Questions about One handed players on Us Open 2023

[Smecz]

Are one-handed players having less and less chance of success against two-handed players not only because of faster tennis, but also because of less net play?!?!

or maybe the reason is the bigger and bigger heads, which are more difficult to operate with one hand?!

Something is not good for tennis when it comes to competition, it can't be that we have another quarter final of Us Open 2023 and all players play two-handed backhand!.

It's bad for tennis, it's bad for competition, it's bad for diversity, yes it's logical that a two-handed backhand is safer, but are one-handers really losing ground?!?!

We are to watch with pain and pity as players such as Dominic Thiem, Stefanos Tsitsipac, Musetti, Daniel Evans take part in grand slam tournaments?!.

And now the specific question is whether modern tennis has shown how weak the one-handed backhand is?! or maybe the fault lies in the lack of players who could give it a new life to the one-handed backhand such as Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Stan Wawrinka, Guga Kuerten, Patrick Rafter e.t.c

What do you think about this?!

 

[Alcawrath]

I think it's simply a statistics game. So many fewer juniors are seriously learning one handers than two handers.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that modern tennis has revealed the one hander to be weak. If you've watched a warwrinka match recently he looked weak, but it wasn't because of his backhand. In fact, his backhand has kept him in the game. Now, if you watch Tsitsipas and only Tsitsipas, then I'd agree with you.

 

[Smecz]

I think it's simply a statistics game. So many fewer juniors are seriously learning one handers than two handers.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that modern tennis has revealed the one hander to be weak. If you've watched a warwrinka match recently he looked weak, but it wasn't because of his backhand. In fact, his backhand has kept him in the game. Now, if you watch Tsitsipas and only Tsitsipas, then I'd agree with you.

Juniors usually play with two hands, because they have a problem with holding the racket, moreover, if you see the reality of modern tennis, then probably such a coach does not want to go against the current, etc.


The way i see it is that the slower the flat low balls, the easier it is to pierce with one-handed, and the higher the speed of rotation, the easier it is to play with two-handed backhand.

But there's really nothing you can do about it, or are the one-handed people doomed to execution?!.

I understand what's going on with Wawrinka, but I'm more concerned with the fact that if a one-handed player and a two-handed player come out on the court, the odds of winning the two-handed player are 60/40% or even 70/30%.

Even those who serve hard and win their service games confidently choose a two-handed bakhand.

More and more you watch matches where it is assumed that one-handed will lose to two-handed!

This is weak, and the discipline of tennis is losing!

 

[ChaelAZ]

Two hand is quicker to develop a reliable stroke for most kids. Coaches want to show quick results to parents paying for progress. Thus teaching a 1 hander seems rare anymore.

The plus/delta of the two has been battered about ad nauseum, but suffice to say given proper training both are effective, albeit in different ways and scenarios.

 

[Alcawrath]

Two hand is quicker to develop a reliable stroke for most kids. Coaches want to show quick results to parents paying for progress. Thus teaching a 1 hander seems rare anymore.

The plus/delta of the two has been battered about ad nauseum, but suffice to say given proper training both are effective, albeit in different ways and scenarios.

Exactly this

 

[ppma]

or maybe the reason is the bigger and bigger heads, which are more difficult to operate with one hand?!

Why would it be so?

It's noy like the 1hbh is hindering players. It's that there are few of them. One might think that there are few of them because the shot itself is weaker or less reliable, but that's pure speculation. The only reason it's not being used so much nowadays is that for kids the two hander comes naturally, while the 1hbh takes son undeveloped physicallity into play, and thus slower results.

 

[Smecz]

Two hand is quicker to develop a reliable stroke for most kids. Coaches want to show quick results to parents paying for progress. Thus teaching a 1 hander seems rare anymore.

The plus/delta of the two has been battered about ad nauseum, but suffice to say given proper training both are effective, albeit in different ways and scenarios.

Yes,that's true, and Grand Slam winners also have an influence on this,because kids at the beginning of their game usually imitate their idols!.

And until a player like Federer or at least Wawrinka shows up again (it's about efficiency, not style).
Because Tsitsipas is not a player of this type, but I see it in such a way that since playing at the net is less effective, the more difficult it is for one-handers to gain an advantage on the court!!!.

The one-handed backhand is more for attacking than defending, because playing one-handed after a few hours is more tiring than playing with two-handed.

And winning points at the net helps you finish points faster!

It seemed that the faster the better for one-handers, but you need to take into account passing shots, returns..

