Is the One-Handed Backhand effective in today's tennis

[Holmes]

I would like to see more 1 HBH’s taught and used effectively in the competitive arena. The balance has certainly shifted too much the other way.
I think from a coaching perspective, with many children these days and their more sedentary and digital lifestyles, well they tend to be weaker and less dexterous than generations gone past. A lot of children struggle to catch and throw over arm these days. And because they are weak when they turn up for their beginner/intermediate lessons they struggle with the eastern backhand grip. They also struggle with high and end range balls because of the same weakness. And yes the lighter racquets, court surfaces and strings do have an impact. The other thing is that many parents and the kids want early success, and the weakness in grip strength, grip familiarity and general dexterity means that it may take longer for that child to develop an effective backhand using an eastern backhand grip. A lot of parents and children expect instant success so coaches will find that adjusting to a continental right hand and eastern left hand to perform 2 handed backhand is easier to do, and the student then feels more happy about the situation. I think people need to be more patient and less pressured to become familiar with a 1 handed backhand grip.
Can the 1 hand backhand be effective - absolutely I do think it can.

I don't think so - not in an a homogenized era of slow conditions that requires heavy grinding from the baseline. If we adopted 90s conditions and banned poly? Sure. But in the heavy topspin polyster era having to hit 5+ topspin 1HBHs in a row is a big ask in terms of achieving depth and consistency. Look at how even Federer, as consistent as his 1HBH became, was slicing nearly every 3rd ball, and not just because he wanted to "mix it up" but because he needed to in order to avoid errors. He said something very revealing about his backhand in an interview with Henman and Borg a few years ago - "my whole career my struggle has been to hit 4 backhands in in a row." It may have been lighthearted, but it's very true to the general one-handed backhand player's experience at a competitive level.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

The 2HBH has essentially no downside. Yes, you can hit with more spin and power with the 1HBH, but you also need time to set up. Time is at a premium. The 2HBH doesn’t need to be perfect to be effective. The 1HBH does.

 

[a10best]

Better question: Do junior coaches in the US even know how to teach and develop a 1HBH? Is the 1HBH really inferior, or do US coaches simply not know what they are doing? Somehow, European players keep winning slams and reaching the top 10 with a 1HBH, but American coaches keep saying the 1HBH doesn’t work in the modern game. What do European junior coaches know that Americans do not? It is quite laughable to me to hear American coaches that run academies telling parents and junior players that the 1HBH won’t work in the modern game, while European players with a 1HBH are holding trophies and making millions of dollars on tour. What they should say instead is “I do not know how to teach and develop the 1HBH. This is a limitation of my coaching ability and tennis knowledge”.

Exactly ^^
juniors are predominantly using 2hbh. which juniors?
It hasn't helped the US men get close to a slam except Roddick in the last 23 yrs.

 

[Holmes]

Exactly ^^
juniors are predominantly using 2hbh. which juniors?
It hasn't helped the US men get close to a slam except Roddick in the last 23 yrs.

The backhand is probably one of the least important factors in why Roddick was the last American slam winner. Having a 90s oriented mentality when training oversized oafs to focus on the serve and nothing else is much more relevant.

 

[onehandbh]

How come one hand is enough on the forehand then? Just because the muscles in the front are stronger than the back ones?

There is nobody that can throw a baseball faster with a backhand/frisbee motion vs a regular throwing motion.

Also better suited for adapting to non-optimal contact heights and distances from the body.

 

[Honza]

The 2HBH has essentially no downside. Yes, you can hit with more spin and power with the 1HBH, but you also need time to set up. Time is at a premium. The 2HBH doesn’t need to be perfect to be effective. The 1HBH does.

No, you can NOT hit a OHBH with more power or spin and no, time is not a factor, since you dont need more to set it up.

 

[Shroud]

My opinion, I think Federer was onto something when he came back in 2017 and started to hit more driving one handers early on top of the baseline instead of falling back on the slice or letting the ball get up. I always wonder what his career would have been like using that tactic early on, especially against Nadal. Should have, would have, could have.

I think that strategy is the future of the one hander and makes it just as solid as the two hander.

The reason why you'll continue to see less usage, like many have said already, junior kids are taught two hands at a young age or are more inclined to it.

And the racquet switch. Imho most of this one hander isn’t fit for the modern game is mostly Fed just using a 90” frame. He did better when he switched to a 97”.

Said another way, wawrinka and gasquet and blake and almagro, and just about every other one hander with a bigger headsize didnt seem to struggle like Fed did with his 90”.

