Revenge of the 1HBH

[Magnus]

AO - Wawrinka
Dubai - Federer
Acapulco - Dimitrov

And they won it by beating some of the best double handers in the game.

Wawrinka beat Djokovic (arugably the greatest 2HBH in the world), Berdych and Nadal.

Fed beat Murray (arguably the 2nd best 2HBH in the world) at the AO, Djokovic and Berdych in Dubai.

Dimi beat Murray in Acapulco.

Is it possible the infamous single handed BH is making a comeback? Could the recent success of single handers influence younger players? Or are those just flukes and there's no future for 1HBH?

 

[Russeljones]

I think if a 1hbh wins Wimbledon, we can really start this discussion.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

I think if a 1hbh wins Wimbledon, we can really start this discussion.

that's too easy, if a new-age one handed backhand wins the FO, then we can end the underlying discussion.

 

[Magnus]

that's too easy, if a new-age one handed backhand wins the FO, then we can end the underlying discussion.

If you ignore Nadal for a sec, the most successful player in the FO since 2005 has been Federer, 1HBH. Though I agree clay is not a surface that favors this shot.

 

[tennis_hack]

It is not a resurgence because apart from Dimitrov, all these 1hbh players are old. However, it proves that the shot is not technically inferior, just under coached. The old players with 1hbhs are beating prime players with 2hbh's.

Magnus, clay actually favors a particular type of 1hbh, as evidenced by the number of clay court specialists with 1hbh's

 

[THE FIGHTER]

If you ignore Nadal for a sec, the most successful player in the FO since 2005 has been Federer, 1HBH. Though I agree clay is not a surface that favors this shot.

Oddly enough, Federer was a big contributor to the misplaced stigma of antiquity that surrounds the OHBH on higher bouncing, slower surfaces. Not all backhands, and not all players are the same. Stan made a point of that at AO and sparked the convo around OHBHs being supremely effective even on surfaces that were thought to be a hindrance in today's tennis as a rebuttal to recent schools of thought. As i said, an OHBH player winning at the FO would end the need to discuss this further, and solidify the OHBH as a viable stroke even, perhaps especially, on slower higher bouncing surfaces of today.

 

[sliceroni]

It is not a resurgence because apart from Dimitrov, all these 1hbh players are old. However, it proves that the shot is not technically inferior, just under coached. The old players with 1hbhs are beating prime players with 2hbh's.

Magnus, clay actually favors a particular type of 1hbh, as evidenced by the number of clay court specialists with 1hbh's

Absolutely under coached. As is serve and volley and more aggressive play.

 

[Magnus]

Oddly enough, Federer was a big contributor to the misplaced stigma of antiquity that surrounds the OHBH on higher bouncing, slower surfaces. Not all backhands, and not all players are the same. Stan made a point of that at AO and sparked the convo around OHBHs being supremely effective even on surfaces that were thought to be a hindrance in today's tennis as a rebuttal to recent schools of thought. As i said, an OHBH player winning at the FO would end the need to discuss this further, and solidify the OHBH as a viable stroke even, perhaps especially, on slower higher bouncing surfaces of today.

Fed's grip on the BH makes it tough to handle high bouncing balls. Also, Fed's game is very different to, say, Wawrinka, since Fed normally doesn't like losing territory, hence he's staying on the baseline and take the ball very early. On the BH, especially a 1HBH one, its a very difficult thing to pull off, espeically on clay, where guys like Wawrinka are going behind the baseline and are willing to rally from a defensive position.

Since Nadal is dominating the FO (bar 2009, where a single hander won it), its irrelevant to expect a 1HBH or even a non-Nadal 2HBH to win the FO. A non-Nadal FO will be the only thing to make it open in a true way and then we'll really see if 1HBH can prevail (mostly Fed and Stan).

 

[tennis_hack]

Fed's grip on the BH makes it tough to handle high bouncing balls. Also, Fed's game is very different to, say, Wawrinka, since Fed normally doesn't like losing territory, hence he's staying on the baseline and take the ball very early. On the BH, especially a 1HBH one, its a very difficult thing to pull off, espeically on clay, where guys like Wawrinka are going behind the baseline and are willing to rally from a defensive position.

Since Nadal is dominating the FO (bar 2009, where a single hander won it), its irrelevant to expect a 1HBH or even a non-Nadal 2HBH to win the FO. A non-Nadal FO will be the only thing to make it open in a true way and then we'll really see if 1HBH can prevail (mostly Fed and Stan).

Nope - not defeating Nadal would be a cop out - I want to see a 1hbh take on Nadal and win at the FO. Almagro has had so many close sets against him, but turns to mush every time he reaches a tie-break.

You face your enemies, don't hide from them.

Still, of course Nadal is the 99.99% lock for French Open.

 

[Magnus]

Nope - not defeating Nadal would be a cop out - I want to see a 1hbh take on Nadal and win at the FO. Almagro has had so many close sets against him, but turns to mush every time he reaches a tie-break.

You face your enemies, don't hide from them.

Still, of course Nadal is the 99.99% lock for French Open.

Of course you face your enemies. How many times Fed has played Nadal at the FO? And they were all close matches bar 2008. Facing your enemies is one thing, beating them is another thing. 2HBH players have equally failed to beat Nadal at the FO, aside of Soderling (and Soderling lost that year to a 1HBH).

