Best Topspin backhand and/or offensive backhand

[pc1]

There is a thread for best sliced backhand so I felt it would be appropriate to have a thread for the best topspin backhand. However we should break it up into several categories…one should be the best one handed topspin backhand with a wooden racquet. However since wooden racquets were smaller and heavier it might also be appropriate to think of the best offensive backhands with wood. The other category could be the best two handed offensive topspin backhands with wood racquets. Then we come to the modern era with superior racquet tech. What are the best one-handed and two-handed topspin backhands?

Please discuss.

 

[pc1]

I will name a few great one handed topspin backhands of the past. They would be Budge, Trabert (very underrated and forgotten), Laver, Tilden, Ashe, Vilas, Kovacs, Don McNeill, Hoad.

 

[NatF]

Modern day would be Kuerten, Wawrinka, Federer, Gasquet.

 

[WisconsinPlayer]

Best 2 hander down the line would be novak (atleast in the past)

 

[pc1]

Two handers with wood are Borg, Drysdale, Brown, Bromwich. I believe they all hit with some topspin.

 

[pc1]

Best 2 hander down the line would be novak (atleast in the past)

Yes Djokovic has a great down the line backhand. Agassi also had a great down the line backhand.

 

[pc1]

Modern day would be Kuerten, Wawrinka, Federer, Gasquet.

Is Edberg and Lendl modern day? Nevertheless I'll include them.

 

[NatF]

Is Edberg and Lendl modern day? Nevertheless I'll include them.

I consider modern day people with the new strings.

 

[pc1]

I consider modern day people with the new strings.

Okay.

Hey do I have a modern topspin backhand since I have new strings? LOL.

I have a simple answer, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[NatF]

Okay.

Hey do I have a modern topspin backhand since I have new strings? LOL.

I have a simple answer, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

sure...but I would say the types of balls that guys hit today are objectively far superior to what Edberg and Lendl could produce. Obviously relative to their respective era's Edberg and Lendl would be better than all those guys I mentioned.

 

[KG1965]

Offensive ?

Laver
Lendl
Edberg

Borg
Agassi
Mecir

Djoker
Nadal
?

Wawr
Federer
Guga

 

[pc1]

sure...but I would say the types of balls that guys hit today are objectively far superior to what Edberg and Lendl could produce. Obviously relative to their respective era's Edberg and Lendl would be better than all those guys I mentioned.

The great players of today can do miracles with the ball now. It's truly amazing.

 

[pc1]

Offensive ?

Laver
Lendl
Edberg

Borg
Agassi
Mecir

Djoker
Nadal
?

Wawr
Federer
Guga

I was about to mention Mecir but you beat me to it. What a backhand! I think Connors had even topspin on his backhand to be included also although it was not a lot of topspin. I'll also include Mats Wilander.

 

[ARFED]

Guga`s backhand on clay was something else. The amount of topspin he produced with his wrist movement and his grip was incredible. Heaviest backhand (even more than Lendl) untill Wawa arrived to the scene.

For a 2 hander i will name the 3 obvious choices. Safin for power, Agassi for consistency and Nalbandian for the angles. Murray at his best is probably the best combination of those 3 aspects, closely followed by Djokovic

 

[jersey34tennis]

safin and nalbandian

 

[pc1]

Guga`s backhand on clay was something else. The amount of topspin he produced with his wrist movement and his grip was incredible. Heaviest backhand (even more than Lendl) untill Wawa arrived to the scene.

For a 2 hander i will name the 3 obvious choices. Safin for power, Agassi for consistency and Nalbandian for the angles. Murray at his best is probably the best combination of those 3 aspects, closely followed by Djokovic

Guga was one of my all time favorites. I was amazed how many winners he could hit off the backhand and forehand for that matter when he was on a roll! I was talking to friend of mine who is a well-known tennis writer and he told me that in talking to tennis experts that many of them felt Kuerten was perhaps the one player who could challenge Nadal on red clay even if Nadal was playing well. Part of it was due to his height which was 6'4" I believe but the main part was simply because his backhand was great!