He did better with his 97”…

 

[onehandbh]

Using a 90 square inch racquet to play against Nadal at the French Open is insanity.

 

[Shroud]

There is nobody that can throw a baseball faster with a backhand/frisbee motion vs a regular throwing motion.

Also better suited for adapting to non-optimal contact heights and distances from the body.

Assuming speed of throw equates to more distance, when throwing a frisbee for distance one always throws it backhand.

Since you have more reach on a onehander I don’t get the heights and distance thing.

Personally I like a high ball to the bh…

 

[Shroud]

Using a 90 square inch racquet to play against Nadal at the French Open is insanity.

Exactly. Sampras had the same insanity.

 

[Holmes]

Exactly. Sampras had the same insanity.

He was more insane. 85 square inch racket with gut strung at 70+lbs

 

[Holmes]

No, you can NOT hit a OHBH with more power or spin and no, time is not a factor, since you dont need more to set it up.

You need to hit a 1HBH close stanced most of the time. You can occasionally lean back or go semi-open if you've got the improv and strength, but full open stance is not tenable at the competitive level like it is with a 2HBH, so I do think you need more time to set up the 1HBH.

 

[onehandbh]

Exactly. Sampras had the same insanity.

How many square inches is a wood Jack Kramer Autograph racquet?

 

[Honza]

You need to hit a 1HBH close stanced most of the time. You can occasionally lean back or go semi-open if you've got the improv and strength, but full open stance is not tenable at the competitive level like it is with a 2HBH, so I do think you need more time to set up the 1HBH.

True although i dont think its much of a time difference with what foot you are coming in. Makes a bigger difference because you are quicker ready for the next ball.
But you have a point.

 

[JohnYandell]

I think there is a confusion here. We talk about the differences in the two handers versus one-handers indiscrimately as if pro players and rec players were the same. They aren't. You can have a one-hander and win in the class tournaments and definitely the seniors. It's ridiculous to think of 70 year old guys hitting with 2.
As far as the juniors go if you are a coach try telling an insane helicopter parent that in the long run a one-hander could be a better choice for a 10 year old he's leaving.
With the dominance of the two-handers in the juniors--last time I filmed a national junior event with 500 plus players across 3 age divisions--I counted 2 one-handers. I might have missed a few. It could have been 5. That's one percent.

 

[Dragy]

I counted 2 one-handers.

Were they good and using one-handers to their advantage?

 

[ey039524]

And the racquet switch. Imho most of this one hander isn’t fit for the modern game is mostly Fed just using a 90” frame. He did better when he switched to a 97”.

Said another way, wawrinka and gasquet and blake and almagro, and just about every other one hander with a bigger headsize didnt seem to struggle like Fed did with his 90”.

He did better with his 97”…

I think both Fed and Sampras said they wished they switched earlier in their careers.

I recall Fed struggling only against Nadal. Every other player w a ohbh did, as well, to be fair.

After he had already switched to his 97, he stepped in and took the ball on the rise. 2016-17, I think he beat Nadal 5 times in a row.

 

[a10best]

I think both Fed and Sampras said they wished they switched earlier in their careers.

I recall Fed struggling only against Nadal. Every other player w a ohbh did, as well, to be fair.

After he had already switched to his 97, he stepped in and took the ball on the rise. 2016-17, I think he beat Nadal 5 times in a row.

Sampras had a 2hbh until age 15 or 16.
I agree w/ you. Fed made most 2hbh players look inferior except Djokovic and Nadal.
Wawrinka, Gasquet, Thiem and Dimitrov in their peak years were not giving easy points to opponents when hit to their bh.
There's numerous bigger factors why they lost the matches to them whether they had a 1hbh or 2hbh.
People can easily look at all the other 2hbh players who also have lopsided h2hs against big 3 like Monfis, Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro, Zverev, Medvedev, Rublev, Fritz, De Minaur...
Moreover, this group was not out destroying Stan, Gasquet, Thiem or Dimi either.
- Tsitsipas with all the flaws people see in his 1hbh has remained a solid top 10 player and still a true threat to win a slam. His fh and serve over compensate for his weak 1hbh much like Rublev's stronger fh does.
- Kecmanovic was a beast in the juniors with his 2hbh yet he hasn't done anything close to his jr. days. Even Sharpovalov has had a far better career than him.

