Does Wawr. vs. Djok. prove that we will never have a new 1hbh slam champ?

[always_crosscourt]

I said 'new' 1hbh slam champ. Obviously, that does not include Federer - who may well vulture this very slam if Djokovic can't recover.

But, to me, this match proved that even when a 1hbh player is GOATing (which will happen only once in a blue moon) - it will break down in the end. The two-hander is just the more secure, stable shot, and will serve the player well way into the 5th set of a slam.

As tennis becomes more and more physical, and rallies last longer and longer, I think we have truly seen the last of the 1hbh slam winning champs with Federer.

 

[jwjh]

Just win in 3 or 4 sets then. Problem solved.

 

[PhrygianDominant]

The result of that match had absolutely nothing to do with Stan's 1hbh, he was hitting off that wing quite a bit better than Djokovic for the entire match. Djokovic's mental strength and movement saved him.

Completely disagree with your opinion.

 

[forzamilan90]

Of course not. Djokovic is an immense defender and this surface favors his grinding style. The one hander will never die.

 

[always_crosscourt]

Just win in 3 or 4 sets then. Problem solved.

As rallies get longer and longer, tomorrow's 3-4 sets matches will equal today's 5 set match in duration and intensity.

 

[FedererDropShot]

Of course not. Djokovic is an immense defender and this surface favors his grinding style. The one hander will never die.

My thoughts exactly. Change the surface to Wimbledon and..... Stan's match today would have been CRUSHING Novak.

Who produced more winners?

Who produced the better quality winners?

 

[tudwell]

Wawrinka lost because his first serve disappeared at the end of the match, not because of his backhand. His backhand is what was keeping him in it.

 

[Legend of Borg]

His backhand had NOTHING to do with his loss.

Embarassing thread.

 

[Starfury]

Wawrinka lost because his first serve disappeared at the end of the match, not because of his backhand. His backhand is what was keeping him in it.

Don't forget the end of the second set.

 

[tudwell]

Don't forget the end of the second set.

I didn't actually see that. I came in during the fifth when I woke up this morning. I was surprised how long Wawrinka survived without a serve, though. There was one game where he held to love despite hitting four second serves. I knew he wouldn't be so fortunate forever, and eventually he wasn't. Still almost held that last game, though. It really was quite an effort from Wawrinka.

 

[Brian11785]

I think we have also seen the last new Yonex-sponsored GS champion. And the last new Swiss GS champ. Djokovic totally slammed the door shut on both of those possibilites tonight. If not Stan, then who?!?

Man the OP needs to not...be an OP.

 

[rainingaces]

I said 'new' 1hbh slam champ. Obviously, that does not include Federer - who may well vulture this very slam if Djokovic can't recover.

But, to me, this match proved that even when a 1hbh player is GOATing (which will happen only once in a blue moon) - it will break down in the end. The two-hander is just the more secure, stable shot, and will serve the player well way into the 5th set of a slam.

As tennis becomes more and more physical, and rallies last longer and longer, I think we have truly seen the last of the 1hbh slam winning champs with Federer.

For weak, skinny nerds like you who can only lift a racquet using both hands its the best shot.

 

[always_crosscourt]

For weak, skinny nerds like you who can only lift a racquet using both hands its the best shot.

I hit 1hbh, brah. Do you even lift?

 

[always_crosscourt]

Well, one thing's for sure is that Wawrinka will never do better than this in a slam. He turns 28 this year, will decline rapidly and be forgotten.

 

[Relinquis]

i sometimes wonder if you guys watched the same match?

Quite the opposite from the OP, this match shows that an aging, cramping player can take it to the world number one on his favourite surface because of his single-handed backhand. He even saved a match point with one down the line!

During rallies Stanislas used the one-hander to push Djokovic back behind the baseline and to get short balls, he also used it to rapidly change rally direction cross-court and create angles. His return of serve on the backhand side was both consistent and aggressive for the most part. It was his go-to-shot whenever he was in trouble in a rally. All of this in a marathon match.

The other single-handers have had a great slam so far. Gasquet is looking strong, Almagro was dominant against Tipsy and Federer is Federer, although he already has slams to his name. I didn't catch Kohlschreiber's matches so can't really comment on how his backhand held up. I fully expect to see Almagro or Gasquet getting a slam on clay at some point if Nadal loses his dominance, or get's taken out of RG by someone else.

It is a dying art though, and I wonder if there are enough juniors and younger pros who are using it. It seems like the coaching orthodoxy has already killed it off in the US and is doing so globally. I just hope the current top one-handers have enough success to inspire younger players to learn it. A new slam champion from their ranks would be wonderful and would send a message that you don't have to be Roger Federer to hit with only one hand.

 

[Cosmic_Colin]

No, it was his backhand which almost won it for him. His forehand broke down earlier in the match but he continued hitting winners off his backhand right up to the end (though with more errors, understandably).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he have a better Winner:UE ratio, and more points won from his backhand? I think he did at the end of the 4th.

 

[tudwell]

Well, one thing's for sure is that Wawrinka will never do better than this in a slam. He turns 28 this year, will decline rapidly and be forgotten.

Like Ferrer?

 

[kishnabe]

Like Ferrer?

Wawrinka doesn't have the doc Ferrer has.

 

[Tony48]

Ummm....no. Stan pushed Novak to 5 sets. Anything could have happened. And even then, one match doesn't decide the outcome of all future matches.

 

[matchmaker]

As all the others have said, Stan's BH has nothing to do with this loss. It is a great, reliable, offensive weapon. It is also really consistent.

I believe Stan has one of the best onehanders on tour, together with Gasquet and Almagro. Of those three Stan has most consistency. In my book, and I am not saying this after this match, but have been saying it for a long time, Stan's onehander is much better than Roger's. Off course, all the rest is worst. I would even dare to say that if Roger had Stan's backhand, he would have recorded many more wins against Nadal.

 

[augustobt]

He lost because of the linesman. His backhand shots actually hurt way more than Novak's.

 

[okdude1992]

Wawrinka lost because he didn't have the belief. Once he got close to actually winning, he fell apart

 

[merwy]

Dimitrov might win a slam somewhere in his career. So that's one potential slam-winner who will stay in the game for another 10 years or so. I can't think of any other youngsters with one handed backhands.

 

[augustobt]

That match only proves that a hard hitter with variety can take off any of the top 4.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

It does not "prove" anything, so not the most intelligent poll, I'd say.

 

[RF-17-GOAT]

What? That 1hbh carried Stan the whole match tbh. His forehand was the liability at some points. But then again Stan won that match, stupid line call.

 

[smoledman]

Stan has to discover PEDs.