I think it would also help if the one-handers more confidently won their serves like Federer, Sampras, Ivo Karlovic, etc.

 

[Smecz]

Why would it be so?

It's noy like the 1hbh is hindering players. It's that there are few of them. One might think that there are few of them because the shot itself is weaker or less reliable, but that's pure speculation. The only reason it's not being used so much nowadays is that for kids the two hander comes naturally, while the 1hbh takes son undeveloped physicallity into play, and thus slower results.

This is normal, kids don't have enough strength for a single backhand, and tennis is getting faster!More and more forceful!.

I'm just wondering if this state of affairs is not going to be remedied, tennis needs diversity, I think that the biggest gap in this topic is in women

It's harder to play with the wrist and harder to close the racket, not to mention ball control.

Just grab a racket with a 105 head and play a one-handed backhand and then a two-handed backhand, and you know what's going to happen..

It's mainly about the pleasure of the game often, playing top spin head for example 100, in the long run is not pleasant, wilson made a good move with pro staff have 97 heads are quite optimal for today's tennis head size for one-handed players!.

 

[ppma]

It's harder to play with the wrist and harder to close the racket, not to mention ball control.

There is no active wrist in tennis on typical groundstrokes.

Just grab a racket with a 105 head and play a one-handed backhand and then a two-handed backhand, and you know what's going to happen..

Nope. I play a 95, and I am only competent in 1hbh. Can grab a 102sqin tho. What happens when switching to 1h to 2h? (serious question)

 

[Dragy]

What exactly makes you think OH is better with smaller head? It’s known premise, but if it’s false?

Gasquet plays with a 100. Federer improved after moving up to 97. Thiem and Musetti and Tsitsipas all use 98 - just same as Alcaraz or Medvedev. Nole plays with 95.

I suppose racquet size and properties for best players are selected for their FHs and serves much more than anything else. Or just are what they are, based on what they are used to.

 

[Jonesy]

or maybe the reason is the bigger and bigger heads, which are more difficult to operate with one hand?!

 

[Smecz]

What exactly makes you think OH is better with smaller head? It’s known premise, but if it’s false?

Gasquet plays with a 100. Federer improved after moving up to 97. Thiem and Musetti and Tsitsipas all use 98 - just same as Alcaraz or Medvedev. Nole plays with 95.

I suppose racquet size and properties for best players are selected for their FHs and serves much more than anything else. Or just are what they are, based on what they are used to.

What exactly makes you think OH is better with smaller head? It’s known premise, but if it’s false?

Gasquet plays with a 100. Federer improved after moving up to 97. Thiem and Musetti and Tsitsipas all use 98 - just same as Alcaraz or Medvedev. Nole plays with 95.

I suppose racquet size and properties for best players are selected for their FHs and serves much more than anything else. Or just are what they are, based on what they are used to.

with a smaller head it is easier to play more finely, precisely and with control.

I personally played a 100 head, and yes, in terms of a large hitting field, it was the biggest plus of this head size.

When it comes to forehand, I still played optimally, but when it came to backhand, it was usually a tragedy, I had problems with closing the shot and controlling the shots, most often I hit the other side and that's it.

I wrote that the optimal head for a one-handed backhand is 97, I play rackets from 95 to 97.

Next is the removal of the head to the swing to a one-handed one with a head of 100, also not pleasant.

Feel, control, finesse for one-handed 95 to 97, regularity and power 98 to 100.

Playing top spin or one-handed backhand or two-handed is easier to play with a bigger head.

Back on topic, maybe the biggest problem one-handers have is serving on their one-handed backhand, especially from an advantage.

It's much easier to pick up a serve with a two-handed backhand, than with a one-handed one, so for the rivalry between one-handed players to return, they should improve their game from the return!!!.

 

[Dragy]

with a smaller head it is easier to play more finely, precisely and with control.

I personally played a 100 head, and yes, in terms of a large hitting field, it was the biggest plus of this head size.

When it comes to forehand, I still played optimally, but when it came to backhand, it was usually a tragedy, I had problems with closing the shot and controlling the shots, most often I hit the other side and that's it.

I wrote that the optimal head for a one-handed backhand is 97, I play rackets from 95 to 97.

Next is the removal of the head to the swing to a one-handed one with a head of 100, also not pleasant.

Feel, control, finesse for one-handed 95 to 97, regularity and power 98 to 100.

