Why are there such fewer 1hbh's in the WTA than the ATP?

[Ehh]

Looking through the Madrid draw (though you'd see the same trend in any tournament) - there are 7 1hbh's left in the draw on the mens' side, and 0 1hbh's left in the draw on the womens' side. And even at the start of the tournament there were 13 1hbh's on the mens' side, and I think only 1 (Suarez-Navaro) on the women's side.

I don't really buy the 'women are too weak to use the 1hbh' argument, because, historically (and even today), the smaller women have used the 1hbh, for example Henin, Suarez-Navaro, Vinci...etc... whilst the taller, more powerful women such as the Williams', Davenport, Sharapova, Kvitova...etc... are/were the ones using 2hbh's.

The same trend is evident on the mens' side with comparatively smaller guys like Almagro, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Robredo, Youzhny...etc... using the 1hbh, and power-playing beasts like Berdych, Janowicz, Isner, Raonic, Del-Potro all opting for the 2hbh.

So, does size and physical strength really have much to do with it? If the 1hbh is really weaker against high balls, why are the notable 1hbh users mainly shorter women and men?

The argument I am leaning towards at the moment is that the 1hbh is dying out, and older players are likely to use it. There are more older players on the mens' tour than the women's tour.

 

[forzamilan90]

Idk probably cause coaches are pushing players more towards the double handed style and we are simply seeing the product of that particular generation.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Looking through the Madrid draw (though you'd see the same trend in any tournament) - there are 7 1hbh's left in the draw on the mens' side, and 0 1hbh's left in the draw on the womens' side. And even at the start of the tournament there were 13 1hbh's on the mens' side, and I think only 1 (Suarez-Navaro) on the women's side.

I don't really buy the 'women are too weak to use the 1hbh' argument, because, historically (and even today), the smaller women have used the 1hbh, for example Henin, Suarez-Navaro, Vinci...etc... whilst the taller, more powerful women such as the Williams', Davenport, Sharapova, Kvitova...etc... are/were the ones using 2hbh's.

The same trend is evident on the mens' side with comparatively smaller guys like Almagro, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Robredo, Youzhny...etc... using the 1hbh, and power-playing beasts like Berdych, Janowicz, Isner, Raonic, Del-Potro all opting for the 2hbh.

So, does size and physical strength really have much to do with it? If the 1hbh is really weaker against high balls, why are the notable 1hbh users mainly shorter women and men?

The argument I am leaning towards at the moment is that the 1hbh is dying out, and older players are likely to use it. There are more older players on the mens' tour than the women's tour.

Gasquet and Wawinka at least are about average height. They're similar or the same height as Federer.

 

[coloskier]

Most likely due to the fact that women are not as strong as men when they are growing up.

 

[BevelDevil]

One technical difference between men and women is on the 2hbh women tend to bend their arms more and hit more from an open stance. Both of these tendencies don't translate well to the 1hbh.

Additionally, less strength is a liability in that it puts greater demand on movement, timing and technique, which is perhaps too much for most players.

But there may be some sociological explanations. Maybe either the male coaches or girl players (or both) assume girls don't have the strength. Maybe girls are more likely to cave into pressure to conform to the norm.

The argument I am leaning towards at the moment is that the 1hbh is dying out, and older players are likely to use it. There are more older players on the mens' tour than the women's tour.

Good partial explanation, but that doesn't really explain the short/normal vs. tall observation. (Brands is one exception, though). Perhaps the problem with tall players is footwork.

Idk probably cause coaches are pushing players more towards the double handed style and we are simply seeing the product of that particular generation.

But are they pushing it more on female players?

 

[Lukhas]

Because of Bolletieri.
/thread

 

[pvaudio]

Times are simply changing. It's harder to teach it, and if the number of coaches who are using it is less now than before, that doubly impacts it. If you think about it, there isn't a single good reason to teach a beginner the 1HBH these days instead of the 2HBH.

 

[forzamilan90]

Times are simply changing. It's harder to teach it, and if the number of coaches who are using it is less now than before, that doubly impacts it. If you think about it, there isn't a single good reason to teach a beginner the 1HBH these days instead of the 2HBH.

One handers are easier and more natural to feel the racquet imo .... Dimitrov recently said he doesnt even know how to hit a double backhand...i dont blame him

 

[Phonco]

I don't think being a power player means you are "strong" physically. Taller players are power players because of the angle and trajectory they can impart on the ball, not necessarily their physical strength. However, I digress....