 

[a10best]

You need to hit a 1HBH close stanced most of the time. You can occasionally lean back or go semi-open if you've got the improv and strength, but full open stance is not tenable at the competitive level like it is with a 2HBH, so I do think you need more time to set up the 1HBH.

Thiem has a great open stance 1hbh, and can even slide into it whic is amazing. Wawrinka will occasionally hit one as well. Many of his 1hbhs are semi-open stance with hip rotation is how he gets his power that puts 2hbh rally players in trouble. In general, I agree an open stance 1hbh is not ideal much the same way as an open stance 2hbh isn't.

I think the "more time to set up" for 1hbh argument is exaggerated on hard courts and grass. History shows:

- Fed's 8 Wimbledon championships, 6 AO, 5 straight US Open wins on a fast surface and many runner-ups to a better player.
- Wawrinka won 2 HC slams, Australia and US Open and was runner-up and semis other times. Also made 2QFs at Wimbledon
- Thiem won the US Open against one of the most steadiest 2hbh's that I like; Zverev. 17 titles, including (2) Tour finals as finalist.
- Dimitrov's made the semis of AO, USO, and Wimbledon. but not the French a much slower surface with ample time to set-up.
- Gasquet made 3 slam semis, USO and Wimbledon 2x. 18 career titles.
- Tistsipas - made 2023 AO final; won the ATP tour finals in 2019 against another 1hbh player; Thiem.

I do like certain 2hbh like 3 of the former big four, Agassi, Ferrer, Zev, and Sinner. So, I'm not anti-2hbh. I dislike Tsits 1hbh in every way including his float slice.

 

[Holmes]

Thiem has a great open stance 1hbh, and can even slide into it whic is amazing. Wawrinka will occasionally hit one as well. Many of his 1hbhs are semi-open stance with hip rotation is how he gets his power that puts 2hbh rally players in trouble. In general, I agree an open stance 1hbh is not ideal much the same way as an open stance 2hbh isn't.

I think the "more time to set up" for 1hbh argument is exaggerated on hard courts and grass. History shows:

- Fed's 8 Wimbledon championships, 6 AO, 5 straight US Open wins on a fast surface and many runner-ups to a better player.
- Wawrinka won 2 HC slams, Australia and US Open and was runner-up and semis other times. Also made 2QFs at Wimbledon
- Thiem won the US Open against one of the most steadiest 2hbh's that I like; Zverev. 17 titles, including (2) Tour finals as finalist.
- Dimitrov's made the semis of AO, USO, and Wimbledon. but not the French a much slower surface with ample time to set-up.
- Gasquet made 3 slam semis, USO and Wimbledon 2x. 18 career titles.
- Tistsipas - made 2023 AO final; won the ATP tour finals in 2019 against another 1hbh player; Thiem.

I do like certain 2hbh like 3 of the former big four, Agassi, Ferrer, Zev, and Sinner. So, I'm not anti-2hbh. I dislike Tsits 1hbh in every way including his float slice.

Thiem and Stan hit semi-open backhands. Rarely if ever have I seen them hit full open unless off a return they're jumping for.

Federer's backhand is not the reason he won his titles, and he often sliced it or ran around it for timing reasons because he would shank his topspin backhand or mishit it resulting in short balls that were very attackable. Fans don't tend to remember this.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

No, you can NOT hit a OHBH with more power or spin and no, time is not a factor, since you dont need more to set it up.

False. It is well documented that the 1HBH creates more rpms on the ball and more power. Really no one disputes this. And yes, time is absolutely a factor. Players do not use the 2HBH because of its offensive potential, but because of its defensive potential. How many times have we heard the “sword and shield” metaphor?

 

[Holmes]

False. It is well documented that the 1HBH creates more rpms on the ball and more power. Really no one disputes this. And yes, time is absolutely a factor. Players do not use the 2HBH because of its offensive potential, but because of its defensive potential. How many times have we heard the “sword and shield” metaphor?

The 1HBH if hit with the intention of creating heavy topspin can generally do this better than a 2HBH because of the upward swing path and extreme grip that more easily imparts heavy topspin, but does not generate more power for a number of reasons, some of the most basic being that there is actually more body rotation with a 2HBH, the swing path is more "through" the ball, and you have the extra hand which helps for a number of uncomfortable situations like the high ball for example. The 2HBH is used because it is consistent, not defensive, due to the additional stability from the extra hand. Someone can easily use their 2HBH to dictate rallies and support an overall aggressive game style.

 

[Holmes]

True although i dont think its much of a time difference with what foot you are coming in. Makes a bigger difference because you are quicker ready for the next ball.
But you have a point.