The choices you have for two handers are superb.

 

[KG1965]

I was about to mention Mecir but you beat me to it. What a backhand! I think Connors had even topspin on his backhand to be included also although it was not a lot of topspin. I'll also include Mats Wilander.

Jimbo.. no top spin on backhand.

 

[pc1]

Jimbo.. no top spin on backhand.

A tiny bit. But I'll go with you

 

[ARFED]

Guga was one of my all time favorites. I was amazed how many winners he could hit off the backhand and forehand for that matter when he was on a roll! I was talking to friend of mine who is a well-known tennis writer and he told me that in talking to tennis experts that many of them felt Kuerten was perhaps the one player who could challenge Nadal on red clay even if Nadal was playing well. Part of it was due to his height which was 6'4" I believe but the main part was simply because his backhand was great!

The choices you have for two handers are superb.

The advantage of Guga in a potential match up with Nadal is that the brazilian could stay several feet behind the baseline and still produce deep, heavy shots off both wings, thus (in a sense) nullifying Nadal`s high bouncing forehand. Furthermore, if Nadal opens up the courts with an angled cc forehand to Guga`s bh (like he often did against Fed), Kuerten can respond with an even more angled cc bh (he had the best cc one handed backhand that i have ever seen). Add to that mix a great serve, which would trouble Nadal a lot and you have a clay battle for the ages. probably Nadal due to relentless pressure and stamina will come up on top, but peak for peak Rafa would have to exert himself to the limit to beat Guga.

I see Guga as a mix of the best aspects of Wawrinka and Gasquet, with better consistency and mentality than both.

 

[pc1]

The advantage of Guga in a potential match up with Nadal is that the brazilian could stay several feet behind the baseline and still produce deep, heavy shots off both wings, thus (in a sense) nullifying Nadal`s high bouncing forehand. Furthermore, if Nadal opens up the courts with an angled cc forehand to Guga`s bh (like he often did against Fed), Kuerten can respond with an even more angled cc bh (he had the best cc one handed backhand that i have ever seen). Add to that mix a great serve, which would trouble Nadal a lot and you have a clay battle for the ages. probably Nadal due to relentless pressure and stamina will come up on top, but peak for peak Rafa would have to exert himself to the limit to beat Guga.

I see Guga as a mix of the best aspects of Wawrinka and Gasquet, with better consistency and mentality than both.

Before Guga's injury many felt he was going to evolve as a player and reach an even higher level. I loved watching him play and I really enjoyed his personality. He had a great serve and I wonder what would have happened if he was healthy. When he survived that match point against Russell I knew he would going to come back and crush him. So fun to watch.

 

[pc1]

Jimbo.. no top spin on backhand.

Forgot to mention that Jimmy's backhand was an aggressive offensive attacking backhand so you can include him despite little to no topspin. Very few backhands were as aggressive as Connors.

 

[Limpinhitter]

1hb - Laver
2hb - Agassi

 

[Purplemonster]

Before Guga's injury many felt he was going to evolve as a player and reach an even higher level. I loved watching him play and I really enjoyed his personality. He had a great serve and I wonder what would have happened if he was healthy. When he survived that match point against Russell I knew he would going to come back and crush him. So fun to watch.

An absolute joy to watch. Had a unique style, arms and legs all over the place, one of the greatest backhands of all time. Great player with an equally great personality, very sincere and natural, extremely humble, nothing fake about him.

 

[pc1]

An absolute joy to watch. Had a unique style, arms and legs all over the place, one of the greatest backhands of all time. Great player with an equally great personality, very sincere and natural, extremely humble, nothing fake about him.

Great description of Kuerten. Right on the mark.

 

[Waspsting]

Why the emphasis on top spin?

An attacking shot is an attacking shot - be it loopy or flat. So of course, throw Connors in! Nobody would disregard a top attacking forehand on the grounds of it having too much or too little top spin.

