Analysis of 1HBH -- Fed vs. Stan

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
I studied a couple of slow-mo HD videos of Stan and Fed hitting topspin backhands. I found that, although both are hitting one-handed backhands, almost everything else about the two shots is different.

I tried to illustrate with quick sketches the differences between the two guys, and possibly why Stan's topspin backhand is more effective against the tour in general than Federer's.

Sketch one is the contact point. Right away there are big differences. Federer's shoulders are parallel to the side line. Closed. Stan, on the other hand, is already opening up his shoulders considerably. Open. Take a look at the off arms. Federer's arm is pointed down and will eventually swing back behind his body (not pictured), and is therefore moving away from the racquet face. Stan, on the other hand, seems to be guiding the face into the ball with his off hand, thus making use of it in a quasi-2HBH way. Federer's whole body is pointed straight, hips locked in place. Federer's raquet arm is generating most of the power, and aim. Stan is using his hips as a gun turret, and swinging his torso into the open position. He's using his lower body and torso for power and his arm and hand for stability and aim. Finally, both of Stan's feet remain on the ground throughout, while Federer is balancing on his right leg throughout. Federer also leaves his feet at the end of the shot (not pictured).

L5SmYYi.jpg


Sketch two is the follow-through. Stan's shoulders are fully open, parallel with the baseline, while Federer's are still parallel with the sideline. Federer's left foot is off the ground -- he's standing on one leg. Stan's feet are both on the ground, which to my way of thinking means more stability. What am I saying? of course it does. Also, Stan's style allows him to continue looking at the ball and where he aimed it. Federer's style does not. Stan is doing a bit more with his off arm here too. He swings it out to add stability. Note that Federer's whole body remains locked in the same straight pose as at the contact point -- with perhaps a slight arch of the back.


lU6MS7Q.jpg


In sum, Stan is hitting an open-stance shot, while Federer is closed. Stan is using his whole body more, is keeping his feet on the ground, and is watching the ball the whole way through. This may account for the different results, and why Federer's 1HBH can be attacked so consistently. Or it may not. I don't claim to be the final authority on this.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Fed's shot is more closed, more linear, more shoulder-driven.

Stan's shot is more open, more rotational, more core-driven.

Wawrinka's 1HBH is more modern, and closer to 2HBH. Notice how late he lets his left arm off the racket, how long he prefers to guide it.
 

ultradr

Legend
federer's in general somewhat whippy while stan's drives the ball more.

Both of federer's forehand and backhand are quite violent swings and thus
not really recommended for mere mortals like us.
 

President

Legend
OP, you are a great artist. Fantastic pictures. Who do you guys think gets more topspin on their backhand between them? Federer's stroke is very whippy and wristy, seems to get a great deal of spin.
 

David Brent

New User
Great sketches OP. Does the difference not have a lot to do with how close they stand to the baseline and the difference in speed needed to setup both of their strokes?
 

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
Federer rolls over his backhand more than most players. He used to REALLY roll over the ball with that whippy flourish he used to have at the end of his swing. He is capable of flattening it out but with a more linear top-spin swing. Stan hits through the ball quite a bit more than Federer ever does using his core strength rather than arm strength but he is also really good at aiming it due to how well he prepares the racquet.

Both are effective in different ways but Fed's has declined as he's eliminated that flourish in favor of more stability. He can't rely on his movement and athleticism quite like he used to so he's had to eliminate a lot of that extraneous movement just to keep his backhand rally friendly but in it's prime, his backhand was just as creative and deadly a shot as Stan's.

Keep in mind Stan's modern backhand only became as good as it is after building 28 years of core strength to power through the ball while ripping up on it enough to bring it back down into the court. Fed's classical backhand was effective enough to win him titles in his early 20s and remains somewhat as effective some 10 years later. Different strokes for different folks.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
The main thing about Wawarinka's backhand is on fast balls in the knee-to-shoulder strike zone he can hit more like a two hander using his core and barely using any arm movement (from the shoulder joint) in the strike zone part of the stroke. Federer is a different philosophy as he starts his swing (from the shoulder) earlier.

