Can any 1hbh in history stand up to Nadal's forehand on clay?

O

onehbh_fan

Banned
Wawrinka. Kohlschreiber. Almagro. Gasquet. Haas. Dimitrov. All great 1hbh's, right?

Yet, they have a combined total of one win against Nadal on any surface, let alone clay. Obviously on clay, none of these guys have a single win against Nadal. That single win was when Kohlschreiber d. Nadal at Halle in 2012. The slippery grass of Halle is probably the lowest bouncing surface encountered all year.

Are all these guys losing to Nadal solely because of the high crosscourt Nadal forehand to their backhand exchange? Or do their backhands hold up and they lose because of Nadal's superior fitness/movement/general tennis ability?

Also, can we say the reason for their collectively poor head to head record against Nadal is that they all have 1hbh's, when it should be noted that Nadal tries to break 2hbh's down with height and spin just as much as he tries to break 1hbh's down? Berdych, Gulbis, Tipseravic and Murray all have great backhands, but all have terrible records against Nadal, and none have beaten him on clay.

Finally, looking to the past, could any retired greats have their 1hbh stand up to Nadal's forehand on clay? Candidates would be Corretja, Gaudio, Kuerten, Muster...etc...?
 
Give Dimitrov time, he pushed Nadal pretty hard this year.
 
onehbh_fan said:
Wawrinka. Kohlschreiber. Almagro. Gasquet. Haas. Dimitrov. All great 1hbh's, right?

Yet, they have a combined total of one win against Nadal on any surface, let alone clay. Obviously on clay, none of these guys have a single win against Nadal. That single win was when Kohlschreiber d. Nadal at Halle in 2012. The slippery grass of Halle is probably the lowest bouncing surface encountered all year.

Are all these guys losing to Nadal solely because of the high crosscourt Nadal forehand to their backhand exchange? Or do their backhands hold up and they lose because of Nadal's superior fitness/movement/general tennis ability?

Also, can we say the reason for their collectively poor head to head record against Nadal is that they all have 1hbh's, when it should be noted that Nadal tries to break 2hbh's down with height and spin just as much as he tries to break 1hbh's down? Berdych, Gulbis, Tipseravic and Murray all have great backhands, but all have terrible records against Nadal, and none have beaten him on clay.

Finally, looking to the past, could any retired greats have their 1hbh stand up to Nadal's forehand on clay? Candidates would be Corretja, Gaudio, Kuerten, Muster...etc...?
Click to expand...

Federer has beaten Nadal on clay multiple times. :rolleyes:
 
onehbh_fan said:
Wawrinka. Kohlschreiber. Almagro. Gasquet. Haas. Dimitrov. All great 1hbh's, right?

Yet, they have a combined total of one win against Nadal on any surface, let alone clay. Obviously on clay, none of these guys have a single win against Nadal. That single win was when Kohlschreiber d. Nadal at Halle in 2012. The slippery grass of Halle is probably the lowest bouncing surface encountered all year.

Are all these guys losing to Nadal solely because of the high crosscourt Nadal forehand to their backhand exchange? Or do their backhands hold up and they lose because of Nadal's superior fitness/movement/general tennis ability?

Also, can we say the reason for their collectively poor head to head record against Nadal is that they all have 1hbh's, when it should be noted that Nadal tries to break 2hbh's down with height and spin just as much as he tries to break 1hbh's down? Berdych, Gulbis, Tipseravic and Murray all have great backhands, but all have terrible records against Nadal, and none have beaten him on clay.

Finally, looking to the past, could any retired greats have their 1hbh stand up to Nadal's forehand on clay? Candidates would be Corretja, Gaudio, Kuerten, Muster...etc...?
Click to expand...

Maybe Rosewall.
 
BobbyOne said:
Maybe Rosewall.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, the ball would kick up so high on Rosewall he'd struggle over the course of a match. He'd have to consistantly take it on the rise or sacrifice court positioning.

Maybe Kuerten's backhand would be the best against Nadal on clay.
 
Wawrinka could have beaten Nadal if he didn't have to struggle through three back-to-back 3 set matches prior to the final, with the semis ending late the previous night so very little time for him to recover for the final. I thought his backhand held up pretty well against Nadal's relentless attack to that side.
 
BreakPoint said:
Zaballos has also beaten Nadal on clay with a 1HBH, and Gaudio also beat Nadal multiple times on clay with a 1HBH.
Click to expand...

