Fed's backhand....sometimes on fire.....sometimes a weakness

[Gabs011]

I've noticed over the past couple of years that Fed's backhand is sometimes worldclass and sometimes very average. For example, I was watching some past US Open matches that Fed has had with Agassi and Hewitt and in both matches his backhand looked amazing (nearly as destructive as his forehand).

Then this year, especially in the Aus Open semi final against Djokovic his backhand seemed a bit weak in most of the rallies. He would come up with a winner now and again but still it seemed to let him down most of the time.

Why do you guys think his backhand is so up and down??

(I know all players have good days and bad days but it is rare that one player one day the arguably the 'best' one handed backhand and the next day it seems quite lackluster...)

 

[Sentinel]

Some recent backhands from the KL match with Sampras.
The "Low quality" refers to the video, not the play

 

[hoodjem]

I've heard the general opinion that the BH is his weakest shot. But when I've seen him play, it looks quite good. In my eyes he has a nice down-the-line BH slice, and his topspin cross-court BH with the little wrist snap at the end looks even better--an offensive weapon.

He did look weaker in a number of areas against Djokovic as the Aussie, not just BH. I think his loss and weakness was due to the coalescence of a number of factors: strong, agressive play by Djokovic, lackluster defensive play by Fed, believing his own rep as invincible, maybe even that unlucky stomach virus.

IMO, Fed has few truly weak shots.

 

[Otherside]

Your topic sums his BH up great. Look at the the masters final against Blake 2006. It's Nalbandian class on his backhand in that match. Winners from all positions in the court. On the other hand it lets him down from time to time. The Nalby losses in MAdrid and Paris, the semi lost against Dkokovic for example.

Nalbandians forhand is the same, amazing sometimes but when he loses it's the forehand that clicks. I guess there are small tecknical flaws that becomes an issue when the footwork and confidence is lacking.

 

[Vision84]

I've seen matches where Federer's forehand can let him down to a bit, making to many unforced errors.

 

[NamRanger]

I've noticed over the past couple of years that Fed's backhand is sometimes worldclass and sometimes very average. For example, I was watching some past US Open matches that Fed has had with Agassi and Hewitt and in both matches his backhand looked amazing (nearly as destructive as his forehand).

Then this year, especially in the Aus Open semi final against Djokovic his backhand seemed a bit weak in most of the rallies. He would come up with a winner now and again but still it seemed to let him down most of the time.

Why do you guys think his backhand is so up and down??

(I know all players have good days and bad days but it is rare that one player one day the arguably the 'best' one handed backhand and the next day it seems quite lackluster...)

His backhand was a destructive shot from 2005 to the end of 2006. 2007 was the year his backhand really started to let him down. He is too concerned about winning the French Open, and because of that, he has let it creep in to his hardcourt game, and made his backhand a weakness now. Before, his backhand was hit relatively flat and on the rise. It was a weapon on HCs/Grass. His slice was used more often, and he could truly put a nasty bite on it. Also, he could spin it if needed. Now he uses it more as a setup tool for his forehand rather then attacking with it.

 

[Cup8489]

His backhand was a destructive shot from 2005 to the end of 2006. 2007 was the year his backhand really started to let him down. He is too concerned about winning the French Open, and because of that, he has let it creep in to his hardcourt game, and made his backhand a weakness now. Before, his backhand was hit relatively flat and on the rise. It was a weapon on HCs/Grass. His slice was used more often, and he could truly put a nasty bite on it. Also, he could spin it if needed. Now he uses it more as a setup tool for his forehand rather then attacking with it.

to be fair, he has always used the bh to set up points for his forehand, he seems to love getting a short ball to his bh that he can run around and pound down the line..

i watched a video of him practicing, and he had no problems taking the ball with his eastern bh above shoulder height with that wrist snap, yet he has so much trouble against high bh shots...perhaps he should experiment with the sw bh grip? at least to put a little variety back into it.

 

[RoddickistheMan]

its weak relative to his other shots. If you compare it to other one handers on the tour its only second to gasquets by a slim margin. Some might say its better. If you truly want to see a weak one hander look at blake, and lopez and gonzo, these guys have unreliable one handers.

 

[Jonny S&V]

its weak relative to his other shots. If you compare it to other one handers on the tour its only second to gasquets by a slim margin. Some might say its better. If you truly want to see a weak one hander look at blake, and lopez and gonzo, these guys have unreliable one handers.

Blake's backhand is no longer unreliable, although it hasn't been doing so hot lately, it is a big weapon under most any circumstance.

 

[NamRanger]

to be fair, he has always used the bh to set up points for his forehand, he seems to love getting a short ball to his bh that he can run around and pound down the line..

i watched a video of him practicing, and he had no problems taking the ball with his eastern bh above shoulder height with that wrist snap, yet he has so much trouble against high bh shots...perhaps he should experiment with the sw bh grip? at least to put a little variety back into it.