You can see at Monaco how much both of them were nailing their backhands but Wawrinka gets more penetration because he hits with a flatter stroke generally (but still has the variety to up the spin when he goes tight cross-court). Monaco looked like pretty slow conditions and that will be a big part of why Wawrinka was able to shine there compared to IW/M. When he can get set with his feet under him his backhand is almost beyond compare whereas Federer is generally more adept at hitting well when moving (even if people correctly think he shanks when rushed), especially half volley type strokes off approach shots (as he hit a fair few examples of versus Tsonga and Djokovic).

Federer has the better slice backhand by far (defence, offence and approach) - which is somewhat linked to the same reasons as above. He gets the racquet in motion sooner and since he's more *army* absorbs more of the pace of the incoming shot.

The way Wawrinka hits will probably inspire a massive wave of club players who have utterly crap 1hbhs because what he does it not easy at all. Most 1hbh players wont get the nuances of what he does and end up being shank machines.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
OP, you are a great artist. Fantastic pictures. Who do you guys think gets more topspin on their backhand between them? Federer's stroke is very whippy and wristy, seems to get a great deal of spin.

Hey President, you were looking forward to Federer playing on clay with the bigger frame. What do you think? I don't think it helped him that much tbh.He still got overpowered badly. I think in the final set his backhand speed was 63 mph while Wawrinka's was 73 mph. At best, I can see him making QFs at FO.
 

Wynter

Legend
The main thing about Wawarinka's backhand is on fast balls in the knee-to-shoulder strike zone he can hit more like a two hander using his core and barely using any arm movement (from the shoulder joint) in the strike zone part of the stroke. Federer is a different philosophy as he starts his swing (from the shoulder) earlier.

You can see at Monaco how much both of them were nailing their backhands but Wawrinka gets more penetration because he hits with a flatter stroke generally (but still has the variety to up the spin when he goes tight cross-court). Monaco looked like pretty slow conditions and that will be a big part of why Wawrinka was able to shine there compared to IW/M. When he can get set with his feet under him his backhand is almost beyond compare whereas Federer is generally more adept at hitting well when moving (even if people correctly think he shanks when rushed), especially half volley type strokes off approach shots (as he hit a fair few examples of versus Tsonga and Djokovic).

Federer has the better slice backhand by far (defence, offence and approach) - which is somewhat linked to the same reasons as above. He gets the racquet in motion sooner and since he's more *army* absorbs more of the pace of the incoming shot.

The way Wawrinka hits will probably inspire a massive wave of club players who have utterly crap 1hbhs because what he does it not easy at all. Most 1hbh players wont get the nuances of what he does and end up being shank machines.

This.

10chars
 

President

Legend
Hey President, you were looking forward to Federer playing on clay with the bigger frame. What do you think? I don't think it helped him that much tbh.He still got overpowered badly. I think in the final set his backhand speed was 63 mph while Wawrinka's was 73 mph. At best, I can see him making QFs at FO.

Well, it's just one tournament so I don't want to make predictions. Wawrinka is a new man these days and certainly a much better clay court player than Tsonga (who Fed got crushed by at RG last year in straight sets) ever will be. I think his forehand was looking pretty heavy on clay, but yeah he definitely faded against Stan in that third set. Still, he was only a few points away from winning the whole tournament so I don't want to be pessimistic yet.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Well, it's just one tournament so I don't want to make predictions. Wawrinka is a new man these days and certainly a much better clay court player than Tsonga (who Fed got crushed by at RG last year in straight sets) ever will be. I think his forehand was looking pretty heavy on clay, but yeah he definitely faded against Stan. Still, he was only a few points away from winning the whole tournament so I don't want to be pessimistic yet.

I'm going to hesitate a bit on calling Wawrinka a better clay court player than Tsonga will ever be. Wawrinka is much more of natural on the surface, but I don't think Stan played any better than Tsonga did against Federer at the FO last year. They both overpowered him, but Tsonga did it from start to finish.

Yes, more tennis to be played, but I'm not expecting anything big in the clay season.
 
