Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by JTJet, Sep 24, 2012.
What do you think?
Federer takes his earlier (closer to the baseline) so he doesn't give up court positioning. It might not be as big or have as much spin but just being closer to the baseline opens up the court more and gives him more options. Plus, he has a sick slice. I'd rather take Federer's backhand.
Agreed. Gasquet stands too far back.
Fed's shot is more versatile.
But they are both beautiful strokes.
Gasquet can come up with some incredible shots, and can win backhand to backhand rallies against a lot of guys, but I think Federer's variety gives his a slight edge.
Consider variety, then find your answer easily.
Gasquet has a beautiful topspin backhand!! but he stands too far back and his slice and underspin is pretty bad. Fed has a way more versatility hence fed
Pure topspin backhand hitting ability Gasquet wins. However, Fed overtakes him with more variety, better positioning, and better ball striking ability.
Option C: Almagro
i've noticed gasquet trying to take the ball alot earlier than usual this year, even he wants a federer backhand
Gasckets has more ooo la la
Definitely Roger for the variety and the slices
honestly though, gasquet taking nearly every backhand early wasn't very pretty, yet.
that says alot about fed's backhand, so the nod goes to fed.
Henin's backhand is modeled from Federer's backhand with a twist uniquely Henin's.
Backhands? Federer, Kuerten and Gasquet.
Overall = Fed
Wawrinka has the best topspin backhand, Fed has the backhand with the most variety
I don't think so. She's only one year younger than Fed and I think she turned pro at age 16, so how could she have modeled her backhand after him?
In any case, her bh is very different from Fed's. Her forehand is actually more Fed-like.
Henin's backhand she has to hit uniquely because she's 5 foot tall. She has to take a lot of her backhands on the rise, otherwise she's going to be hitting most balls over her head.
I voted Gasquet but I'd actually say it's a wash. When you factor in Fed's BH slice which is probably the best in the world that more than makes up for any differences in their BH drive.
Federer has a better topspin crosscourt 1hbh, Gasquet has a slightly better down the line backhand A Tossup pretty much though
I like both, but I'm going to have to pick Federer's.
what would the Swiss equivalent of that be?
Tommy Haas has had the best onehander on the pro tour for years.
One of Feds Best Backhand vids
Gasquets Backhand Video
Gasquet's backhand, while an impressive shot to watch, seems to compromise his movement. Not only does he stand way back, but it takes a ton of preparation.
Federer can successfully half volley from the baseline if he wants. The only place I'm taking Gasquet's is clay.
Hamburg 2005 comes to mind when Gasquet beat Federer in that 5 set epic saving match pts (when federer only lost 4 matches all year and the only guy he didn't have match points against was Guga Kuerten in the French Open that year)
Agreed! Haas' backhand is tennis porn.
In what parallel universe does Federer have a better CC BH? His lands short very often and isn't very heavy.
And gasquet's BH DTL is alot better.
So much wrong lol.
Federer lost to Guga in 2004, not 05. He didn't lose to Gasquet in Hamburg it was in Monte Carlo. And he didn't have matchpoints against nadal in the French Open.
I completely agree. Classic, simple, less likely to break down.
Who's asking whose is better? Everybody knows it is Federer's.
You have to scour the net and surely you will find how Henin modeled her backhand from Federer's. Gosh, it doesn't have to be age-gap related.
And, btw, I said: ''...uniquely Henin's''
Fed's BH from 2003 to 2007 was one of the greatest shots in tennis
just watch some of his wtf matches of that period
You're wrong! Even JMac knows that Federer's backhand and serve are so much better now than they ever have been.
Back to reality, Fed's backhand was much better back then. He could cause damage from that side much more easily. Currently, I am happy if it doesn't break down completely in a match.
I still would take Federer's backhand over Gasquet's. Better variety and all the other crap that has already been mentioned.
Federer's BH is more consistent now than in his prime.
Except maybe for 2006.
federer point blank. me and my riend used to always practice our one handed BH saying that especially good ones were "federer backhands".
Gasquet's backhand is aesthetically beautiful, a pleasure to watch. Fed's chipped backhand is one of the ugliest shots I've ever seen. Makes me cringe every time.