He hit alot more winners with his backhand from the years 2004-2006. Those were the best years of his career. Since 2007, his backhand has become an error machine.

 

[saram]

I am so tired of hearing about the Fed's backhand being a liability. The year he doesn't win a Slam, I'll consider his strokes are on a decline.

 

[Chopin]

I am so tired of hearing about the Fed's backhand being a liability. The year he doesn't win a Slam, I'll consider his strokes are on a decline.

I completely agree with you--it can be "liability" playing Nadal on clay--but that's about it.

 

[stormholloway]

Nonsense. Against Djokovic I saw his forehand miss as much if not more.

I think he may have the best backhand in the world. Watch his backhand against Roddick in the US Open last year. It was brilliant. It's always been brilliant. Watch his match against Sampras at Wimbledon: brilliant.

Talk otherwise is unfounded.

 

[NamRanger]

Nonsense. Against Djokovic I saw his forehand miss as much if not more.

I think he may have the best backhand in the world. Watch his backhand against Roddick in the US Open last year. It was brilliant. It's always been brilliant. Watch his match against Sampras at Wimbledon: brilliant.

Talk otherwise is unfounded.

Ok, you listed two matches. Watch his match against Canas, where he errored like no other off that side. Watch his match against Djokovic at Montreal where his backhand sprayed everywhere. Watch his match against Volandri where he missed everything. Watch his match against a bunch of players where he loses, and his backhand is primarily the reason why he loses.

 

[saram]

I completely agree with you--it can be "liability" playing Nadal on clay--but that's about it.

ANY stroke against Rafa on clay is a liability.

 

[Gabs011]

Ok, you listed two matches. Watch his match against Canas, where he errored like no other off that side. Watch his match against Djokovic at Montreal where his backhand sprayed everywhere. Watch his match against Volandri where he missed everything. Watch his match against a bunch of players where he loses, and his backhand is primarily the reason why he loses.

Namranger.....this is exactly what I am talking about.....its possible to list matches where his Backhand is insanely good....then its also possible to list matches where it is a shadow of whats its capable of.

While 2004-2006 may have been his best years for his backhand I honestly think he serves better now than he did in those years. Also I think there is no reason why he cannot rediscover that devastating backhand shot this year....

 

[tricky]

Yeah, I'm actually with Storm on this. His BH has actually improved every year as a steady rally shot, and he's much stronger now at taking the high ball consistently. But his consistency with his FH has gone in and out, and his point construction around court isn't leveraging as much as he used to be.

Top 5 players have gotten better the battle of holding the center of the court, and it's taken Federer out of his comfort space in setting up shots. Nadal actually held the center of the court better than Federer last year at Wimbledon, but Federer's service game and shotmaking pulled him out.

It's actually amazing the angles that Joker and Nalbandian can crank on the 2H BH, while mantaining high pace and consistency.

 

[Chopin]

Ok, you listed two matches. Watch his match against Canas, where he errored like no other off that side. Watch his match against Djokovic at Montreal where his backhand sprayed everywhere. Watch his match against Volandri where he missed everything. Watch his match against a bunch of players where he loses, and his backhand is primarily the reason why he loses.

He only loses about 5 matches a year though--can't be that much of a liability!

 

[leon505]

His backhand is so different in its execution than any other player on the tour, that Fed is more likely to have a greater margin of error with it because he hits forward on it and takes the ball early. Most of his strokes are like this, the benefit being an increased pace and accuracy. The downside is that these strokes take more precision to execute accurately, thus he has a huge margin of error on both sides.

His recent matches were just indication that he was outplayed, not so much that his backhand let him down. Great players like federer find ways to win even if one stroke isnt working.

 

[NamRanger]

He only loses about 5 matches a year though--can't be that much of a liability!

True, but it has been his backhand that his primarily let him down in the majority of his matches. Just recently his forehand has been letting him down.

 

[daddy]

His backhand is so different in its execution than any other player on the tour, that Fed is more likely to have a greater margin of error with it because he hits forward on it and takes the ball early. Most of his strokes are like this, the benefit being an increased pace and accuracy. The downside is that these strokes take more precision to execute accurately, thus he has a huge margin of error on both sides.

His recent matches were just indication that he was outplayed, not so much that his backhand let him down. Great players like federer find ways to win even if one stroke isnt working.

Good point. Lately he loses either when he has 100 UFE's or if his Fh side is under attack and brakes down which happenes more and more. At least more than it used to. So I see his backhand as great and sometimes even when not so great he can win - you hav to attack his fh and read the servve in order to win.

 

[fastdunn]

We all got used to Roger's stroke but when I saw Roger 1st time, the 1st thing I noticed was all these liquid "whip" on his groundies. In 1990's standard, his strokes looked a bit too risky and a bit too violent to be consistent.

