Did Koenig say "That's why I would use a 2HBH.."

Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by sportsfan1, May 19, 2013.

  1. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Jan 29, 2005
    I think there's definitely some truth to that. Some two handers have awkward looking slice backhands, Monfils for instance, has an awkward slice backhand. He missed some short balls today that Im positive someone like Fed would've made.

    There are those like Murray, on the other hand, who can slice pretty effectively, though that might be because he loves to push so much :)
  2. Magnus

    Magnus Legend

    Jan 24, 2011
    This is a rather silly suggestion. Fed can't just change his game over night. Fact is, Fed is used to taking the ball earlier than anyone and rushing his opponents. On the slow clay, this is highly ineffective as the bounce isn't reliable and the slow surface gives the opponent more time to react. On the USO, for example, this has been ultra effective for Fed over the years.

    Fed tried to rally with Nadal in the past, it didn't work because Nadal's CC FH is just too high and spinny for Fed's 1HBH. Take an indoor HC where the ball doesn't bounce as high and the bounce is also predictable and reliable, and Fed suddenly tops Nadal, this is the core of this rivalry, and this is where Djokovic has the upper hand.
  3. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    May 14, 2013
    Suresh and Netspirit - and all you other 1hbh haters (funny how a lot of the pro-2hbh camp are ANTI 1hbh, whereas we in the pro-1hbh camp also like the 2hbh) - the 1hbh-using pro's on tour just owned you.

    Do you know why?

    Because in the R4 of the French Open this year, eight out of the sixteen people left in the draw are using 1hbh's. That's 50%. In the top 200, do you think 50% of them use a 1hbh? Nope, not even close. Probably less than 10% use the 1hbh.

    You were the one that brought up the 1hbh being unusable at the 'pro-level' due to it being 'fragile'. Well, you are proven wrong on two counts;

    1). Since there are around less than 10% of the pro's in the top 200 using the 1hbh, yet at this Slam, 50% of the pro's left in the draw are using 1hbh, the stats would argue that the 1hbh is especially useful at the elite pro level. Statistically speaking, if you're one of those 10%, you have a higher chance of being left in the draw later.

    2). What surface is the FO played on? Clay. Clay is the highest bouncing, most baseline-orientated surface there is, especially in best of 5 sets. This surface places a premium on the reliability of your groundstrokes. Yet, the 1hbh is doing best on that surface. To contrast, only four of the sixteen R4 players at last year's Wimbledon had 1hbh's - half the number at this year's French.

    I have looked at the 1hbh/2hbh nature of opponents left in R4 in Slams since the year 2003 - and the average number of 1hbh players left at R4 is lowest at Wimbledon (4.7), and highest in the French Open (5.2). So it's lowest in the fastest, most serve/volley-orientated surface, and highest in the slowest, most baseline-orientated surface.

    You might say that all these players are in their mid-age to elderly tennis years, and the 1hbh is on it's way out, and you might be right. But that's not the fault of the 1hbh. That's the fault of the coaches forcing the 2hbh on everyone, even those who are more naturally suited to the 1hbh. By virtue of their actual Grand Slam results and ranking places, the veterans on tour with 1hbh's have proven that they can boss around all the youngsters with 2hbh's, despite their age. The fault is with the coaching system, not the stroke itself.

    So, before you anti-1hbh crew spout off cliches about the 'fragility' and 'antiquated nature' of the 1hbh that you have just heard somewhere and are trying to sound knowledgeable by regurgitating, actually analyze the stats.

Share This Page