Last edited:

President

Legend
I'm going to hesitate a bit on calling Wawrinka a better clay court player than Tsonga will ever be. Wawrinka is much more of natural on the surface, but I don't think Stan played any better than Tsonga did against Federer at the FO last year. They both overpowered him, but Tsonga did it from start to finish.

Yes, more tennis to be played, but I'm not expecting anything big in the clay season.

Federer last year at the French was playing so weak and short on everything that it made Tsonga look good, IMO. Kind of like the numerous beatdowns of Roddick that occurred over the last few years, when he was pushing the ball at the service line. I thought Federer played a lot better in the MC final than he did in the RG QF last year, he didn't make Stan's job easy like he did for Tsonga. I haven't rewatched either match since they were played though, so my memory could be off.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Federer last year at the French was playing so weak and short on everything that it made Tsonga look good, IMO. Kind of like the numerous beatdowns of Roddick that occurred over the last few years, when he was pushing the ball at the service line. I thought Federer played a lot better in the MC final than he did in the RG QF last year, he didn't make Stan's job easy like he did for Tsonga. I haven't rewatched either match since they were played though, so my memory could be off.

I think you are correct. Federer did play like sh1t at the FO last year. I don't remember the Tsonga match but I just remembered I watched his 5 set win over Simon the round before and actually predicted Tsonga would beat him (although I didnt think it would be that big of beatdown).


Stan played really sick tennis in the 2nd set tiebreaker, He played really good tennis to hold on to that one minibreak he secured early in it. After that, Federer just got destroyed. I don't know if Wawrinka just entered god mode or Federer had an emotional letdown because he tried as hard he could to win the match in 2 and made several clutch netplays to make the tiebreak go down to the wire.

Btw, Federer volleyed beautifully on sunday. Not bad for a guy who has worse technique on them then half the ATP tour according to TT. ;)
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Federer last year at the French was playing so weak and short on everything that it made Tsonga look good, IMO. ..
You're right. Federer was in steady but uninspired mode vs Tsonga at the FO. It can't even be compared to this match.

Federer was the first person in the tournament to break Wawrinka at all and in the first set outplayed him in the key moments too - pushing Wawinka really deep or throwing in a curve-ball play (the fake drop-shot slice forehand Federer hit at about 2-3 is a good example).
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
Btw, Federer volleyed beautifully on sunday. Not bad for a guy who has worse technique on them then half the ATP tour according to TT. ;)

Absolutely true! He was fabulous at the net. I didn't understand why he stopped trying to go forward. Stan was bringing back a lot but he never had the passing quality of e.g. Nadal.
 

dpli2010

Semi-Pro
The main thing about Wawarinka's backhand is on fast balls in the knee-to-shoulder strike zone he can hit more like a two hander using his core and barely using any arm movement (from the shoulder joint) in the strike zone part of the stroke. Federer is a different philosophy as he starts his swing (from the shoulder) earlier.

You can see at Monaco how much both of them were nailing their backhands but Wawrinka gets more penetration because he hits with a flatter stroke generally (but still has the variety to up the spin when he goes tight cross-court). Monaco looked like pretty slow conditions and that will be a big part of why Wawrinka was able to shine there compared to IW/M. When he can get set with his feet under him his backhand is almost beyond compare whereas Federer is generally more adept at hitting well when moving (even if people correctly think he shanks when rushed), especially half volley type strokes off approach shots (as he hit a fair few examples of versus Tsonga and Djokovic).

Federer has the better slice backhand by far (defence, offence and approach) - which is somewhat linked to the same reasons as above. He gets the racquet in motion sooner and since he's more *army* absorbs more of the pace of the incoming shot.

The way Wawrinka hits will probably inspire a massive wave of club players who have utterly crap 1hbhs because what he does it not easy at all. Most 1hbh players wont get the nuances of what he does and end up being shank machines.

That's the key resulting difference between the two, which kills Roger when he meets Rafa, but allows Stan to surpass. Roger's BH can go deep and penetrating but it becomes much less easily/often when he needs to generate his own pace to go deep, and Rafa's returns make this scenario happen over and over...
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
... which kills Roger when he meets Rafa, but allows Stan to surpass. ..