Playing top spin or one-handed backhand or two-handed is easier to play with a bigger head.

Back on topic, maybe the biggest problem one-handers have is serving on their one-handed backhand, especially from an advantage.

It's much easier to pick up a serve with a two-handed backhand, than with a one-handed one, so for the rivalry between one-handed players to return, they should improve their game from the return!!!.

So it’s your own experience and preference, possibly related to your hitting relatively flat OHBH?

That’s perfectly fine to have preference, all I said was one cannot conclude that smaller head is preferred for OHBH based on what most pro players use.

 

[Smecz]

So it’s your own experience and preference, possibly related to your hitting relatively flat OHBH?

That’s perfectly fine to have preference, all I said was one cannot conclude that smaller head is preferred for OHBH based on what most pro players use.

Well, I have my preferences, but in fact, the bigger the head, the more work needs to be done, yes, a small head is not easy to use now.

But when it comes to the 100 head, it feels like you have too much field when playing, and playing one-handed backhand was difficult.

And now, playing backhand with two hands, it will be easier for me to close my head, swing, etc.

The bigger the head, the easier it is to control with two hands, because the other hand helps to move/manoeuvre it, etc.

With a smaller field area, you don't need to engage the other hand as much if one hand is enough.

And now a specific question, do you think there is still a chance to improve the one-handed situation in the ATP?!

 

[Dragy]

But when it comes to the 100 head, it feels like you have too much field when playing, and playing one-handed backhand was difficult.

I have a OHBH and and play with Gravity. I’ve also played with Speed Pro. Before that - Wilson Ultra Tour. It does feel different, but results are better with these frames.

Regarding “more work to be done”, I don’t feel it this way with high enough SW. SW and balance are key for how hard it feels to swing, not head size or anything.

 

[Shroud]

Well, I have my preferences, but in fact, the bigger the head, the more work needs to be done, yes, a small head is not easy to use now.

But when it comes to the 100 head, it feels like you have too much field when playing, and playing one-handed backhand was difficult.

And now, playing backhand with two hands, it will be easier for me to close my head, swing, etc.

The bigger the head, the easier it is to control with two hands, because the other hand helps to move/manoeuvre it, etc.

With a smaller field area, you don't need to engage the other hand as much if one hand is enough.

And now a specific question, do you think there is still a chance to improve the one-handed situation in the ATP?!

If the ATP decided to speed the game up then there would be more 1 handers. But they like slow grindy rallies apparently. IMHO there could be a 1handed revolution if they wanted there to be one. That said good luck. 2 hander is the thing in "modern" tennis. Though when I got into tennis, almost everyone had a 1 hander and look how things changed. More extreme grips can level things...

 

[badmice2]

Two hand is quicker to develop a reliable stroke for most kids. Coaches want to show quick results to parents paying for progress. Thus teaching a 1 hander seems rare anymore.

The plus/delta of the two has been battered about ad nauseum, but suffice to say given proper training both are effective, albeit in different ways and scenarios.

This is normal, kids don't have enough strength for a single backhand, and tennis is getting faster!

Both of these…

To have an effective game with a ohbh, a junior will need to develop a good amount of strength for racket stability to hit the ball well. Ohbh also requires a bit better timing than 2hbh.

The other thing that’s not discuss a lot is the slice. Most one hander have a slice to support their shot in the event they can’t get to their stance for a ts. In juniors, they’re not taught a slice until they’ve matured with their timing and spacing. Therefore they don’t have a fall back shot when The ohbh doesn’t fall. The lack of immediate success have steer most juniors away from the shot altogether.

You can argue the same goes with the dub fist, but most juniors won’t lack confidence with racket stability issues with the 2 no matter how the ball gets to them. There’s also the baseball mentality with the dub fist that it’s a reverse swing, which is easier to learn.

Interesting enough there are more adults having comfort learning the one; the swing “felt more natural” is what I hear often…

 

[Smecz]

Both of these…

To have an effective game with a ohbh, a junior will need to develop a good amount of strength for racket stability to hit the ball well. Ohbh also requires a bit better timing than 2hbh.

The other thing that’s not discuss a lot is the slice. Most one hander have a slice to support their shot in the event they can’t get to their stance for a ts. In juniors, they’re not taught a slice until they’ve matured with their timing and spacing. Therefore they don’t have a fall back shot when The ohbh doesn’t fall. The lack of immediate success have steer most juniors away from the shot altogether.