Not sure if Zeballos counts though as he is a lefty, therefore Nadal's default forehand goes into his own forehand.

But I haven't look at the patterns closely enough - does Nadal pretty much only hit down the line forehands when his opponent is also a lefty?
 
onehbh_fan said:
Can any 1hbh in history stand up to Nadal's forehand on clay?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what you mean by "stand up". Because nobody is going to do anything against Nadal on clay. By "stand up"... if you mean that Nadal's opponent doesn't spray OHBH balls all over the place, then yes, there is one guy -- Richard Gasquet.

Gasquet and Nadal have been playing since they were children. Nadal was one of the longtime opponents that turned Gasquet's backhand into an almost forehand-like weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik3p2nNSBYI&t=2m46s

Gasquet/Nadal is a historically interesting matchup. Because Gasquet only loses because Nadal's backhand is better than Gasquet's forehand... and also because Gasquet's movement is pretty slow and lackadaisical at times.
 
Gasquet and Almagro (and even Dimitrov) don't lose to Nadal because their backhands are abusable (no weaker against Nadal's FH than ANY 2 hander, including Djokovic IMO) but because they are just much worse players than him overall.
 
President said:
Gasquet and Almagro (and even Dimitrov) don't lose to Nadal because their backhands are abusable (no weaker against Nadal's FH than ANY 2 hander, including Djokovic IMO) but because they are just much worse players than him overall.
Click to expand...

this... Gasquet's issue is fitness and his own weak forehand vs. Nadal. He can more than hang with Nadal's forehand with this backhand.

Nadal doesn't pound on Wawrinka's backhand the way he does against Roger, instead uses the inside out forehand pattern to Wawrinka's forehand. He also neutralises Wawrinka's big serve with the way he returns. So that's two of Wawrinka's weapons gone.

Nadal is a more complete player than people give him credit for. Not just a topspin monkey.

In fact, Federer is more the exception rather than the rule. He's the only one who can really destroy Nadal when his backhand isn't an issue (low bouncing WTF and windy IW in 2012).
 
President said:
Gasquet and Almagro (and even Dimitrov) don't lose to Nadal because their backhands are abusable (no weaker against Nadal's FH than ANY 2 hander, including Djokovic IMO) but because they are just much worse players than him overall.
Click to expand...
Especially Gasquet. He abuses spin production with his backhand against many opponents on clay. His match against Cilic in MC was an excellent example: he tried to return early, and failed. Then he just backed in the bottom of the court and abused top spin BH crosscourt to win the match. Hasn't the forehand or the stamina to beat a Nadal, but he indeed doesn't loose because of his backhand. Almagro, be the ball low or high or anything, just hit very, very hard. Very powerful ball-basher, fragile to pressure.
 
BreakPoint said:
Wawrinka could have beaten Nadal if he didn't have to struggle through three back-to-back 3 set matches prior to the final, with the semis ending late the previous night so very little time for him to recover for the final. I thought his backhand held up pretty well against Nadal's relentless attack to that side.
Click to expand...

Wawrinka has never taken a set off Nadal and didn't create a single break point in the final.
 
I have always felt that Nadal is especially dominant against players with 1HBH. Federer is only to take matches off him now and then because he is the GOAT.

Nadal is dominant against the field but especially so against the 1HBH, and I bet that Nadal's dominance against players will this stroke will drive the final nail into the coffin of the 1HBH.

Dimitrov may be the only hope for the shot's future in modern tennis. The shot's liability against high topspin is a major reason to use the 2HBH and probably the reason why most training campus advocate the 2HBH...
 
Some great 1hbh players lose to Nadal on clay just because Nadal is better on clay (but not because of their backhands alone).

Nadal is just so great on clay. It is not only his great forehand. It is the way he moves on clay, the way he understand the clay game, his passing-shots, everything.

Since his first big win on clay ( 2005 Monte Carlo, against Coria, when he was 18 y.o.) he has played 46 tournaments on clay, being in the final in 43 of them (and winning 37).

The only 3 tournaments on clay (in that period) he did not get to the final were:

2008 Rome: lost in 1st round to Juan Carlos Ferrero (it is true that Nadal had terrible blisters in his foot, Ferrero wasn't totally healthy neither)

2009 Roland Garros: lost to Soderling in R16.

2012 Madrid: lost to Verdasco in R16 on blue clay.

He got to the final of the other 43 clay tournaments he has played in that period, winning 37 ( among them 7 Roland Garros, 8 M-1000 Monte Carlo, 6 M-1000 Rome, 3 M-1000 Hamburg/Madrid (clay) , 8 ATP-500 Barcelona...).