Didn't see much of Connors, but I'd say any leftie baseliner who won as much as he did with his backhand being the dominant wing, probably has to have the strongest backhand ever.

--

I think of a "good" backhand as a solid backhand. A shot that doesn't breakdown and simultaneously, keeps the pressure on the other guy. Nobody has a backhand that is a consistent point-ender.

The best I've seen is Djokovic.

----

Has anybody here ever seen anyone run around their forehand to hit a backhand?

Or somebody play inside-out backhands consistently?

 

[pc1]

Why the emphasis on top spin?

An attacking shot is an attacking shot - be it loopy or flat. So of course, throw Connors in! Nobody would disregard a top attacking forehand on the grounds of it having too much or too little top spin.

Didn't see much of Connors, but I'd say any leftie baseliner who won as much as he did with his backhand being the dominant wing, probably has to have the strongest backhand ever.

--

I think of a "good" backhand as a solid backhand. A shot that doesn't breakdown and simultaneously, keeps the pressure on the other guy. Nobody has a backhand that is a consistent point-ender.

The best I've seen is Djokovic.

----

Has anybody here ever seen anyone run around their forehand to hit a backhand?

Or somebody play inside-out backhands consistently?

Doesn't have to be a topspin backhand. It can be just a forceful attacking backhand.

 

[Waspsting]

Under the heading "good" backhand, it might be helpful to differentiate into categories -

a) Dangerous
b) Solid

The two aren't mutually exclusive by any means, but the distinction helps to give a clearer picture of a players style.

For example, I'd say Safin, Hewitt, Ferrer and Wawrinka all had/have good backhands but they're obviously very different - Ferrer and Hewitt more Type b, Safin and Wawrinka more Type a (especially Wawrinka)

By the very bio-mechanics of the shot, great backhands would tend to be tilted in the "B" direction - not hitting a lot of winners, not necessarily even forcing a lot of errors but...

Less likely to make an error (compared to the other guy) while forceful enough to draw more errors (compared to how the other guy usually fares)

 

[jaggy]

I think Almagro deserves a mention

 

[Gemini]

I'm amazed at how many people forget about Nalbandian. In the era of the two hander, that's the backhand I'm going to teach all day, every day.

 

[pc1]

Under the heading "good" backhand, it might be helpful to differentiate into categories -

a) Dangerous
b) Solid

The two aren't mutually exclusive by any means, but the distinction helps to give a clearer picture of a players style.

For example, I'd say Safin, Hewitt, Ferrer and Wawrinka all had/have good backhands but they're obviously very different - Ferrer and Hewitt more Type b, Safin and Wawrinka more Type a (especially Wawrinka)

By the very bio-mechanics of the shot, great backhands would tend to be tilted in the "B" direction - not hitting a lot of winners, not necessarily even forcing a lot of errors but...

Less likely to make an error (compared to the other guy) while forceful enough to draw more errors (compared to how the other guy usually fares)

Good post. I was thinking mainly a very dangerous backhand instead of a solid one. For example John Newcombe had a solid backhand and what she could return serve well, rally strongly from the baseline against powerful shots and lob well. He did not have the greatest backhand passing shot in the world. But it was dangerous in some ways because on any short ball he would slice his backhand into the corner and approach the net.

Newk did not have the offensive firepower of a Laver, Ashe or Connors. The latter three I would call very dangerous backhands. They can hit winners from anywhere on the court and arguably their backhands were superior to their forehands.

 

[skaj]

wooden rackets I don't know.

modern tenis:

2handed - Nalbandian
1handed - Henin

 

[hoodjem]

I will name a few great one handed topspin backhands of the past. They would be Budge, Trabert (very underrated and forgotten), Laver, Tilden, Ashe, Vilas, Kovacs, Don McNeill, Hoad.

I thought Budge's backhand was more of a drive. Did he have much topspin?

 

[pc1]

I thought Budge's backhand was more of a drive. Did he have much topspin?

Some modest topspin but not nearly as much as Vilas for example or Laver when Laver loaded it up with topspin. Segura said only two guys regularly drove their backhand that way and that was Budge and Trabert.