You can argue the same goes with the dub fist, but most juniors won’t lack confidence with racket stability issues with the 2 no matter how the ball gets to them. There’s also the baseball mentality with the dub fist that it’s a reverse swing, which is easier to learn.

Interesting enough there are more adults having comfort learning the one; the swing “felt more natural” is what I hear often…

Yes, you're right, after all, it's about quick effects - visible development, two hands allow such a child to control the ball easier, because he has more strength!!.

I think it's also about keeping the ball in play, and playing deep balls, not short plays to finish.

Therefore, for one-handers to return to the game, most of them would have to work hard on this shot.

And they would definitely have to strengthen their serve to win their games, Federer despite having a medium backhand at the beginning, he had a very strong serve and forehand, and net play, and all round play.

Not many one-handed players can boast of such skills, this is the key to being able to compete successfully again!!.

How do you think?!

 

[ppma]

Single handed backhand has some advantages that very little are being talked about. More potential for angles, pace, and the asset of hiding the slice (which usually develops better for 1hbh players). The problem is that is tougher to have a good defensive game with the one handed backhand as the margin for mistakes is narrower in comparison to 2hbh. But it compensates if your style of game is aggresive and you can provoke the opponent to leave some easy balls to be punished from the backhand side.

 

[Smecz]

If the ATP decided to speed the game up then there would be more 1 handers. But they like slow grindy rallies apparently. IMHO there could be a 1handed revolution if they wanted there to be one. That said good luck. 2 hander is the thing in "modern" tennis. Though when I got into tennis, almost everyone had a 1 hander and look how things changed. More extreme grips can level things...

Generally one-handed is used for more attacking, after all, it's easier to get tired if I don't shorten the number of balls.

Playing with two hands will last longer, grips could make a difference after a two-handed backhand with an extreme grip is not a pleasant stroke.

In addition, if during the match my opponent hits the ball hard from the forehand to my backhand, the man himself intentionally grabs the rake with both hands to have more strength to hold the racket and block-play the shot.

Professional players and amateurs do it intuitively, but I also remember Tsonga who sometimes played one-handed backhand when he couldn't reach the ball anymore!

Another thing is to strain one hand both during the match and during training, while signing autographsetc

One-handed players should become competitive again on the court and gain an advantage when playing a point, now they lose points more easily than before

 

[Shroud]

Generally one-handed is used for more attacking, after all, it's easier to get tired if I don't shorten the number of balls.

Something is wrong with your one hander if you are getting tired enough to need to shorten points. Post a vid and the TT gurus can help you.

 

[badmice2]

Yes, you're right, after all, it's about quick effects - visible development, two hands allow such a child to control the ball easier, because he has more strength!!.

I think it's also about keeping the ball in play, and playing deep balls, not short plays to finish.

Therefore, for one-handers to return to the game, most of them would have to work hard on this shot.

And they would definitely have to strengthen their serve to win their games, Federer despite having a medium backhand at the beginning, he had a very strong serve and forehand, and net play, and all round play.

Not many one-handed players can boast of such skills, this is the key to being able to compete successfully again!!.

How do you think?!

If we’re to compare apples to apples and focus on the ground game only, both will have their advantages and disadvantages. The most glaring one is turning defense into offense, and being able to stay open stance with the 2 provides the biggest leverage that the 1 cannot. Just imagine being on the run on the backhand side…Novak or Wawrinka? I think the answer is pretty clear.

 

[mental midget]

Why would it be so?

It's noy like the 1hbh is hindering players. It's that there are few of them. One might think that there are few of them because the shot itself is weaker or less reliable, but that's pure speculation. The only reason it's not being used so much nowadays is that for kids the two hander comes naturally, while the 1hbh takes son undeveloped physicallity into play, and thus slower results.

no, in fact for many of the 1hbhs on tour it tends to be their stronger wing, or at least, not a liability like you said...stan, gasquet, lopez, musetti etc.

poster above nailed it, just takes longer to develop and players want to get as good as possible as fast as possible.

 

[Smecz]

Single handed backhand has some advantages that very little are being talked about. More potential for angles, pace, and the asset of hiding the slice (which usually develops better for 1hbh players). The problem is that is tougher to have a good defensive game with the one handed backhand as the margin for mistakes is narrower in comparison to 2hbh. But it compensates if your style of game is aggresive and you can provoke the opponent to leave some easy balls to be punished from the backhand side.