Federer's BH is a relative weakness. Gasquet's is an objective strength. I'm pretty sure Federer would prefer to have Gasquet's mechanics. If Gasquet was in the top ten, it's thanks to his BH, in part. His FH is a relative weakness and his serve is rather weak.
Yeah Federer's BH is a relative weakness. That's because his game is vastly superior superior to Gasquet. That doesn't mean his backhand must be inferior.
Of course, it is. I've heard Federer complain about his BH in the past. I think he would probably take Gasquet's BH over his.
Trust me he wouldn't. Gasquet has a horrible slice and he can't take it on the rise consistently. :lol: Federer would hate that.
Easy to compare when you see them playing a match. Fed's backhand is superior to Gasquet's every time they play. Tho Gasquet has great timing on his backhand it's too topspin oriented and less versatile.
This...and many other arguments from people who favor Fed's backhand over Gasquet's ... have nothing to do with the stroke itself. The same arguments are used when comparing Fed's backhand with Wawrinka's, and they are frankly excuses.
Fed takes it earlier...because he has better footwork and his game is based on totally different court positioning.
The reason Gasquet stands so far behind the baseline has nothing to do with his backhand stroke. He can take it plenty early when he wants to and when his footwork allows him.
Just watch some of his grass matches...maybe a certain Wimbledon match against Roddick ???
I'd take Gasquet's from these 2 options, but yes...I liked other backhands as well...maybe more than Gasquet's.
From the retired guys...I'd take Korda's, Pavel's, Guga's (maybe Pioline's...which is actually very similar to Guga's/Gasquet's) for example...and from the current guys some good examples were already given...people like Haas, Wawrinka and even Kohlschreiber have close to perfect backhands. Not necessarily better than Gasquet's ... but certainly in the same league.
Give Gasquet some Federer footwork and he would be very much able to take it on the rise consistently.
What about Almagro?
Also, Gasquet's footwork is great as well.
Almagro has a very good backhand as well, but having seen both him and Gasquet live on clay...frankly...Gasquet's has more work on it.
Gasquet's backhand jumps like crazy even on indoor carpet (yes...I've seen him play live on that surface as well).
P.S. Yes...Gasquet has good footwork, but Federer's is in the "all time great" category from that point of view.
P.P.S When coming up with arguments on "stroke compared to stroke" threads people should understand that court positioning has most of the time little to do with stroke technique.
Murray stands pretty far back as well and it's NOT because he can't take his backhand (or his forehand for that matter) early. It's a choice based on personality/game style, it has pretty much nothing to do with how he hits his backhand.
An opposite example to this "far back court positioning" was Andre A. Do people actually think he stood so close to the baseline ALL THE TIME (even when the situation demanded something else) because of his stroke technique and timing only ??
He stood there because he could time the ball well...but ALSO he stood there because he lacked speeed/court coverage. He KNEW that he didn't stand a chance running balls down (something that people like Murray and Gasquet can do very well) from 3-4 meters behind the baseline...so he stood closer and took a chance.
Even when put in defense...and hence the situation would have asked for him to move 2 meters back from his usual positioning he took the gamble of sitting close and swinging at the ball. If somebody could have given him the Murray/Djokovic type of speed and court coverage, he would have chosen very differently in certain situations...you can be certain of that !
I disagree. Why would players stay behind and therefore give up an advantage for no reason? Most people stay behind because they like to have time on their shots. Why don't we see guys like Agassi or Davydenko stay 10 feet behind the baseline? Becuase they don't need to. Their shots are simple and compact so it's not really necessary. However, if you have bigger swings, you will find it harder to time your shots.
Man, I hate it when people underestimate Gasquet's talent. Just because he dodn't fulfill his promise, it doesn't mean he doesn't have it. The fact that some people consider MONFILS more talented than him is hilarious.
Haha...funny coincidence, I was actually thinking about the Agassi example before reading your post and gave you an answer in the edited post above. He stood so close to cut angles because he couldn't cover the court.
Davydenko stands so close for some similar reasons and also for some different reasons to Andre A. Similar reasons are to take time away and take the initiative in rallies and then move their opponents side to side.
Different reasons are because Davydenko would lack the power to outhit people from further back. He doesn't have a problem with speed (like Andre did) and as a result, he will actually move back when put on the defensive (at least will do it much more often than Andre did).
Separate names with a comma.