The only six times he has lost in a clay final were:

2007 Hamburg: lost to Federer 6-2 2-6 0-6
2009 Madrid: lost to Federer 4-6 4-6
2011 Madrid: lost to Djokovic 5-7 4-6
2011 Rome: lost to Djokovic 4-6 4-6
2013 Chile: lost to Zeballos 7-6 6-7 4-6
2013 Monte Carlo: lost to Djokovic 2-6 6-7


It is really amazing how successful Nadal is on clay. Only Federer (1hbh) and Djokovic (2hbh) have defeated him more than once in this period. It is not just a "1hbh thing", it is just that he is so good on clay and only the two other great players from this era (Federer and Djokovic) can trouble him on clay.
 
Nadal may have lost to Gaudio when he was younger, but his last loss (ATP Buenos Aires 2005) was the exact point when he started ravaging the clay, winning everything in sight, losing once to Andreev, and then going on the glorious 81 match streak.

Gaudio's backhand was capable enough of withstanding Nadal's slaughter, and in fact, had the upper hand some of the time. Gaudio's backhand on clay was solid as sheer diamond.
 
Kuerten, because of his very strong grip, might have been able to handle Nadal's forehand to his backhand, but still would lose the great majority of battles against Nadal, IMHO. Kuerten's backhand, as good as it was, wasn't as good as Djoker's.
 
corners said:
Kuerten, because of his very strong grip, might have been able to handle Nadal's forehand to his backhand, but still would lose the great majority of battles against Nadal, IMHO. Kuerten's backhand, as good as it was, wasn't as good as Djoker's.
Click to expand...

Many people feel Djoker may have the best BH in history...
 
corners said:
Kuerten, because of his very strong grip, might have been able to handle Nadal's forehand to his backhand, but still would lose the great majority of battles against Nadal, IMHO. Kuerten's backhand, as good as it was, wasn't as good as Djoker's.
Click to expand...

This precise issue was analyzed somewhere, tennis.com I think. The conclusion was that Guga's BH could not have stood up to Rafa's assault.
 
Guga had the height (6' 4") had long arms and had the stamina.... I think he could easily have handled Nadulls forehand. Remember how a tall Ivan Lubjicic handled it in Miami I think. That court and conditions play similar to clay, slow and high bounce. Certainly a prime part of Nadulls years and not Lubies.
 
Can any 1hbh in history stand up to Nadal's forehand on clay?
Yes!

Gaston Gaudio is 2-2 with Nadal. when Nadal was at his peak in 2005 Gaudio's backhand just had too much spin for Nadal's forehand.

Here's an example, although Nadal won this amazing point Gaudio won the match:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqzXtkyhO8E

Gaudio won their first 2 meetings and the third in Stuttgart was a classic, each set going an hour before Nadal took it in straights. Gaudio was all but retired by the time they played their last match though.


Kuerten's certainly would have been fine as well. Nadal has only lost something like 5 times in history on clay anyway hasn't he? So it isn't like 2 handers have a particularly bad record against him. Unless you mean on all surfaces in which case Blake, Pim Pim etc all have plenty of wins over Nadal.
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
I doubt it, the ball would kick up so high on Rosewall he'd struggle over the course of a match. He'd have to consistantly take it on the rise or sacrifice court positioning.

Maybe Kuerten's backhand would be the best against Nadal on clay.
Click to expand...

NatF, You "forget" that Rosewall used to take the ball on its rise and that he beat strong topspin player, Vilas twice, every time winning the last set by 6-0...
 
BobbyOne said:
NatF, You "forget" that Rosewall used to take the ball on its rise and that he beat strong topspin player, Vilas twice, every time winning the last set by 6-0...
Click to expand...

Sorry but you "forget" that taking it on the rise against Nadal and facing his degree of topsin is a different prospect to Vilas. Federer has bagelled and breadsticked Nadal on clay but he's still lost 12 matches to him on the surface...

I don't doubt that Rosewall could take the ball on the rise, I doubt he could consistantly do it over a the course of a 3-4 hour match.
 
Kuerten is the only one with a chance. And it's because he's not going to sit there and rally all day from nadal's forehand to his backhand. As good as his bh is he isn't winning the match playing this rally. But he'd take it down the line often enough so that it'd later be his forehand to nadal's backhand.
 