Yes, Stan has certainly "surpassed":

Wawa v. Rafa

1 - 12

Fed v. Rafa

10 - 23

including ending Rafa's clay court streak back in 2007 with a bagel of the greatest clay court player of all time.

Fed's backhand is not only more effective (or at least was more effective during Fed's prime years) but better looking too. Maybe the best looking BH since Rosewall:

http://youtu.be/chF6kwnkemg

Agree the sketches are quite good.
 
Last edited:

dpli2010

Semi-Pro
Yes, Stan has certainly "surpassed":

Wawa v. Rafa

1 - 12

Fed v. Rafa

10 - 23

including ending Rafa's clay court streak back in 2007 with a bagel of the greatest clay court player of all time.

Fed's backhand is not only more effective (or at least was more effective during Fed's prime years) but better looking too. Maybe the best looking BH since Rosewall:

http://youtu.be/chF6kwnkemg

Agree the sketches are quite good.

Just wanted to make sure we are talking about now...
 

booson

Professional
Yes, Stan has certainly "surpassed":

Wawa v. Rafa

1 - 12

Fed v. Rafa

10 - 23

including ending Rafa's clay court streak back in 2007 with a bagel of the greatest clay court player of all time.

Fed's backhand is not only more effective (or at least was more effective during Fed's prime years) but better looking too. Maybe the best looking BH since Rosewall:

http://youtu.be/chF6kwnkemg

Agree the sketches are quite good.
When will people understand that players change and from H2H, you can only have significative data from just 1 year or so. They love numbers so much that they ignore that not all numbers are equally important.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
Some very nice sketches op!

However, unlike a lot of people, I'm not jumping on the Stan is GOAT bandwagon. I think Wawrinka has a great backhand, but so does Roger. Wawrinka's backhand is perhaps a bit more reliable and his flatter/deeper into the court. It's great WHEN it works, but when it doesn't, it works against him, like in IW/Miami. Federer's backhand is perhaps a bit more loopy, but he gets much better angles off of it (to setup a forehand) and is overall a much better shotmaker on the backhand wing than Wawrinka in my opinion. People compare current Fed vs current Wawrinka which represents a 5 year difference in terms of age which isn't fair to Federer. In his prime, Federer was hitting both his backhand and forehand harder than now, so to say Wawrinka is that much more powerful is wrong in my opinion.
 

marc45

G.O.A.T.
I studied a couple of slow-mo HD videos of Stan and Fed hitting topspin backhands. I found that, although both are hitting one-handed backhands, almost everything else about the two shots is different.

I tried to illustrate with quick sketches the differences between the two guys, and possibly why Stan's topspin backhand is more effective against the tour in general than Federer's.

Sketch one is the contact point. Right away there are big differences. Federer's shoulders are parallel to the side line. Closed. Stan, on the other hand, is already opening up his shoulders considerably. Open. Take a look at the off arms. Federer's arm is pointed down and will eventually swing back behind his body (not pictured), and is therefore moving away from the racquet face. Stan, on the other hand, seems to be guiding the face into the ball with his off hand, thus making use of it in a quasi-2HBH way. Federer's whole body is pointed straight, hips locked in place. Federer's raquet arm is generating most of the power, and aim. Stan is using his hips as a gun turret, and swinging his torso into the open position. He's using his lower body and torso for power and his arm and hand for stability and aim. Finally, both of Stan's feet remain on the ground throughout, while Federer is balancing on his right leg throughout. Federer also leaves his feet at the end of the shot (not pictured).

L5SmYYi.jpg


Sketch two is the follow-through. Stan's shoulders are fully open, parallel with the baseline, while Federer's are still parallel with the sideline. Federer's left foot is off the ground -- he's standing on one leg. Stan's feet are both on the ground, which to my way of thinking means more stability. What am I saying? of course it does. Also, Stan's style allows him to continue looking at the ball and where he aimed it. Federer's style does not. Stan is doing a bit more with his off arm here too. He swings it out to add stability. Note that Federer's whole body remains locked in the same straight pose as at the contact point -- with perhaps a slight arch of the back.


lU6MS7Q.jpg


In sum, Stan is hitting an open-stance shot, while Federer is closed. Stan is using his whole body more, is keeping his feet on the ground, and is watching the ball the whole way through. This may account for the different results, and why Federer's 1HBH can be attacked so consistently. Or it may not. I don't claim to be the final authority on this.

those are great...sorry for being a non-techie but how exactly do you do that on the computer?...what program or techniques can you share for a beginner?
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
those are great...sorry for being a non-techie but how exactly do you do that on the computer?...what program or techniques can you share for a beginner?

