Would Roger have more slams with two handed backhand?

Would Roger have more slams with two handed backhand?


  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
#3
There is simply no way to know.

- It depends on the quality of the two hander
- Does he keep the same quality on the slice?
 
#10
If you gave him Djokovic's backhand, then yes. If it was just his own backhand but two-handed then probably not. It would have an adverse affect on his slice and besides holding up slightly better against Nadal, I don't know what else it would bring to the table. His backhand being one-handed really isn't as much of a liability as people make it out to be
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#14
Yes Fed would only be perfect in hypotheticals. In real world, he's third best.
Yes, Roger Federer would certainly only be unstoppable in a hypothetical scenario. In the real established world, he's merely third best. Only the meat from the chaff.
 
#18
I agree it’s not the liability 2handers make it to be. Nadal and Joke have beaten more 2 handers than 1’s. Because you distill an entire discipline to one guy doesn’t mean he’s weak because he loses to the next gen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

bjk

Hall of Fame
#19

These are the players with most weeks inside top 100. Look at all those 1-handers at the top . . . Fed, Youzhny, Lopez, Robredo, Gasquet, Kohli . . .

via twitter.com/LucaBeck
 
Last edited:

oldmanfan

Hall of Fame
#22
Maybe less slams atm (specific to Federer's game). His slice is usually underrated, but it's a huge part of what makes his game succeed imo. It allows the variety + FH combo that we saw in his peak years. And 1HBH is more naturally inclined to slicing on the BH. More importantly, Fed gets bored doing the same shots repeatedly, and the 1HBH allows him more choices to keep it fun for him (topspin, slice, slicing it short, dropshot). Bc his 1HBH is considered his weakness (it is), it likely contributed to him focusing in making his FH into even more of a weapon (the fearhand of yesteryear). Had he been more balanced on his BH side with a 2HBH, we may never have seen the level of his FH that it was during his peak.

Of course no true way to really tell, results wise.

One thing that IS more likely to happen is that Fed would be more injured. 2HBH is the stabler shot, but it has too many moving parts. On the same player, it is more likely to cause injuries imo.
 

Enga

Professional
#23
I heard somewhere that Federer would prefer to teach his kids the 2 hander.

I think that while the 1 handed backhand has its drawbacks and strengths, the main reason for Federer's success has been his focus, clarity of mind, dedication, and being in the right place at the right time. Being a tennis genius helps too. I think had he chosen a 2 handed backhand growing up, it wouldnt change his career. Just how he hits the ball and constructs points.
 
#24
Maybe less slams atm (specific to Federer's game). His slice is usually underrated, but it's a huge part of what makes his game succeed imo. It allows the variety + FH combo that we saw in his peak years. And 1HBH is more naturally inclined to slicing on the BH. More importantly, Fed gets bored doing the same shots repeatedly, and the 1HBH allows him more choices to keep it fun for him (topspin, slice, slicing it short, dropshot). Bc his 1HBH is considered his weakness (it is), it likely contributed to him focusing in making his FH into even more of a weapon (the fearhand of yesteryear). Had he been more balanced on his BH side with a 2HBH, we may never have seen the level of his FH that it was during his peak.

Of course no true way to really tell, results wise.

One thing that IS more likely to happen is that Fed would be more injured. 2HBH is the stabler shot, but it has too many moving parts. On the same player, it is more likely to cause injuries imo.
Interesting analysis - with a thing or two I had not considered.
 
#47
Even the one double hander he hits in the vid is a beautiful stroke ... I guess we'll never know, but I'm voting yes :D
I think this is a good question, and one I’ve heard before. Mainly, fans wonder if Federer would have had better results against Nadal (even on clay) with a two-hander. Using a more aggressive backhand in 2017, he seemed to have better luck against him, and with two hands one could argue he would’ve done even more damage on that side (much like Novak). Here’s my take … Though I do think there is a chance his BH could have been more of a weapon, I personally disagree that his game would be stronger overall. To me, what we often undervalue is the balance of a players game, which usually depends on the relationship of one stroke to another. In other words, I don’t believe Federer would’ve had the weapon on the FH side if his BH was a lot stronger … much like I don’t think he would serve as well if he could defend better … or he would volley as well if he played less aggressive. All things are intertwined to complete the right “balance” in a players game. So adding one thing often detracts from something else. That’s why it’s so rare to find players that are complete and totally proficient in every phase of the game … Roger to me is one of the few that comes close and changing anything would most likely disrupt that.
 
#48
I think this is a good question, and one I’ve heard before. Mainly, fans wonder if Federer would have had better results against Nadal (even on clay) with a two-hander. Using a more aggressive backhand in 2017, he seemed to have better luck against him, and with two hands one could argue he would’ve done even more damage on that side (much like Novak). Here’s my take … Though I do think there is a chance his BH could have been more of a weapon, I personally disagree that his game would be stronger overall. To me, what we often undervalue is the balance of a players game, which usually depends on the relationship of one stroke to another. In other words, I don’t believe Federer would’ve had the weapon on the FH side if his BH was a lot stronger … much like I don’t think he would serve as well if he could defend better … or he would volley as well if he played less aggressive. All things are intertwined to complete the right “balance” in a players game. So adding one thing often detracts from something else. That’s why it’s so rare to find players that are complete and totally proficient in every phase of the game … Roger to me is one of the few that comes close and changing anything would most likely disrupt that.
Yep I hear. Sometimes things are just meant to be and fall into place, naturally, as they should.
 
#49
Also, you can slice with a two-handed backhand. Nadal has a two-handed backhand but when he slices (which he does a lot), he employs a one-handed backhand. Such an estrategy is ultra-effective as shown in the US Open 2013.

In short, you don't need a one-handed backhand to slice.
 
#50
Also, you can slice with a two-handed backhand. Nadal has a two-handed backhand but when he slices (which he does a lot), he employs a one-handed backhand. Such an estrategy is ultra-effective as shown in the US Open 2013.

In short, you don't need a one-handed backhand to slice.
Yes I guess the main advantage of one hander would be to disguise the slice, which Roger does better than anyone
 
Top