But we all know what happens. He ruled this world with his very violent swings. But in general, all of his strokes are somehwat whippy in classical tennis stand points.

He often has this "off" days in certain strokes. Sometimes his serve off timing for a few games but his groundies are OK. Sometimes, his forehand or backhand are slightly off but his serves save him and so on.

He somehow managed consistency of his highly evolved swings. He has a lot of resources and can afford to have certain off timing in one resource on a given day and it is still worth for him to have very violent swing.

Well, I rambled too much. In summary, as Laver said, I would still take it to his backhand if I play him, ha ha ha.

 

[stormholloway]

Ok, you listed two matches. Watch his match against Canas, where he errored like no other off that side. Watch his match against Djokovic at Montreal where his backhand sprayed everywhere. Watch his match against Volandri where he missed everything. Watch his match against a bunch of players where he loses, and his backhand is primarily the reason why he loses.

Yeah. Those were big stage matches that I listed. Yours were far less so.

If you're not playing well then there are only so many things that can go wrong. It's most likely your weaker side is going to go wrong. That's just the nature of not playing well.

Agassi tried to pound Federer's backhand at the USO when they played. Agassi has arguably the best backhand ever, yet Federer's backhand held strong.

This talk is complete BS.

 

[tricky]

He often has this "off" days in certain strokes. Sometimes his serve off timing for a few games but his groundies are OK. Sometimes, his forehand or backhand are slightly off but his serves save him and so on.

Yeah, his FH started out up-and-down when he was younger, and actually it was his 1H BH (because even at a very young age, he could create sick angles off the BH wing) that people were really impressed with. When Federer got much better at managing his game and those errors, he began winning consistently. That's something a young shotmaker like Tsonga is still learning in order to properly harness his talent.

His 1H BH execution is pretty classical, though. He produces much more topspin per contact height than most of the other players, and that enables him to find incredible crosscourt angles. Until maybe the last 2 years, he was however not as good as, say, Haas at transferring his weight all the way through the POC if the ball bounced high (i.e. his back shoulder would sometimes drop too much prior to contact.) And that leads to problems with creating consistent depth on heavy shots. That said, it's held up pretty well over the past year.

His FH isn't the same when he's forced to move around a lot. He switches his POC a lot (i.e. to hit the straight-arm, you have to move your contact point at least half a foot forward), which is why he struggles against junkballers on high bounce surfaces. He's best at harnessing that FH when he's in control of the point, in the sense that he knows what's comign back and his unit turn has been well set. When he has the center of the court, it's easier for him to cut off angles and line up the shot.

 

[NamRanger]

Yeah. Those were big stage matches that I listed. Yours were far less so.

If you're not playing well then there are only so many things that can go wrong. It's most likely your weaker side is going to go wrong. That's just the nature of not playing well.

Agassi tried to pound Federer's backhand at the USO when they played. Agassi has arguably the best backhand ever, yet Federer's backhand held strong.

This talk is complete BS.

I would hardly call master series matches "small."


Federer's backhand is great at dealing with pace, not so much with spin or people who give him no pace at the backhand wing. I also said his backhand was best from 2004-2006 when he hit very agressively with the backhand, early and on the rise, to prevent people from taking advantage of his backhand. Ever since he started hitting with more topspin and not as flat and less slicing, players have really started to take advantage of his predictability off that side.

 

[stormholloway]

So you pick the few instances where Federer lost matches to prove his backhand is a weakness?

If he had any glaring weakness he wouldn't have 13 slams, period.

He hit the most insane backhands I've ever seen from him at the 2007 AO. Players have taken advantage of his predictability on that side? Which ones? Canas and Volandri? Those were fluke losses. They happen. And Federer didn't lose to Djokovic because of his backhand.

 

[daddy]

So you pick the few instances where Federer lost matches to prove his backhand is a weakness?

If he had any glaring weakness he wouldn't have 13 slams, period.

He hit the most insane backhands I've ever seen from him at the 2007 AO. Players have taken advantage of his predictability on that side? Which ones? Canas and Volandri? Those were fluke losses. They happen. And Federer didn't lose to Djokovic because of his backhand.

Agreed but he still has 12 I think, last time I checked

 

[NamRanger]

So you pick the few instances where Federer lost matches to prove his backhand is a weakness?

If he had any glaring weakness he wouldn't have 13 slams, period.

He hit the most insane backhands I've ever seen from him at the 2007 AO. Players have taken advantage of his predictability on that side? Which ones? Canas and Volandri? Those were fluke losses. They happen. And Federer didn't lose to Djokovic because of his backhand.

His backhand is still his weakness. It's not a glaring one, but one that can be taken advantaged of unless he is 100% like during the 2007 AO.

