If Federer had not abandoned his pre 2003 backhand...........

[iamke55]

I don't know but Federer was driving his backhand pretty well at this year's French Open. Did you see his 2nd round match against Falla? Falla was attacking Federer's backhand relentlessly with his lefty crosscourt forehands and Federer was nailing his backhands back just as hard and with interest. Federer's backhand was very consistent and it never broke down.

This is one reason it was such a shame that he didn't get the chance to use his improved, more confident backhand against that other lefty we all know and love at this year's RG.

Somehow, inexplicably, Federer has improved his backhand drive this year. Look at his backhands at the Australian Open, and compare it to the same shot in any other of his matches vs Murray and you will see a huge difference.

 

[piece]

Somehow, inexplicably, Federer has improved his backhand drive this year. Look at his backhands at the Australian Open, and compare it to the same shot in any other of his matches vs Murray and you will see a huge difference.

Yeah it was very good at the french too. But not so good as '06-early '07. But maybe as good as later '07. Big improvement on '08-'09 though, which is something you don't really expect to see so late in a player's career. How's it looking at Halle? I've missed both matches.

 

[jackson vile]

He might have actually not lost all those finals to Nadal at Roland Garros and might have had a better head to head record against him.

When Federer was still up and coming, his backhand was clearly his better shot. He used to drive BH CC in rallies with a lot of depth and power trying to force the issue against his opponent and cough up a short ball. The problem was that Federer tended to make a lot of unforced errors from this shot since he was still a raw talent back then. It would have taken him a couple of more years to master this shot and his backhand overall.

I do not know who made the decision but it seemed that as early as 2003, Federer began to slice more on the backhand and junkball more in cross court rallies. This was to set up a winner to be hit on the forehand side which was becoming his better shot year after year. In the long run it is obvious to say that Federer made the right decision with the way he tooled his game. The thing is though this not necessarily the case.

What people do not realise is that how much greater Federer could have become if he just carried on driving through his backhand (like Stanislas Wawrinka or Nicolas Almagro.) Federer is a perfectionist and it must have taken a lot of humility from him to accept that you can not have near perfect strokes on both the BH and FH sides.

Federer before his dominance did not have the same variety he does now. So it was no surprise that he had loosing records against Hewitt and Nalbandian, guys who feed of pace. I guess the fact that Federer was frequently being called a waste of talent forced him to re-tool parts of his game and the variety and patience to his game which in the years to come has seen him give every player match up problems.

Except one players which is Nadal. If Federer had carried on try to drive through the ball in cross court rallies as he did before his breakthrough, the topspin from Nadal FH to his single handed backhand would not be as bigger issue as it has been for him.

The only problem would be that if he carried on playing like he did before his breakthrough, would he have the same variety that he does today? Federer might have won more French Opens but overall less grand slams so you cannot have it all I guess.

I am sure during the early 2000s Federer use to play a sort of different game. I can't be the only one who has this opinion.

Discuss

I agree, his back hand was out right deadly! Guys did not know which way to hit the ball...

 

[Wilander Fan]

He might have actually not lost all those finals to Nadal at Roland Garros and might have had a better head to head record against him.

When Federer was still up and coming, his backhand was clearly his better shot. He used to drive BH CC in rallies with a lot of depth and power trying to force the issue against his opponent and cough up a short ball. The problem was that Federer tended to make a lot of unforced errors from this shot since he was still a raw talent back then. It would have taken him a couple of more years to master this shot and his backhand overall.

I do not know who made the decision but it seemed that as early as 2003, Federer began to slice more on the backhand and junkball more in cross court rallies. This was to set up a winner to be hit on the forehand side which was becoming his better shot year after year. In the long run it is obvious to say that Federer made the right decision with the way he tooled his game. The thing is though this not necessarily the case.

What people do not realise is that how much greater Federer could have become if he just carried on driving through his backhand (like Stanislas Wawrinka or Nicolas Almagro.) Federer is a perfectionist and it must have taken a lot of humility from him to accept that you can not have near perfect strokes on both the BH and FH sides.

Federer before his dominance did not have the same variety he does now. So it was no surprise that he had loosing records against Hewitt and Nalbandian, guys who feed of pace. I guess the fact that Federer was frequently being called a waste of talent forced him to re-tool parts of his game and the variety and patience to his game which in the years to come has seen him give every player match up problems.

Except one players which is Nadal. If Federer had carried on try to drive through the ball in cross court rallies as he did before his breakthrough, the topspin from Nadal FH to his single handed backhand would not be as bigger issue as it has been for him.

The only problem would be that if he carried on playing like he did before his breakthrough, would he have the same variety that he does today? Federer might have won more French Opens but overall less grand slams so you cannot have it all I guess.

I am sure during the early 2000s Federer use to play a sort of different game. I can't be the only one who has this opinion.

Discuss

Most players cant do much with the slice so its better percentage tennis for Fed to slice his backhands until he gets a forehand he can put away. Fed plays very low risk tennis and this is why he had that semi streak. A player generally needs to win playing high risk tennis to beat this.

 

[West Coast Ace]

When Federer was still up and coming, his backhand was clearly his better shot.

Source? Why is it that early on Nalbandian owned him and said to beat Fed all you had to do was 'play to his BH'?

I don't think he changed it as much as he improved it. And the variety was part of that evolution.

 

[RogerRacket111]

I agree he does not have the ability to hit winners from his backhand consistently. Running around takes its toll and opens up the court for his opponents. Players know they can go to his backhand and be safe.

He was unstoppable when they had no place to go. I wish he retooled also. I feel one of the problem is that heavy racket of his.

 

[joke-a-vich]

Im not being sarcastic, i think he should use a 2hbh and start using a roddick pure drive gt...his career is going down the toilet anyway i mean he only has one slam this year.

ok, 1. there are still two slams left right now and 2. i think one slam a year for anyone is not a bad career, even for roger. Yes, he is not going to be dominating as much (or at all) as he used to, but that doesn't mean his career is in the toilet.

 

[BreakPoint]

Source? Why is it that early on Nalbandian owned him and said to beat Fed all you had to do was 'play to his BH'?

Well, Nalbandian has a better chance of winning a backhand-to-backhand rally with Federer than a forehand-to-forehand rally with him.

 

[BreakPoint]

I agree he does not have the ability to hit winners from his backhand consistently. Running around takes its toll and opens up the court for his opponents. Players know they can go to his backhand and be safe.

He was unstoppable when they had no place to go. I wish he retooled also. I feel one of the problem is that heavy racket of his.

Heavier racquets are better and easier for one-handed backhands because you need the weight of the racquet to do more of the work for you as you only have one hand/arm on the racquet. It's the greater momentum from the swing with the heavier racquet that helps you drive the ball with one hand. I hit my best 1HBH's with the KPS88, but it's a tad too heavy for me for everything else.

 

[mellowyellow]

Not yoo credit the rackets with too much of the game, but if fed used a 95/98, and a little stiffer frame, it would give him the option of offense on the return, and the added kick/jump on serves, and in a rally. Note too, if Nadal played with Feds racket, he would probably wouldn't have the h2h or not by so much. The consistency would be less, the pace would be less the and the kick/jump would be less on the serve and forehand.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Well, Nalbandian has a better chance of winning a backhand-to-backhand rally with Federer than a forehand-to-forehand rally with him.

And that's what I was asking the OP. Roger's FH has always been his killshot. Yet the OP claimed pre-'03 his BH was his better side. Which I find ridiculous.