 

[Waspsting]

... Laver, Ashe or Connors ... (had) very dangerous backhands. They can hit winners from anywhere on the court

Are you thinking about backhand passing shots?

There was a lot more opportunity for those in that epoch compared to now, the 90s and probably even the 80s.

I was thinking of strong backhands in a baseline duel scenario. I haven't seen anyone who I'd say could hit "winners from anywhere on the court" in that regard and surely that must be trebly more so in the era of wooden rackets?

Wawrinka probably the closest to a guy who can hit winners from anywhere from the backhand. And he's very loose, like Sampras on the forehand, the explosive potential as often as not more than counterbalanced by the likelihood/actuality of making unforced errors.

Laver, Ashe and Connors... arguably their backhands were superior to their forehands.

Do you mean in an absolute sense (i.e. - Laver's backhand > Laver's forehand) or in a comparative sense {i.e - (Laver's backhand > X's backhand) > (Laver's forehand > X's forehand)}?

For as long as I've watched tennis from late 80s, having a better backhand than forehand is always used in the comparative sense. Was it the same in the wooden era? The left handed, backhand stronger Connors' success' hints it might not have been so clear cut with wooden rackets... what do you reckon?

I was thinking mainly a very dangerous backhand instead of a solid one.

If we're on the same page here, I'd name Safin. IMO, his backhand was tilted towards dangerous more than solid, while being solid enough to not be loose.
Agassi was steadier, Safin was more explosive.

---

A piece of the big picture of offensive backhands is chippers. Its not an offensive shot per se but it is an offensive strategy when followed with an approach to the net. Without it, I'm not sure if Edberg can make it to the short list.

I don't see how we can include it in this discussion though - volleying skills play a bigger role in the success of the strategy than the backhand chip itself... and it opens a ridiculous door to players who use the backhand effectively to move the point to the forehand where they excel.

Any thoughts on how we can bring in the chip without making a mockery of the topic?

 

[pc1]

Are you thinking about backhand passing shots?

There was a lot more opportunity for those in that epoch compared to now, the 90s and probably even the 80s.

I was thinking of strong backhands in a baseline duel scenario. I haven't seen anyone who I'd say could hit "winners from anywhere on the court" in that regard and surely that must be trebly more so in the era of wooden rackets?

Wawrinka probably the closest to a guy who can hit winners from anywhere from the backhand. And he's very loose, like Sampras on the forehand, the explosive potential as often as not more than counterbalanced by the likelihood/actuality of making unforced errors.

Backhand passing shots are of course included. Winners from anywhere in the court is an expression that's long been used in tennis. I suppose it's a bit of an exaggeration at times. However there are players like Wawrinka as you mentioned who has incredible power off his backhand to accomplish this. Laver and Ashe were known their huge power off the backhand.

Do you mean in an absolute sense (i.e. - Laver's backhand > Laver's forehand) or in a comparative sense {i.e - (Laver's backhand > X's backhand) > (Laver's forehand > X's forehand)}?

For as long as I've watched tennis from late 80s, having a better backhand than forehand is always used in the comparative sense. Was it the same in the wooden era? The left handed, backhand stronger Connors' success' hints it might not have been so clear cut with wooden rackets... what do you reckon?



If we're on the same page here, I'd name Safin. IMO, his backhand was tilted towards dangerous more than solid, while being solid enough to not be loose.
Agassi was steadier, Safin was more explosive.

Ashe and others (I would guess most experts) thought his backhand was the stronger in an absolute sense than his forehand which still was excellent. He wrote that he built his game on his serve and his backhand. His first coach had the theory that the backhand should be taught before the forehand because a basic strategy in tennis, especially with the one handed backhand was to attack the backhand. So if a backhand is stronger than the forehand the opponent doesn't know what to do.

Here's Laver vs. Ashe in the semifinal of the 1969 Wimbledon. Notice all the backhand winners by Ashe and Laver.