Playing to the opponent's backhand is probably the most effective strategy around from 6 yo's playing mini-tennis all the way to the pro tour. There is almost no one who will win a match on tour where they're getting trapped in large #'s of backhand to forehand exchanges., and it's the M.O. of most point construction "plays" all pros engage in. There is no backhand ever that is going to be the favorite in those exchanges with an average pro level forehand, much less Nadal's sidewinder missile.

Nadal is just super effective at pinning people in the adcourt corner and from there no one is going to hang trading crosscourt with him and down the line shots are generally low percentage (heads he wins, tails you lose). Djokovic has had success by being able stay alive playing defense and to check out of those BH->FH exchanges better then most. The Fuzzy Yellow Balls blog has had some great breakdowns of Djoker's method of avoiding the Nadal ad-court trap
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Wawrinka has never taken a set off Nadal and didn't create a single break point in the final.
Click to expand...
So? Wawrinka was obviously tired and injured during that final. Lots of players have lost to people that have never taken a set off of them. Zeballos had never taken a set off of Nadal and Nishikori had never taken a set of Federer, either.
 
sureshs said:
Horacio doesn't count. It was Nadal's first match back from injury, and he did not want to appear arrogant.
Click to expand...
It wasn't Nadal first match back. He had to win 3 matches first to get to the final. Not that it matters. He still lost on clay to a guy with a 1HBH.
 
Relinquis said:
this... Gasquet's issue is fitness and his own weak forehand vs. Nadal. He can more than hang with Nadal's forehand with this backhand.

Nadal doesn't pound on Wawrinka's backhand the way he does against Roger, instead uses the inside out forehand pattern to Wawrinka's forehand. He also neutralises Wawrinka's big serve with the way he returns. So that's two of Wawrinka's weapons gone.

Nadal is a more complete player than people give him credit for. Not just a topspin monkey.

In fact, Federer is more the exception rather than the rule. He's the only one who can really destroy Nadal when his backhand isn't an issue (low bouncing WTF and windy IW in 2012).
Click to expand...

It's like you people don't even watch the matches.

Wawrinka made tons of errors against Nadal in the Madrid final off his backhand. Wawrinka's forehand was better than his backhand in that match. In fact, Wawrinka ran around his own backhand a lot.
 
Federer20042006 said:
It's like you people don't even watch the matches.

Wawrinka made tons of errors against Nadal in the Madrid final off his backhand. Wawrinka's forehand was better than his backhand in that match. In fact, Wawrinka ran around his own backhand a lot.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was one match. Federer has also put up matches that were total stinkers of one or both wings. Stan was tired and his entire game was in the dumpster. Shouldn't over-generalize from it.


Here's another match with Nadal from last year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWgk6mjTSlg

full match
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgrBlz0RtKU
 
ATP100 said:
Doesn't Nadal win most of his matches with his inside-out forehand pressure?
Click to expand...

Why would Nadal hit an inside out forehand if not playing another lefty?

His inside out forehand is going to the forehand of a righty. Nadal hits to your backhand 100% of the time. All forehands are going crosscourt to your backhand, and all backhands are going down the line to your backhand to set up another lefty forehand to righty backhand exchange. It is not the most exciting way of playing the game, but he has won 11 slams on the back of it...
 
you think stan's backhand would have been that bad against another player? I'm not a Nadal fan but give him credit, he makes the other guy play bad. Puts the ball where the other guy has no leverage and can't hurt him.

Usually when I watch Fed play against someone not named Nadal his backhand is pretty damn good and his forehand dictates play. I never see that against Nadal. There actually is no 1hbh or 2hbh that can consistently beat Nadal in that crosscourt rally. The guys that stand a chance take it down the line then they can dictate play with their forehand to his backhand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennis_hack
  • Poll Poll
Can Nadal's forehand break down 2hbh's as well, or only 1hbh's?
Replies
16
Views
1K
objectivity
O
tennis_hack
  • Poll Poll
Will coaches react to the success of the 1hbh at the 2013 French Open?
Replies
28
Views
5K
insideguy
I
tennis_hack
  • Poll Poll
Is Federer's 1hbh the best 1hbh against Nadal's topspin?
Replies
9
Views
1K
mike danny
mike danny
tennis_hack
1hh favors slow and high bouncing surfaces, not grass and carpet
Replies
10
Views
1K
heninfan99
heninfan99
asifallasleep
Fed decline more age and 2hbh vs 1hbh not racquet size
Replies
3
Views
958
Tenez101
Tenez101
Back
Top