The great Honza concedes I have a point! I may now rest in peace.
Did you hit a 1HBH?

 

[ChaelAZ]

Still effective.

 

[Dragy]

False. It is well documented that the 1HBH creates more rpms on the ball and more power. Really no one disputes this. And yes, time is absolutely a factor. Players do not use the 2HBH because of its offensive potential, but because of its defensive potential. How many times have we heard the “sword and shield” metaphor?

Yeah that may be right in controlled environment. But then they say how they need smaller head, lower powered racquets to use OHBH.

There are not many OHBHs which can in practice attack better than Sinner’s 2HBH, for example. Neither do it off decently deep and heavy balls without backing up.

Of course we’ve seen Wawrinka deliver incredible winners, but if you simply compare those to redirect DTL 2HBH winners guys hit every match, every second game… I’m afraid even Stan the Man won’t be leading the chart.

 

[a10best]

The 1HBH if hit with the intention of creating heavy topspin can generally do this better than a 2HBH because of the upward swing path and extreme grip that more easily imparts heavy topspin, but does not generate more power for a number of reasons, some of the most basic being that there is actually more body rotation with a 2HBH, the swing path is more "through" the ball, and you have the extra hand which helps for a number of uncomfortable situations like the high ball for example. The 2HBH is used because it is consistent, not defensive, due to the additional stability from the extra hand. Someone can easily use their 2HBH to dictate rallies and support an overall aggressive game style.

That someone is not Hurcacz, Ruud, or Rublev dictating rallies with their 2hbh.
This debate has been going on for decades yet 1hbh still win slams, still make slam finals, still make jrs semis and finals. I witnessed an int'l jr. at an IMG tournament months back with a beautiful Musetti type bh in the semis. Not sure if he made the finals or not I had to leave.

The extra hand on the 2hbh for stability seems to be causing some players wrist pain and injuries recently. This indicates a higher chance of injuries, right?
Because they have to use their right wrist on the fh and left wrist on the 2hbh while a 1hbh has to only focus on having one strong wrist and a WWE-type forearm.
I remember Djokovic & Delpo suffered from this.
thoughts?

I don't have the video url anymore but Thiem has hit quite a few open stance 1hbhs sliding to that side like Djokovic/Sinner with his 2hbh but mostly on clay.

 

[a10best]

Yeah that may be right in controlled environment. But then they say how they need smaller head, lower powered racquets to use OHBH.

There are not many OHBHs which can in practice attack better than Sinner’s 2HBH, for example. Neither do it off decently deep and heavy balls without backing up.

Of course we’ve seen Wawrinka deliver incredible winners, but if you simply compare those to redirect DTL 2HBH winners guys hit every match, every second game… I’m afraid even Stan the Man won’t be leading the chart.

They just use their bigger fh or serve to compensate, Tsitsipas!! . There's so many examples of 1hbh players with great fh's and serves, sans Gasquet.

 

[Dragy]

They just use their bigger fh or serve to compensate, Tsitsipas!! . There's so many examples of 1hbh players with great fh's and serves, sans Gasquet.

Everyone uses big FH and serve on top level. I don’t argue OHBH players can be on top of the game. That would be dumb.

I’m more of wondering if there’s any practical advantage to use OHBH, and whether there are extra conditions for this. I have no answer yet, but for pro players, I don’t even see OHBH players like Thiem or Musetti winning BH to BH rallies. While I can see enough attacking ability of 2HBH to hit winners off anything shortish.

 

[a10best]

Everyone uses big FH and serve on top level. I don’t argue OHBH players can be on top of the game. That would be dumb.

I’m more of wondering if there’s any practical advantage to use OHBH, and whether there are extra conditions for this. I have no answer yet, but for pro players, I don’t even see OHBH players like Thiem or Musetti winning BH to BH rallies. While I can see enough attacking ability of 2HBH to hit winners off anything shortish.

I don't understand that comment. Thiem was #2 and Musetti is close to top 10 so they are indeed winning bh rallies against the majority of 2hbh players.
You did see how well Dimitrov's 1hbh looked the whole IW tournament; deep, short balls, or high bouncing serves to his 1hbh he hit winners with ease. He even sprinted for a service box short ball to his bh and hit a sliding 1hbh on a hc!! The generalizations they can't do "x" never end, yet there's plenty of examples and I don't watch even half of the matches.