I still think the strength reason is still pretty valid for both men and women. I think most would say the 1HBH requires more coordinated arm movement and footwork than a 2HBH. Regardless of gender, taller people have longer limbs/arms and it requires more energy and coordination to move all that mass. Shorter players have shorter limbs which helps with the 1HBH given how fast the ball is hit these days. Could explain why tall players have 2HBH; that comparative lag in arm movement could make a big difference when a ball is coming over 130mph.

Another thing could be results/coaching. I think players and coaches today are all about results. A 1HBH takes time to "cultivate" and train. The 2HBH doesn't take as much time and can provide quicker, better result. Sampras started out with a 2HBH until his coached made him switch to complement his game. He then went from winning to losing to everyone. It wasn't until the pros where the 1HBH proved to be worth the switch. I don't think players and coaches are going to risk short term results for long term results that may not even exist nor payoff. This is especially true if you don't even make it to the 'long term' at all. The string of losses could discourage you from the sport altogether.

 

[Tennis_Sud]

Talent. The more talent you have , the more likely you will prefer 1hb , because it is a difficult stroke. And new training drills tend to equalize huge and medicore talent.

 

[sureshs]

After watching Youzhny's backhand against Nadal today, I wonder why anybody would want a 1 handed BH.

 

[Lukhas]

After watching Youzhny's backhand against Nadal today, I wonder why anybody would want a 1 handed BH against Nadal on clay.

Fixed that for you. EDIT: If you're not Gasquet, you're not having backhand to forehand rallies with Nadal. And even if you're Gasquet, you loose overall. Just not because of your backhand, that's all. Even Djokovic avoids the pattern, and he has arguably the best two hander on the tour.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

It is a strength thing but Henin had arguably one of the best top spin backhands of all time.... the grip she used (extreme eastern) allowed her to really mangle high balls and since she's short it worked.

The 1HBH is simply a more aggressive stroke & if you compare the best 1handers to 2 handers the one hander is simply more aggressive.

Because the WTA seems to be even more defensively oriented than the mens tour I think THAT is why you have fewer 1HBH's. Sure strength plays a part of it but the deeper reason is the dynamic of the game.

Overall, defense has been the dominating element on both tours for quite some time.

 

[jrs]

I think it's because kids are starting learn at very young age and 2 hand BH are easier for them learn for strength reasons. Also, most coaches are only teaching 2 handed BH.

These 2 factors is causing the 1hand BH to disappear from both pro tours.

 

[Deleted member 293577]

del

 

[cknobman]

Arm strength

 

[droliver]

You don't have to be strong to hit a 1h backhand, but it does demand a more preparation and timing then a 2h stroke to drive the ball. Two hands is more stable, a difference most obvious on serve returns, probably the single biggest advantage in the pro game of the shot and why most former pros favor the shot for training junior players.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I thought it was because WTA is a joke.

 

[single_handed_champion]

Per the high balls argument, any backhand will generally struggle to hit an aggressive shot off a high ball, not just single-handed. You will find the % of single-handers is actually higher among claycourters, who have more time to set up. I think it is possible to generate more spin with a 1HBH, as long as you have time.

The 1HBH drive is more vulnerable to deep flat shots because you have to time it absolutely perfectly to deflect pace using it. 2 hands definitely help there, look at Djokovic and Murray. Federer usually chips a lot of backhand returns. Personally (I have a 1HBH), I have lots of problems staying on the baseline and fighting off deep balls to my backhand. HOwever, when a moonball comes my way, I can really aim the ball at a severe angle. So like another poster said, timing is key.

Strength is IMO not such an issue. You don't need much strength to be able to hit the tennis ball, and if you hit flat, even less. Coaches definitely prefer the 2HBH these days. Like Navratilova said, she would teach a young player the 2HBH (just a 'more stable shot') and 1-handed slice if she were coaching.

 

[Lukhas]

A OHBH is very easy to hit in fact. You're merely pushing the ball forward with your arm... But to master it is much harder, since it requires pinpoint positioning and accuracy. No wonder someone like Gasquet who can rip it about anywhere on the court stands so far behind the baseline. And the few times he tries to return aggressively, he notices it isn't a better idea.

I think the reason why people tend to prefer the two hander is that you can hit harder with less effort, it forgives placement errors, is easier to time because of open stance vs. closed stance and different face and eyes angles, and so forth.