Here's Ashe at the 1975 WCT Championship. Also watch the great match between Laver and Borg in this video.

Ashe thought Laver's forehand was the superior shot over his backhand but some thought it was the backhand. Laver wrote that he reckoned that he could hit both with the same power and control but most served to his backhand instead of his forehand. I would guess most thought the forehand was more dangerous.

I think Connors' backhand was superior to his forehand in an absolute sense also. To me that's an easy pick.
---

A piece of the big picture of offensive backhands is chippers. Its not an offensive shot per se but it is an offensive strategy when followed with an approach to the net. Without it, I'm not sure if Edberg can make it to the short list.

I don't see how we can include it in this discussion though - volleying skills play a bigger role in the success of the strategy than the backhand chip itself... and it opens a ridiculous door to players who use the backhand effectively to move the point to the forehand where they excel.

Any thoughts on how we can bring in the chip without making a mockery of the topic?

Well with wood a chip approach is very dangerous when it's by a Newcombe for example. As you pointed out even when Edberg played the chip approach was a great shot to set up net play. With today's racquets I would think you would have to hit a more penetrating attacking approach because of the ability of the baseline player to drive a ball with topspin on a short angle.

I would guess a heavily sliced deep approach wouldn't be bad at times also nowadays. Heck I've read articles that the sidespin approach that past players like Jack Kramer, Chris Evert and others used to use should be brought back into usage.

 

[Waspsting]

Winners from anywhere in the court is an expression that's long been used in tennis. I suppose it's a bit of an exaggeration at times.

I understand and agree - its poetic exaggeration. I use the phrase myself casually and I understand your using it to get the ball rolling in the thread starter.

On Wikipedia, it says "Sampras was able to hit winners from both his forehand and backhand from all over the court". All righty-then

When discussing with a guy like you - who clearly knows what he's talking about - I prefer to drop the poetry!

Ashe and others (I would guess most experts) thought his backhand was the stronger in an absolute sense than his forehand...I think Connors' backhand was superior to his forehand in an absolute sense also. To me that's an easy pick.

There are a few loose markers for this -

- Whether the guy ever runs around his forehand to hit a backhand (virtually never for everyone) vs running around the backhand (variable)

- Winners and Unforced Errors on each wing

- Whether the guy would prefer to hit a passing shot from the forehand or the backhand

I haven't seen anyone with a better backhand than forehand in the absolute sense. Maybe Edberg (who did prefer that wing for making passing shots) and had a particularly unthreatening forehand.

Guys like Murray, Djokovic, Agassi - great players who were said to have a stronger backhand - all comfortably fail the absolute stronger backhand test.

I speculate this change - viz. there being players who had a stronger backhand than forehand - is a function of changes in racket tech? With older rackets, an overpowering level of power - power too great to handle due to human reaction and movement speed limits - was not achievable maybe?

Even Borg, with his ballyhooed forehand, didn't hit many winners with the forehand.

So players could develop both sides equally, perhaps even better on the backhand. If you did that now... we'd say the guy has a very weak forehand.

...the theory that the backhand should be taught before the forehand because a basic strategy in tennis, especially with the one handed backhand was to attack the backhand. So if a backhand is stronger than the forehand the opponent doesn't know what to do.

I think this theory is also a function of the time of higher net play?

You would "attack" the backhand from the net - from where you can equally easily attack either side and from either side.

From the baseline though, if a right hander attacks another right handers backhand... he'd have to do so from his own backhand, or utilize the much lower percentage inside-out forehand. To attack the backhand with your own backhand, you'd have to have a pretty strong backhand to begin with yourself.

...I would guess a heavily sliced deep approach wouldn't be bad at times also nowadays...

I agree

 

[BTURNER]

Best topspin or offensive two-hander with a wood racket ----hmmm. Let me think on it. A name might come to me.

 

[boredone3456]

In no Particular order

Men: Guga, Borg, Budge, Pancho, Lendl, Wawa

Women: Henin, Evert, Austin, Davenport, The Williams Sisters