The 1hbh advantages have been mentioned before. Most 1hbh players have:
- a natural volley that doesn't look forced or uncomfortable like 2hbh Medvedev, Zverev, Rublev and many other 2hbh players
............. (Medvedev looked pathetic and recreation park-ish at the net in the USO 23' final. very embarrassing for a #2 or #3 in the world)
- a strong fh side.

 

[Holmes]

That someone is not Hurcacz, Ruud, or Rublev dictating rallies with their 2hbh.
This debate has been going on for decades yet 1hbh still win slams, still make slam finals, still make jrs semis and finals. I witnessed an int'l jr. at an IMG tournament months back with a beautiful Musetti type bh in the semis. Not sure if he made the finals or not I had to leave.

The extra hand on the 2hbh for stability seems to be causing some players wrist pain and injuries recently. This indicates a higher chance of injuries, right?
Because they have to use their right wrist on the fh and left wrist on the 2hbh while a 1hbh has to only focus on having one strong wrist and a WWE-type forearm.
I remember Djokovic & Delpo suffered from this.
thoughts?

I don't have the video url anymore but Thiem has hit quite a few open stance 1hbhs sliding to that side like Djokovic/Sinner with his 2hbh but mostly on clay.

There are many pros with 2HBHs that use their backhands offensively, including Zverev, Fritz, Djokovic, Sinner to name just a few. Of the last 20 slams won, how many were won by a 1HBH player?

 

[JohnYandell]

Draggy,
They looked good. An 18s guy was super explosive. A girl with a one-hander got to the final, maybe won it.

 

[a10best]

There are many pros with 2HBHs that use their backhands offensively, including Zverev, Fritz, Djokovic, Sinner to name just a few. Of the last 20 slams won, how many were won by a 1HBH player?

when the field is littered with 2hbh players, rhetorical questions are not the best presentation.
Another deep fact is Tsits, Thiem, Wawrinka, Federer lost to once in a century GOATs. These 4 players did beat all the other 2hbh players on their way to the final.
Those 2 GOATs (Rafa & Nole) beat all the other 2hbh's handily so the argument is inconclusive.

Of those 4 you selected, their 2hbhs are definitely not the major reason 2 of those 4 players won a slam. You know very well their other real strengths. Their bh is simply a contributing factor to make it all work. Their defensive skills were elite. Thiem, Wawrinka and Tsits don't have that. Neither does Zev or Fritz.. Fritz?? c'mon man..

Djokovic would easily win slams if he had a 1hbh. Yet, those other 2hbh players may never win a slam because they lack all the other attributes Sinner, Nadal, Alcaraz, and Djokovic have.
Give me a 1hbh player with those other attributes they have and they will win slams; that player was Federer.
Even Stan with few defensive skills, suspect volleys, good serve, managed to still get 3 slams by bullying them back-to-back with his 1hbh and punishing fh. Thiem couldn't beat two of them in a row. Neither could Murray, Tsonga and so on.

 

[Dragy]

- a natural volley that doesn't look forced or uncomfortable like 2hbh Medvedev, Zverev, Rublev and many other 2hbh players
............. (Medvedev looked pathetic and recreation park-ish at the net in the USO 23' final. very embarrassing for a #2 or #3 in the world)
- a strong fh side.

You cannot be serious))

These are not advantages of OHBH as a stroke. Maybe they are advantages of OHBH as player development route? Interesting way of thought, but doesn’t respond why a OHBH player shouldn’t for example develop 2HBH as well and later switch to it, keeping good volleys and FHs and serve. Or just pay enough time practicing those important shots.

I would be happy to see OHBH advantages. On clay, arcing topspin BH looks nice. On rec level I’ve been using it with success. But on the pro tour I’m still waiting for something consistently significant to prove OHBH advantages.

 

[a10best]

You cannot be serious))

These are not advantages of OHBH as a stroke. Maybe they are advantages of OHBH as player development route? Interesting way of thought, but doesn’t respond why a OHBH player shouldn’t for example develop 2HBH as well and later switch to it, keeping good volleys and FHs and serve. Or just pay enough time practicing those important shots.

I would be happy to see OHBH advantages. On clay, arcing topspin BH looks nice. On rec level I’ve been using it with success. But on the pro tour I’m still waiting for something consistently significant to prove OHBH advantages.

