Federer's backhand is far, FAR better than Gasquet's

[thomasferrett]

Really impressed with the firepower up high that Federer's retooled backhand brought against Nadal. Not only was he able to hit balls on the rise well, he was actually able to get a lot of pace and depth on backhands at a high contact point.

I have seen Gasquet play Nadal, and his backhand gets utterly wrecked. Just loop something high up there, and Gasquet can only loop it back so short it bounces in the middle of the service box.

Federer's backhand has more variety, more power and more of an explosive wrist-snap. The only thing Gasquet does is hit a higher average topspin - but that is more due to tactics than technique.

Some high backhands Federer blasted were Almagro-like. A Federer with Almagro-like power up high on the backhand wing is probably the ultimate threat in tennis.

Really impressive stuff.

 

[JMR]

The difference on the backhand between Gasquet and Federer is that Gasquet wants to hit the shot, while Federer wants to play the point. (Wawrinka used to tend toward the former as well, but fortunately for him, has moved to the latter.) In other words, Gasquet moves back as far as needed to order to take a huge backswing and hit the biggest, boldest looper he can. Many of these shots look great, and some are also effective, or even winners. The problem is that the tactic generally undermines what should be the overall strategy of staying closer to the baseline and controlling rallies.

 

[mike danny]

Was there ever any doubt regarding that, OP?

 

[R_Federer]

Fed had one of the best backhands ever 2003-2007.

 

[BeatlesFan]

If Gasquet's BH was as good as it's been touted, he would have won something in his career, at least a Masters 1000 once every 8 years or so.

His BH is a joke compared to Roger's. Roger's BH was poor against one player only: Nadal.

 

[thomasferrett]

His BH is a joke compared to Roger's. Roger's BH was poor against one player only: Nadal.

Yeah, and Gasquet's backhand is also so much poorer against Nadal's forehand than Federer's is. After all, one guy has 12 wins against Nadal - the other has zero, and barely even a set.

 

[heninfan99]

Yeah, and Gasquet's backhand is also so much poorer against Nadal's forehand than Federer's is. After all, one guy has 12 wins against Nadal - the other has zero, and barely even a set.

Actually, his backhand is quite good against Nadal just everything else matches up terribly like most players.

 

[smoledman]

The fundamental problem with Gasquet is he stands 2 meters back to hit those big, loopy backhands to impress the French crowds. Federer plays on or inside the baseline because his goal is to win.

 

[Service Ace]

Gasquet's backhand is "pretty" but that's about it. As far as effectiveness, I could name 5 one handed players with more effective backhands off the top of my head.

 

[smoledman]

Gasquet's backhand is "pretty" but that's about it. As far as effectiveness, I could name 5 one handed players with more effective backhands off the top of my head.

It's also a fact that Gasquet has never beaten Nadal on anything. The charter member of Generation Useless.

 

[MasterZeb]

If Gasquet's BH was as good as it's been touted, he would have won something in his career, at least a Masters 1000 once every 8 years or so.

His BH is a joke compared to Roger's. Roger's BH was poor against one player only: Nadal.

+Djokovic last couple of years

 

[DanteTheGreat]

I used to think (for a brief period), that Gasquet's was better, till I watched their Davis Cup match, and was like nope, nope, nope, Federer's is better, far better. I do however think that Gasquet's backhand is more versatile, as he seems comfortable hitting from a variety of weird position (though mostly opting to stand like 5 light-years behind the baseline).