greatest two-handed backhand too.
@Red RickTrue. Paire would have a great chance to win "the best FH poll" but he doesn't have any fans unfortunately...
Great analysis, but liability on clay only against the Nadal because nobody else could brake Fed's one hander like that.@Red Rick
As for what I think re: Fed v Thiem v Wawrinka...
Assuming:
Fed Pros:
- Achievements are not considered: because Fed's 20 slams are a result of more than one or two factors. So no, Federer's BH didn't win him 20 slams on its own. Stop with that nonsense.
- Only topspin / rally backhands are considered, as slices are not included.
Fraud Cons:
- Takes the ball earlier
- Consistent considering how early he hits the ball
- Redirects well
- Angles
- Hits well on the run
- Good on grass and lower bouncing hards
- Handles big serves well
Thiem Pros:
- Particularly weak to heavy topspin balls {laughs in Claydal}
- Therefore a liability on clay
- Loses a lot of power once forced to hit deep behind the baseline
- Can still break down inexplicably
Thiem Cons:
- Immense spin and power from any part of the court
- Hits well on the run
- Handles heavy topspin balls well
- Consistent for how much risk is being taken
- Good on high bouncing hards and clay
- Handles big and slow serves equally as well (but not as well as Fed does against big serves)
Wawrinka Pros:
- Error prone, partly caused by Thiem's tennis IQ
- Not as good as Federer's when hit on the rise
- Therefore can be a liability on grass (not a huge liability)
- Not that good at angles
- Not that good at redirecting
Wawrinka Cons:
- Immense spin and power that does not require too much risk
- Fantastic placement and depth
- Handles heavy topspin balls well (although Wawrinka considers it a liability against Nadal)
- Angles
- Redirects well
Looks like Thiem's backhand sits somewhere inbetween the Fed and Wawrinka backhands. Fed's best at fast and slick surfaces, while Wawrinka's is best at slow surfaces. If Thiem can just thinker a few things here and there ((especially the risk / point construction part), he has the opportunity to make his backhand better than either player especially since they are both quite old now.
- The weakest out of the three when forced to hit on the rise
- Therefore weak on grass
- Cannot be used to drive returns consistently
- Limited court coverage
On clay pretty much everyone goes to Federer's backhand and usually it's a profitable venture. It's just nearly as profitable as Nadal's FH, but that's because Nadal's FH is Fed's BH's kryptonite on clay.Great analysis, but liability on clay only against the Nadal because nobody else could brake Fed's one hander like that.
Thiem's backhand has more raw power than Wawrinka. I love when he hits backhand winners that are closer to the center of the court than down the line but they go a zillion miles per hower so watchu gon do about it.On clay pretty much everyone goes to Federer's backhand and usually it's a profitable venture. It's just nearly as profitable as Nadal's FH, but that's because Nadal's FH is Fed's BH's kryptonite on clay.
Meanwhile, Wawrinka and Thiem's BHs are less consistently fragile against Nadal's backhand, but they lose nonetheless (usually) because of other factors.
I don't know if it's just me imagining things, but the reason why I'm hesitant to agree is that Thiem plainly looks like he's hitting as hard as he can, whereas Wawrinka even on his biggest BHs seem to be dialing it back just a little. But it does seem like Thiem hits his backhands harder, although I don't have the stats (not that they'd help even if I did have them).Thiem's backhand has more raw power than Wawrinka. I love when he hits backhand winners that are closer to the center of the court than down the line but they go a zillion miles per hower so watchu gon do about it.
Thiem's also the only one I've seen basically do the Djokovic slide with a one handed backhand on a passing shot.
Pretty much, I think Gasquet actually has better kinetics for max power.I don't know if it's just me imagining things, but the reason why I'm hesitant to agree is that Thiem plainly looks like he's hitting as hard as he can, whereas Wawrinka even on his biggest BHs seem to be dialing it back just a little. But it does seem like Thiem hits his backhands harder, although I don't have the stats (not that they'd help even if I did have them).
For raw power, theoretical or actual, Gasquet should be right up there as well.
True, everyone goes to Fed's backhand on clay, but they weren't successful against 2005-2012 Fed who was stopped, with few exceptions, only by Nadal.In fact everyone goes to Fed's backhand on every surface, but mainly Djokovic has had success, especially in recent years and more so on high bouncing hardcourts.On clay pretty much everyone goes to Federer's backhand and usually it's a profitable venture. It's just nearly as profitable as Nadal's FH, but that's because Nadal's FH is Fed's BH's kryptonite on clay.
Meanwhile, Wawrinka and Thiem's BHs are less consistently fragile against Nadal's backhand, but they lose nonetheless (usually) because of other factors.
I recall seeing one graphics on spin rate for all top 100 playaers on both FH and BH sides. No one was even closer to Gasquet on Back Hand side. He leads on every one else easily in terms of spin. Both one handed and two-handed.Pretty much, I think Gasquet actually has better kinetics for max power.
Thiem is frustrating cause he doesn't use the backhand well at all in general cross court rallies.
There's quite a few reasons to explain your observations, but if we split your observations into two parts:True, everyone goes to Fed's backhand on clay, but they weren't successful against 2005-2012 Fed who was stopped, with few exceptions, only by Nadal.In fact everyone goes to Fed's backhand on every surface, but mainly Djokovic has had success, especially in recent years and more so on high bouncing hardcourts.
It’s not the same as the Federer-Nadal rivalry of old where there was little Federer could reasonably do if Nadal was on song, other than to hope for a favourable surface / conditions.
What the does that mean? You shouldn't have to "hope" grass is faster/lower-bouncing than clay, or something.
Fed's problem in the 2008-2014 was more mental than anything else.That Wimbledon 2008 final was critical from that point of view imo and I believe that if Rafa had lost that one, their rivalry following that would have been different.Rafa was so much into Fed's had than even in the 2010 World Tour Finals Roger needed 3 sets to win, conditions that favor him.Something like how is Djokovic into Rafa's head now.I meant that back during the peak of their rivalry, when Rafa was actually good enough to meet Fed off clay regularly, Fed would have to “hope” that they’d meet on a surface that was suited for him, as Rafa’s level was more or less a constant, meaning that unless something mitigated Rafa’s game, Rafa would win by default. Earlier on in their rivalry that rarely happened as Rafa just wasn’t good enough off clay to get to Fed.
So later on, say 2008-2014, it was a matter of whether, say, the grass was slower that year, or whether the conditions were hot and humid, etc. Not a slight at Federer or anything, but back when they were meeting at the business end of all the major events, Federer often needed an extra factor in his favour otherwise it became a rather predictable affair. He just didn’t have a plan that worked consistently to take Rafa out.
Of course now that they’ve both gotten old, the dynamic is quite different, but that’s another story.
if we talk just about slice then Fed is in his league of his own. No one even comes close. But I wonder who would be second?If you take the slice out of the equation, I'd give it to Thiem. He has far more security on that shot.
If slice is in, then it's very difficult to beat the variety that Federer has on this side.