I'm saying overall that 1hbh players tend to have a more developed net game & fh. I don't know why it's just the way it is from the pros to the rec level. It doesn't mean they'll win it all with 1hbh or 2hbh is all I'm saying.
- I'm well aware of the disadvantages on certain shots like a kick serve to the 1hbh until you get used to it.
I like the 1hbh advantages more than its disadvantages like hitting shallowed angles, pace, or putting extreme spin on rally shots as well as knifed low slice shots, and the ability to hit sliced & blocked returns on big servers as Fed did against Roddick and others.
I agree the 2hbh is superior for the return of serve when you look at Rafa, Djokovic, Murray, and Agassi.
On the rec./amateur level I'm not coming across as many big servers as I used to who hit heavy kick serves. Luckily, after they hit one or two I get used to it and can handle it.
In some cases (certain players) the 1hbh may be less effective but by practicing other important shots and improving your defensive skills it can make up (Dimitrov, Tsitsipas) for any slight weakness.

 

[Holmes]

when the field is littered with 2hbh players, rhetorical questions are not the best presentation.
Another deep fact is Tsits, Thiem, Wawrinka, Federer lost to once in a century GOATs. These 4 players did beat all the other 2hbh players on their way to the final.
Those 2 GOATs (Rafa & Nole) beat all the other 2hbh's handily so the argument is inconclusive.

Of those 4 you selected, their 2hbhs are definitely not the major reason 2 of those 4 players won a slam. You know very well their other real strengths. Their bh is simply a contributing factor to make it all work. Their defensive skills were elite. Thiem, Wawrinka and Tsits don't have that. Neither does Zev or Fritz.. Fritz?? c'mon man..

Djokovic would easily win slams if he had a 1hbh. Yet, those other 2hbh players may never win a slam because they lack all the other attributes Sinner, Nadal, Alcaraz, and Djokovic have.
Give me a 1hbh player with those other attributes they have and they will win slams; that player was Federer.
Even Stan with few defensive skills, suspect volleys, good serve, managed to still get 3 slams by bullying them back-to-back with his 1hbh and punishing fh. Thiem couldn't beat two of them in a row. Neither could Murray, Tsonga and so on.

This proves the point.

 

[JohnYandell]

Don't think the issue for the pro game is gonna be settled on the TW message board...

 

[Dragy]

Don't think the issue for the pro game is gonna be settled on the TW message board...

We are but humble observers seeking for answers

 

[a10best]

This proves the point.

I believe what proves the point I mentioned is Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, and Fed have elite defensive skills, return of serves, footwork., court positioning, and speed.

Otherwise you are implying that if we give their 2hbh to any 1hbh player that player will instantly have a better win/loss percentage or go deeper in slams.
This will never be proven or happen in the pros.

Have you seen it work at the rec. level and if you did witness it, did you omit or include other improvements to their game during the transition such as training, shot selection, court positioning etc.?

A controlled study similar to drug efficacy and various groups is the only true way to prove the point.

My condolences for Tsitsipas' 1hbh beating Etcheverry, Zverev, Khachanov, Sinner and a 2hbh clay ct specialist, Ruud, in one week.
Haha, okay, yeah I know. You could provide endless accounts of Djokovic, Murray or Nadal and the OHBH players they defeated, incl. Tsits, Thiem, Dimi.
It's all good, just having fun. If only every 2hbh player could be like Djokovic and able to hit slice like a OHBH plyr. The next generation will probably mimic him and give us another advanced tactic. Scary.

 

[Jono123]

Few players from Atp and Wta use one handed backhand,
and its users usually have a problem with a strong serve and a sharp top spin.
Two-handed players have recently gained a large advantage over one-handed players.
more victories in atp and grand slam tournaments are recorded by holders of a two-handed backhand.

One-handed requires more technique, footwork and it is often the case that people who use it sometimes have to block plays with two hands.

It takes a lot of effort and intuition to block a service bomb with a one-handed backhand, and when playing hard top spin games, playing from the cage, you have to wave pretty well.

Coaches are now emphasizing learning two-handed backhand, and there are fewer and fewer coaches who want to teach traditional tennis.

The disappearance of one-handed players can be seen among women, less and less women play one-handed, I do not remember that such a player won the tournament, let alone the grand slam.


Are we seeing the beginning of the end of the one-handed backhand now?

Tsitipas wants a word with you.

 

[Dragy]

Tsitipas wants a word with you.

Injured Alcaraz, old Nadal, Djokovic loosing confidence and Hard-court-boy Sinner... Now we're talking, Stefanos?

 

[Jono123]

A win is a win

 

[Smecz]

Tsitipas wants a word with you.

Sure I'll talk to him and ask for forgiveness as long as he wins the Slam