It's a agree, why I very like one handed backhand, and of course I use it!,

the advantages are huge, but when playing with one hand you have to be more focused, more often in god mode/total focus, and this is some effort for the body.

I think that with two hands there is a chance to deal more damage to the opponent with less effort, and in addition, the defense is also more effective.

I also remember that ever since Rafael Nadal appeared and started torturing Roger Federer's backhand with his forehand top spin (especially on clay), the slow defeat of the one-handed backhand began.

But most importantly, can the one-handed backhand be revived?!

I think that first of all they should improve their serve, its effectiveness, and then other elements of the game, because the way I watch it lately, the serve is not as strong as it should be, especially disappointing Tsitsipas!!.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

It's a agree, why I very like one handed backhand, and of course I use it!,

the advantages are huge, but when playing with one hand you have to be more focused, more often in god mode/total focus, and this is some effort for the body.

I think that with two hands there is a chance to deal more damage to the opponent with less effort, and in addition, the defense is also more effective.

I also remember that ever since Rafael Nadal appeared and started torturing Roger Federer's backhand with his forehand top spin (especially on clay), the slow defeat of the one-handed backhand began.

But most importantly, can the one-handed backhand be revived?!

I think that first of all they should improve their serve, its effectiveness, and then other elements of the game, because the way I watch it lately, the serve is not as strong as it should be, especially disappointing Tsitsipas!!.

Nope. The effectiveness of Rafa’s attack did not mark the “defeat” of the 1h Bh. That was a rather unique situation. Others were not able to successfully attack it to the degree that Rafa did. No one really hit high bouncing g’strokes with as much topspin as Rafa did. And not that many lefty players to take advantage of that.

Once Roger moved from 90 to 95 sq”, Rafa no longer had the advantage of his super heavy topspin Fh to Roger’s Bh. In their last 8 meetings against each other, Rafa only manage to win ONE — the French Open, of course.

 

[Smecz]

Nope. The effectiveness of Rafa’s attack did not mark the “defeat” of the 1h Bh. That was a rather unique situation. Others were not able to successfully attack it to the degree that Rafa did. No one really hit high bouncing g’strokes with as much topspin as Rafa did. And not that many lefty players to take advantage of that.

Once Roger moved from 90 to 95 sq”, Rafa no longer had the advantage of his super heavy topspin Fh to Roger’s Bh. In their last 8 meetings against each other, Rafa only manage to win ONE — the French Open, of course.

As soon as Federer changed his backhand, he started to win against Nadal. Previously, he had a very difficult time playing the ball, and his biggest problem was keeping the ball in play with the backhand.

And tennis as a game is about keeping the ball in play until you win a point.

Keeping the ball in play with a one-handed backhand must be either increasingly difficult or not as stable as with a two-handed one.


Very few players currently play one-handed backhand in ATP, about 50

Tennis Abstract: ATP One-Hand Backhand Rankings

I think that the important issue of this phenomenon is the lack of faith in the one-handed backhand, that it can help you win matches.!!!

Moreover, most players with a one-handed backhand who won grand slams based their game on different shots: Edberg, Federer, Sampras and others.

First of all, these were forehand, serve, volley and slice shots, playing with a one-handed backhand was avoided, after all, the forehand is the main weapon of tennis players and a backhand or one or two, usually treated as a shot that must be played, is difficult to say, the exceptions being Richard Gasquet and Tommy Robredo.

So it's possible that one-handed players could come back to play, they would have to strengthen their forehand, serve, etc. When playing in a match, I try to avoid using one-handed backhand, because it is more difficult to keep the ball in the court and win a point!!!.

Ps:Federer frst he changed the racket from 90 to 98 (big change) and then to 97.

 

[TennisCJC]

Most juniors learn 2hbh because it is easier to learn an aggressive topspin backhand with 2hbh vs 1hbh. Once a junior gets relatively good, they don't change. I don't think they will change any rules to make 1hbh more advantageous so I think 2hbh players will continue to dominate the pro tours because there a lot more 2hbh players. No doubt the 1hbh can be a more beautiful than 2hbh but not may parents or coaches are going to let the kids fall behind players at their age in order to learn a 1hbh.

 

[Smecz]

Most juniors learn 2hbh because it is easier to learn an aggressive topspin backhand with 2hbh vs 1hbh. Once a junior gets relatively good, they don't change. I don't think they will change any rules to make 1hbh more advantageous so I think 2hbh players will continue to dominate the pro tours because there a lot more 2hbh players. No doubt the 1hbh can be a more beautiful than 2hbh but not may parents or coaches are going to let the kids fall behind players at their age in order to learn a 1hbh.