It's simpler than it looks I guess. It's just two sheets of everyday cheap paper, pencils and inks using 2 or 3 felt pens of differing size. Pitt pens are good ones to use. Because these are just sketches, there's no need to use expensive paper. Then, I scanned them, and manipulated the black/white levels to make sure the ink was 100% black and everything else was white. You can do that in GIMP or Photoshop. Scanners are also good enough that you can scan your pencils and darken them afterwards with software, eg. http://fav.me/d738wfs

As far as how to draw them, I was just looking at frames from youtube clips. That takes practice obviously. If you're a beginner, you could grab a photo and GIMP can impose a grid over it. You can draw the same grid on the paper and use it to make sure the proportions are correct.

It's really important to constantly draw though. You won't get good at it unless you draw stuff all the time.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
When will people understand that players change and from H2H, you can only have significative data from just 1 year or so. They love numbers so much that they ignore that not all numbers are equally important.

True. In fact, my BH is now better than Donald Budge's and by a significant degree. I pulled the data from the last year.
 
Last edited:

marc45

G.O.A.T.
It's simpler than it looks I guess. It's just two sheets of everyday cheap paper, pencils and inks using 2 or 3 felt pens of differing size. Pitt pens are good ones to use. Because these are just sketches, there's no need to use expensive paper. Then, I scanned them, and manipulated the black/white levels to make sure the ink was 100% black and everything else was white. You can do that in GIMP or Photoshop. Scanners are also good enough that you can scan your pencils and darken them afterwards with software, eg. http://fav.me/d738wfs

As far as how to draw them, I was just looking at frames from youtube clips. That takes practice obviously. If you're a beginner, you could grab a photo and GIMP can impose a grid over it. You can draw the same grid on the paper and use it to make sure the proportions are correct.

It's really important to constantly draw though. You won't get good at it unless you draw stuff all the time.

thanks...yeah, I'm sure way beyond me, simply because of lack of talent but was interested in the process....good job, something new here
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
However, unlike a lot of people, I'm not jumping on the Stan is GOAT bandwagon. I think Wawrinka has a great backhand, but so does Roger. Wawrinka's backhand is perhaps a bit more reliable and his flatter/deeper into the court. It's great WHEN it works, but when it doesn't, it works against him, like in IW/Miami. Federer's backhand is perhaps a bit more loopy, but he gets much better angles off of it
I agree for the most part. Wawrinka has gone down in flames many times hitting terribly. Federer, even at his worst, has been far more able to hide any backhand shortcomings against the whole tour aside from Nadal.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Thank you. I have some more tennis art on
These pics are effectively traced photos right? Not raining on your skills but there are plug-ins that do much of the conversion from photo to line drawing. Do you use them or simply do line tracing?
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
These pics are effectively traced photos right? Not raining on your skills but there are plug-ins that do much of the conversion from photo to line drawing. Do you use them or simply do line tracing?

Neither. I didn't trace anything or use any plugins. I just found some photos I liked and drew them.
 

droliver

Professional
The biggest things I see with Stan's backhand right now is that's he's hitting with tremendous depth consistently. Even when he's not hitting winners, that placement is making it hard for the opponent to do much from the backcourt and setting him up well on the forehand to put things away.

You also notice that he's been hitting such a strong ball that's corkscrewing out wide in the ad court, almost like a lefty serve. He's pushing players so far back in that corner that the DTL forehand winner is just sitting there for him. I'm not sure I've seen a 1HBH be able to hit that kind of shot over and over before. It's almost the reverse of the Nadal FH to the corner play.
 
Top