 

[Bender]

If you think about all the improvements in fitness and equipment, and slower surfaces, it's more curious why the one hander didn't make a comeback sooner than it did.

 

[rcosta]

I was watching the highlights of Murray vs Thien match at Rotterdam '14 and realized that Thien's 1HBH is very similiar to Gustavo Kuerten's BH, a guy who loved to hit backhands at shoulder level on clay...

 

[Devilito]

If you think about all the improvements in fitness and equipment, and slower surfaces, it's more curious why the one hander didn't make a comeback sooner than it did.

lots of aggressive baseliners in the 90s and modern players grew up watching these guys play. Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, etc. Plus it's a lot easier grow up having a 2hbh from a young age then have to switch later on. There is no motivation for a coach to make that type of commitment with a player unless he knows that player will be with him long term. If I was coaching a 10 year old kid, I'm not going to have a 5-10 year plan for him when next year he could be moved to another coach.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Fed's grip on the BH makes it tough to handle high bouncing balls. Also, Fed's game is very different to, say, Wawrinka, since Fed normally doesn't like losing territory, hence he's staying on the baseline and take the ball very early. On the BH, especially a 1HBH one, its a very difficult thing to pull off, espeically on clay, where guys like Wawrinka are going behind the baseline and are willing to rally from a defensive position.

Since Nadal is dominating the FO (bar 2009, where a single hander won it), its irrelevant to expect a 1HBH or even a non-Nadal 2HBH to win the FO. A non-Nadal FO will be the only thing to make it open in a true way and then we'll really see if 1HBH can prevail (mostly Fed and Stan).

Yes, but not everyone sees it this way. some attribute Federer's matchup against nadal as the final word in the livlihood of the ohbh's effectiveness on tour. if stan manages a win against nadal at FO, it will end the idiotic discussion for people who think the ohbh is obsolete solely based on the federer nadal match up.

Being well aware of the difference between playstyles, i think stan has a bigger chance this year to beat Nadal at the FO than Federer ever did. it's odd you think it's irrelevant just beacuse nadal has been historically dominant at FO. wouldnt beating Nadal at the FO serve as a truer litmus test of the ohbh's validity?

 

[Devilito]

i agree. People need to just give up talking about Fed / Nadal in regards to the 1hbh. Fed could have a 4 handed backhand and would still get dominated by Nadal. It's a mental and style issue for him. Always has been.

 

[tennis_hack]

Yes, but not everyone sees it this way. some attribute Federer's matchup against nadal as the final word in the livlihood of the ohbh's effectiveness on tour. if stan manages a win against nadal at FO, it will end the idiotic discussion for people who think the ohbh is obsolete solely based on the federer nadal match up.

Being well aware of the difference between playstyles, i think stan has a bigger chance this year to beat Nadal at the FO than Federer ever did. it's odd you think it's irrelevant just beacuse nadal has been historically dominant at FO. wouldnt beating Nadal at the FO serve as a truer litmus test of the ohbh's validity?

In one way, yes, but then, the vast majority of 2hbh's apart from on-fire Soderling's or Djokovic's get worn down by Nadal's forehand as well. And Djokovic still hasn't managed to beat Nadal at the FO.

Also, you are asking a 1hbh to go up against a forehand in order to prove its validity compared to the 2hbh.

A better test of the validity of 1hbh vs 2hbh would be to see if the 1hbh always loses to 2hbh in backhand to backhand rallies between two right-handed players. Wawrinka and Federer have proven many times in their matches against Djokovic and Murray that this isn't the case.

 

[Devilito]

A better test of the validity of 1hbh vs 2hbh would be to see if the 1hbh always loses to 2hbh in backhand to backhand rallies between two right-handed players. Wawrinka and Federer have proven many times in their matches against Djokovic and Murray that this isn't the case.

true, everybody should watch the 2010 AO final where Federer owned Murray in what was basically a backhand to backhand duel the entire match. Murray's backhand was meat and potatoes while Federer's had way more variety, power and was much heavier which put Murray on the defensive a lot.

 

[dpli2010]

AO - Wawrinka
Dubai - Federer
Acapulco - Dimitrov

And they won it by beating some of the best double handers in the game.

Wawrinka beat Djokovic (arugably the greatest 2HBH in the world), Berdych and Nadal.

Fed beat Murray (arguably the 2nd best 2HBH in the world) at the AO, Djokovic and Berdych in Dubai.

Dimi beat Murray in Acapulco.

Is it possible the infamous single handed BH is making a comeback? Could the recent success of single handers influence younger players? Or are those just flukes and there's no future for 1HBH?

To me, with all due respect, 1HBH never went away and that 2HBH is superior is simply delusional...

 

[urundai]

To me, with all due respect, 1HBH never went away and that 2HBH is superior is simply delusional...

Yep. This was all a bunch of noise since three of the top players were 2HBH. That doesn't mean 1HBH went away. Fed's problems were due to the high top spin balls to the BH. It doesn't matter 1HBH or 2HBH. Some players have problems playing it regardless and it doesn't make 2HBH superior.

Maybe the shorter swing that Fed used in Dubai will eventually help. Who knows.

1HBH is such a visual delight. It's not a dying art. If there is a dying art in tennis, that is serve & volley, which none of the top players (bar the recent Fed) use. Slower courts are killing the serve/volley style of play.