It makes sense,
especially since it is easier to take away top spin with two hands, and also to serve, which is crucial on the court.

Tell me, what do you see with one-handed players' serving? I noticed that their effectiveness when it comes to their serving games is average.

Okay, someone could have written that there are few one-handed players in ATP, but that doesn't justify Tsitsipas or Musetti losing their serve games.

Do one-handed tennis players have to be geniuses to win on the court?!

What do you think about this?!

 

[Dragy]

It makes sense,
especially since it is easier to take away top spin with two hands, and also to serve, which is crucial on the court.

Tell me, what do you see with one-handed players' serving? I noticed that their effectiveness when it comes to their serving games is average.

Okay, someone could have written that there are few one-handed players in ATP, but that doesn't justify Tsitsipas or Musetti losing their serve games.

Do one-handed tennis players have to be geniuses to win on the court?!

What do you think about this?!

Musetti and Tsitsipas are better than thousands of professional players using 2HBH. Better than 70+ top-100 players using 2HBH.

Musetti won 78% of his service games in 2023. Alcaraz won 82% to become world No. 1.

We all tend to have biased perception on such things, so checking some data is worth doing.

 

[Smecz]

Musetti and Tsitsipas are better than thousands of professional players using 2HBH. Better than 70+ top-100 players using 2HBH.

Musetti won 78% of his service games in 2023. Alcaraz won 82% to become world No. 1.

We all tend to have biased perception on such things, so checking some data is worth doing.

Of course, I might be wrong and I haven't checked it carefully, but when a given player loses, he usually loses his serve too!!

Maybe the problem is the one-handed backhand return, if I easily lose my opponent's serve and it's hard to get a break point, my morale weakens and so does my faith in victory!!

What do you think about it?!

 

[Dragy]

Of course, I might be wrong and I haven't checked it carefully, but when a given player loses, he usually loses his serve too!!

Maybe the problem is the one-handed backhand return, if I easily lose my opponent's serve and it's hard to get a break point, my morale weakens and so does my faith in victory!!

What do you think about it?!

I think if you use OHBH and you struggle with return, you should practice your returns with dedication. Pro players in top-100 using OHBH are doing ok generally. I wouldn’t try to project our rec experience onto them. Federer is arguably GOAT. Wawrinka won 3 GS titles. Thiem won 1 and would win more if not for an injury and confidence loss. Tsitsipas is strong top-10 resident. None of them would achieve that if their BH was easily picked on by servers.

You or me - well, totally different story, mostly lack of proper coaching, lack of court time and literally zero time in BH return dedicated practice. Well no, my BH return is solid on my level.

 

[badmice2]

Musetti and Tsitsipas are better than thousands of professional players using 2HBH. Better than 70+ top-100 players using 2HBH.

Musetti won 78% of his service games in 2023. Alcaraz won 82% to become world No. 1.

We all tend to have biased perception on such things, so checking some data is worth doing.

one hander struggles with the high top spin shot. In Nadal vs Fed case, Nadal’s gifted forehand had Federer’s number. Aussie open final was where Fed cracked the code sort of speak, with more discipline with his positioning with his footwork and obliviously more generous sweet spot.

Nonetheless one hander tends to hit more slices in situation when footwork is not there, whereas 2
hander can still put ts shots in play when put out of position. This naturally puts 1 handlers to play more defensive when 1 can stay more neutral ball.

 

[slipgrip93]

with a smaller head it is easier to play more finely, precisely and with control.

I personally played a 100 head, and yes, in terms of a large hitting field, it was the biggest plus of this head size.

When it comes to forehand, I still played optimally, but when it came to backhand, it was usually a tragedy, I had problems with closing the shot and controlling the shots, most often I hit the other side and that's it.

I wrote that the optimal head for a one-handed backhand is 97, I play rackets from 95 to 97.

Next is the removal of the head to the swing to a one-handed one with a head of 100, also not pleasant.

Feel, control, finesse for one-handed 95 to 97, regularity and power 98 to 100.

Playing top spin or one-handed backhand or two-handed is easier to play with a bigger head.

Back on topic, maybe the biggest problem one-handers have is serving on their one-handed backhand, especially from an advantage.

It's much easier to pick up a serve with a two-handed backhand, than with a one-handed one, so for the rivalry between one-handed players to return, they should improve their game from the return!!!.

