Don't bash me for asking a stupid question, I just want to know why, physically explained, does Nadal's brutal forehand work better in terms of forcing errors from opponents with one-handed backhand, for me personally it's easier to handle the high bounce from topspin with my one-handed backhand, than I did back in the days I played two-handed. But if you look at the stats, every player with one-handed backhand on the tour has ridiculously bad H2H with Nadal, much more so than those with two-handed, so I'd be happy to know why does Nadal's forehand hurt one-hander more. Simple answer would be enough.
Why does Nadal's forehand work better against 1H Backhands?
- Thread starter Standaa
- Start date
What do you mean that you can "handle the high bounce from topspin"? Are you able to drive the ball back deep and hard, and place it where you want to, consistently? (If so, welcome to the ATP tour!) Or do you mean that you can reach up and give the ball a decent slice and put it back in play, whereas reaching up with two hands would be too awkward?
Nadal feasts on balls that are merely put back in play, i.e., soft, short, floating. You've got to be able to smack the ball with authority to keep him at bay. That's the natural response for a two-hander, but only the really strong one-handed BH players are accustomed to doing that regularly.
Nadal feasts on balls that are merely put back in play, i.e., soft, short, floating. You've got to be able to smack the ball with authority to keep him at bay. That's the natural response for a two-hander, but only the really strong one-handed BH players are accustomed to doing that regularly.
TommyA8X
Hall of Fame
Dealing with shoulder high floaters against your typical club player is incomparable to dealing with Nadal's 4000 rpm 70+ mph forehands. Even the flattest hitting pro hits with more spin than your spiniest recreational player (and of course, with each shot coming in 20+mph faster)...
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
It doesn't. This is a myth perpetuated by rabid 2hb fanboys based on his results against 1 particular one hander. Throughout his career, there have been just as many 1 handers that have troubled Nadal as 2handers of which two immediately come to mind in Blake & Wawrinka.
The truth is Nadal troubles most people's backhands and it's only because of the prevalence of 2 handers on the tour that it stands out when a 1 hander struggles. And as Fed said himself, the only reason his 1 hander was troubled by Nadal for so long is because he got so used to playing against it on clay that he let it affect the way he played it on hardcourts as well. As soon as he decided to stop trying to rip/slice it and instead hit through it, he beats Nadal in 5 sets and rewrites the book on how effective the 1 hander truly is.
Don't buy into a narrative pushed by a vocal minority of trolls about the effectiveness of a 2 hander over a 1 hander as if you delve into the numbers and put things into context, the argument ultimately doesn't hold much water.
The truth is Nadal troubles most people's backhands and it's only because of the prevalence of 2 handers on the tour that it stands out when a 1 hander struggles. And as Fed said himself, the only reason his 1 hander was troubled by Nadal for so long is because he got so used to playing against it on clay that he let it affect the way he played it on hardcourts as well. As soon as he decided to stop trying to rip/slice it and instead hit through it, he beats Nadal in 5 sets and rewrites the book on how effective the 1 hander truly is.
Don't buy into a narrative pushed by a vocal minority of trolls about the effectiveness of a 2 hander over a 1 hander as if you delve into the numbers and put things into context, the argument ultimately doesn't hold much water.
Last edited:
F
Fedfan34
Guest
I think the absolute simplest way to explain it is that with a ball bouncing around your shoulder, and only one hand on the racket, stability and therefore control is harder to achieve. With two hands you should be able to achieve more control when it's up that high as well as more power.
Now as a one handed myself, and a short player, I don't know that I buy this. I think it comes down to mentality. I actively will myself to look forward to backhands, and because of my height, high ones. When they come, I rip them and have never felt held back by one hander. I felt more freedom than my old 2 handed days.
So to conclude, I don't know if there's hard evidence one way or the other. The control argument makes a bit of sense to me. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the 2 hander gives more power for high balls.
thomasferrett
Hall of Fame
I'm pretty sure someone did the stats that showed that, outside of Federer and Djokovic, Nadal actually has a WORSE winning percentage against 1hbh players than 2hbh players.
Nadal destroys BACKHANDS, period. Whether two-handed or one.
thomasferrett
Hall of Fame
Two hands provides more stability on high balls (as well as low and medium balls), but definetely not more power. The swing length is already far shorter than the 1hbh, so there is less time to accelerate the racket. Compounding this, the reach is shorter up high, thus limiting the swing length even more.
A well timed 1hbh can rip a high ball (but that's easier said than done), whereas a 2hbh can get moderate depth and power on a high ball, but more consistently.
Similar threads