 

[fastdunn]

His 1H BH execution is pretty classical, though. He produces much more topspin per contact height than most of the other players, and that enables him to find incredible crosscourt angles. Until maybe the last 2 years, he was however not as good as, say, Haas at transferring his weight all the way through the POC if the ball bounced high (i.e. his back shoulder would sometimes drop too much prior to contact.) And that leads to problems with creating consistent depth on heavy shots. That said, it's held up pretty well over the past year.
.

yeah, it's very hard not to be classical when it comes to 1hbh, i think.
as you said, i just think he hits it with lots of spin(whip). lots of top spin or extrem underspin. he just doesn't hit that many subtle in-between shots that old classical 1 handers use. Well, I guess game has changed. the game is very spinny now.

 

[stormholloway]

His backhand is still his weakness. It's not a glaring one, but one that can be taken advantaged of unless he is 100% like during the 2007 AO.

It's not a weakness. It may be his weaker side but that doesn't make it a weakness. His backhand is better than 99.9% of tour players if not 100%.

Any player on any given day can have a stroke break down, but I watch Federer's matches, and I've seen that in Federer's losses, his forehand breaks down equally as much as his backhand.

 

[stormholloway]

Agreed but he still has 12 I think, last time I checked

Yeah. Woops. I thought he got an honorary slam title at the AO this year.

 

[drakulie]

He hit the most insane backhands I've ever seen from him at the 2007 AO.

Agreed. His backhand in that tourney was unreal, and best I've ever seen it.

 

[daddy]

Yeah. Woops. I thought he got an honorary slam title at the AO this year.

No you smmoke too much of that in your avatar .. He had some obsicles ! :twisted:

 

[Tius]

I think Fed's sudden "weakness" on his backhand side really is him trying to evolve it. Before in his earlier career, seemed like he hit his backhand more flat and on the rise and as a result naturally, you'll hit more winners. However, that limits the ability to hit angles. I think Fed found this out when he started his war with nadal during the clay season where the surface prevents him from hitting winners and on top of that, nadal just runs like a machine and you can't hit through him. As a result in the last 2-3 years, seems like Fed is trying to develope more topspin on his backhand to deal with clay, to hit more angles, etc. And as most everybody knows, when you're so engrained at this point, any small change is going to affect you drastically. We've all seen at AO '07 how ridiculous Fed's backhand can be and we've all seen during his aforementioned losses how also ridiculous (relatively speaking for Fed's standards) looking his backhand can be. I think he's still at a point where he's becoming more and more comfortable with the topspin backhand he's trying to develope and hit consistently. Just like us, pro's are gonna have their on/off days and with the 1-hb topspin shot, off days can be grueling. And even then, during Fed's off days or more like off years, he manages to loss less matches in a year than most can boast in a couple of months. Honestly, on Fed's bad day, I'll still take his backhand.

 

[tricky]

yeah, it's very hard not to be classical when it comes to 1hbh, i think.

1H BH's gone through a transformation with cats like Henin, Gasquet, and Kuerten. What's fascinating is how Federer manages his combination of pace and spin using largely classical form.

as you said, i just think he hits it with lots of spin(whip). lots of top spin or extrem underspin. he just doesn't hit that many subtle in-between shots that old classical 1 handers use. Well, I guess game has changed. the game is very spinny now.

It's still kinda odd to see players use a 1H BH as part of a power baseline game rather than a true attacking style where they're cutting off angles at the net. Now you're seeing 2H BHs with exquisite angles in their own right.

 

[dennis10is]

I would hardly call master series matches "small."


Federer's backhand is great at dealing with pace, not so much with spin or people who give him no pace at the backhand wing. I also said his backhand was best from 2004-2006 when he hit very agressively with the backhand, early and on the rise, to prevent people from taking advantage of his backhand. Ever since he started hitting with more topspin and not as flat and less slicing, players have really started to take advantage of his predictability off that side.

I respectfully disagree with what must be the correct analysis from you Nam. I guess I like to be wrong but I think his backhand is better now than before. His loses occurs when his forehand fails him. When I say fail, I mean that he goes for it like he always does, and he expects that it would fall inside for winners 80-90 percent of the time, on off days due to whatever combination of him, playing conditions and his opponents, his forehands would miss more and this is when he gets into a "struggle" with his opponent (otherwise, Fed would roll). The better the opponent, the harder it is for him to find his groove on his forehand, the harder he can stay in the rhythm. Fed's game is varied but he establishes an internal rhythm, like all great players. The strong players challenges his rhythm and when his forehands goes off he is in trouble against them.

For Sampras it was his serve and the put away volleys. That was his diet. For Agassi, it was the metronomic forehands and backhands from center of the court running the opponent.

When Fed's game goes down a level, you notice the backhand weakening but I see his entire game decline when he loses his rhythm. The backend is the symptom not the root cause. If there must be the earliest symptom, or a precursor, it would be his forehand.