I'm just a rec hack, so I play with a 1hbh because I started with it and never got used to the 2hbh, and still stick to a 90 sq in. I have an extra 95 sq in (ps 6.1 95 blx), but am still used to , and enjoy swinging my heavier 90 (kps88) with a 17mm boxbeam frame, until maybe if I get too old to do so. I would agree using a lighter, bigger head frame just felt so bulkier and too much lighter when I tried to swing 1hbh (with a collected steam 100 blx), but it could also be due to psychological habit and not being comfortable with it, compared to depending on a heavier racquet and smaller head.

As for the top pros, I think Thiem had somewhat of a good defensive game with the 1hbh when he was still on top of it. I think for the pros for both men and women, there needs to be new ATG naturals or geniuses at the 1hbh, similar to Henin, Graf, for the women's and McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras(?), Fed, for the men's. For example, it was amazing what Henin could do with the 1hbh and being so versatile with it.

 

[Dragy]

As for the top pros, I think Thiem had somewhat of a good defensive game with the 1hbh when he was still on top of it. I think for the pros for both men and women, there needs to be new ATG naturals or geniuses at the 1hbh, similar to Henin, Graf, for the women's and McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras(?), Fed, for the men's. For example, it was amazing what Henin could do with the 1hbh and being so versatile with it.

I believe tennis professionals just cannot find enough advantages in OHBH which cannot be compensated for. Yes that say OHBH has better reach or better spin, but in actual point play patterns it doesn’t matter that much.

Every now and then some juniors gravitate to using one hand, so some coaches don’t break their natural alignment and help them develop OHBH. But overall, with powerful 100 sq.in. frames, which don't have much limitations in control with poly strings, 2HBH provides just enough of everything where OHBH seems better, and still has its advantages in known things like stability, shorter prep, open stance use, etc.

 

[socallefty]

Pros learn tennis as little kids and when you are physically not developed, a 2HBH is much easier to use and win amongst your little league age group especially against high balls - and every ball is a high ball when you are 5-7 years old.

You see a lot more 1HBHs amongst lower level rec players who mostly picked up tennis as adults with more physical strength and height. At advanced rec 4.5+ levels, the players mostly learned tennis as kids under coaching and so, again you see a lot more 2HBHs.

 

[coolvinny]

For rec play, even quite advanced rec and tournament play, I think the main 2bh advantage is that you can improvise better when not set up well. That also helps on returns. But the 1handers usually have better slices and bh volleys, and the 1bh can be hit harder with more spin. In rec play I find the 2bhers can hurt you with placement and consistency but almost never hit a big ball, whereas the good 1bhers can hurt you with safe placement and a big ball…a bit more like having two forehands, if that makes sense…but it demands better set up/prep.

 

[Smecz]

I'm just a rec hack, so I play with a 1hbh because I started with it and never got used to the 2hbh, and still stick to a 90 sq in. I have an extra 95 sq in (ps 6.1 95 blx), but am still used to , and enjoy swinging my heavier 90 (kps88) with a 17mm boxbeam frame, until maybe if I get too old to do so. I would agree using a lighter, bigger head frame just felt so bulkier and too much lighter when I tried to swing 1hbh (with a collected steam 100 blx), but it could also be due to psychological habit and not being comfortable with it, compared to depending on a heavier racquet and smaller head.

As for the top pros, I think Thiem had somewhat of a good defensive game with the 1hbh when he was still on top of it. I think for the pros for both men and women, there needs to be new ATG naturals or geniuses at the 1hbh, similar to Henin, Graf, for the women's and McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras(?), Fed, for the men's. For example, it was amazing what Henin could do with the 1hbh and being so versatile with it.

I support this,but I know one amateur who plays forehand and backhand with two hands, and I must admit that his shots are more reliable and stable, his balls are sharper, and he plays more rallies.

It looks quite strange, but it works, the left hand and the right hand probably also allow you to hold the handle of the racket, there is less chance that the racket will bend, etc.

Now it looks like this: the more balls a one-hander hits, the less chance he has of winning, it's hard not to make a mistake when you still play with one hand on the right and left,
we use one hand to play the ball, without the help of the other.

And now until one-handed players attack much better, they will continue to lose.

This happens because we use one hand the entire match, and we need to play it as little as possible so that it can rest... etc.

I know that professionals are not amateurs, but, for example, you can enter the court and play 50-100 balls with one hand, whether you are an amateur or a professional, and you will feel that your hand is little or more tired.

In the normal world, Henin, Federer, Sampras were masters of shortening the game or avoiding the backhand game. e.t.c

Finally, I will add that when playing with one hand, the less action, the better, and in two-handed players I have one auxiliary hand, which allows us to have more strength to play.

 

[Dragy]

I support this,but I know one amateur who plays forehand and backhand with two hands, and I must admit that his shots are more reliable and stable, his balls are sharper, and he plays more rallies.

It looks quite strange, but it works, the left hand and the right hand probably also allow you to hold the handle of the racket, there is less chance that the racket will bend, etc.

Now it looks like this: the more balls a one-hander hits, the less chance he has of winning, it's hard not to make a mistake when you still play with one hand on the right and left,
we use one hand to play the ball, without the help of the other.

And now until one-handed players attack much better, they will continue to lose.

This happens because we use one hand the entire match, and we need to play it as little as possible so that it can rest... etc.

I know that professionals are not amateurs, but, for example, you can enter the court and play 50-100 balls with one hand, whether you are an amateur or a professional, and you will feel that your hand is little or more tired.

In the normal world, Henin, Federer, Sampras were masters of shortening the game or avoiding the backhand game. e.t.c

Finally, I will add that when playing with one hand, the less action, the better, and in two-handed players I have one auxiliary hand, which allows us to have more strength to play.

So you switched to 2HBH?

 

[Smecz]

So you switched to 2HBH?

Probably not, ha ha
At the beginning of learning tennis I played with two hands, but then I changed to one hand, once my idol Federer played one-handed, and secondly I have more freedom and I don't feel like I'm tied down.

A two-handed backhand cannot completely replace a one-handed one, it would be a pity to have so many years of history...

The two-hander itself also has its charm and magic, but the one-handed regression is unpleasant, there is really no solution to improve the situation of one-handed tennis players?!

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

As soon as Federer changed his backhand, he started to win against Nadal. Previously, he had a very difficult time playing the ball, and his biggest problem was keeping the ball in play with the backhand.

Not the way I remember it. Roger always had a decent Bh, esp his Bh slice, that evolved over the years. He added more topspin to his Bh around 2004/05. It appears that he made a very significant improvement with his topspin Bh around 20013/14. Especially with high bouncing balls to his Bh. But he was still losing to Rafa at that time. It was not until he switched to the larger racket head that he was able to dominate Rafa starting in 2015.

 

[coolvinny]

I support this,but I know one amateur who plays forehand and backhand with two hands, and I must admit that his shots are more reliable and stable, his balls are sharper, and he plays more rallies.

It looks quite strange, but it works, the left hand and the right hand probably also allow you to hold the handle of the racket, there is less chance that the racket will bend, etc.

Now it looks like this: the more balls a one-hander hits, the less chance he has of winning, it's hard not to make a mistake when you still play with one hand on the right and left,
we use one hand to play the ball, without the help of the other.

And now until one-handed players attack much better, they will continue to lose.

This happens because we use one hand the entire match, and we need to play it as little as possible so that it can rest... etc.

I know that professionals are not amateurs, but, for example, you can enter the court and play 50-100 balls with one hand, whether you are an amateur or a professional, and you will feel that your hand is little or more tired.

In the normal world, Henin, Federer, Sampras were masters of shortening the game or avoiding the backhand game. e.t.c

Finally, I will add that when playing with one hand, the less action, the better, and in two-handed players I have one auxiliary hand, which allows us to have more strength to play.

Pretty sure it was Henin’s opponents who were trying to avoid her backhand!!

I know a guy who plays double-handed on both sides. He’s very consistent and has some decent passing shots, but I would never trade my game for his. First his serve is weak which I’m sure is a byproduct of his two-handed approach, and second none of his shots can hurt me from the baseline…in fact most can be attacked by a legit 4.0.

 

[Smecz]

Not the way I remember it. Roger always had a decent Bh, esp his Bh slice, that evolved over the years. He added more topspin to his Bh around 2004/05. It appears that he made a very significant improvement with his topspin Bh around 20013/14. Especially with high bouncing balls to his Bh. But he was still losing to Rafa at that time. It was not until he switched to the larger racket head that he was able to dominate Rafa starting in 2015.

The small head has that something, but it's difficult to play defensively.

Probably with a bigger head he started playing better defensively and made fewer mistakes with the backhand!! etc