Would Roger have more slams with two handed backhand?

Would Roger have more slams with two handed backhand?


  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .

Antónis

Semi-Pro
Has there ever been a complete switch on tour? Coz I saw kyrigos use a one hander the other day and it looks better than his current
There's a couple of historic switches during junior days, meaning guys who played two handers and switch to one handers before they turn pro. Some went well (Edberg, Krajicek) some not that well (Sampras...).
During pro tour days, I don't remember any. Tsonga hits one handers on passing shots a lot, I also remember Courier hitting one handers on running backhands.

The most odd thing I remember on this subject was a guy who alternated one handers and two handers on matches, with no particular justification.
He just chooses what backhand he will hit, has the ball comes: Marc Rosset, Swiss pro from the 90's and early 2000's.

He did everything that way, returning serves or base-line rallies, with both one and two handers. On pro level, this is the only guy I remember doing this
 
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.
No, his backhand would be less of a weapon with 2 hands. The guys who hit the most winners with their backhand are 1-handers. All of them.
 
Yex, of course. His weak one handed backhand was exposed many times by Nadal's forehand. Nadal couldn't do the same with Djokovic since he had a stronger two handed backhand.
Federer's backhand is one of the greatest in the history of the sport. Federer couldn't play his offensive game if he had Djokovic's backhand.
 
D

Deleted member 763024

Guest
Yes Fed would only be perfect in hypotheticals. In real world, he's third best.
Ironically you summed up the Novak GOAT discussion succinctly. Just replace Fed with Nole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 763024

Guest
Beyond being the most successful player, Federer's magnetism is based on a style of play, and without his trademark one-handed backhand, I'm sure 100% he was never gonna be as popular as today.
Roger's BH has always been pretty, but when I first watched him back in 2002/2003 it was his forehand that immediately mesmerized me + the otherworldly anticipation/movement.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
This post is the complete opposite of what I'd expect from a Nadal fan
I've said it a bunch, but peopel kinda get caught up in whatever, but I love Fed and I am a big Nadal. Most the time when people bash one I just pick the other side for forum fun.

I really don't like Djo.
 

byealmeens

Semi-Pro
No, his backhand would be less of a weapon with 2 hands. The guys who hit the most winners with their backhand are 1-handers. All of them.
Those stats are misleading in my opinion ... much like the BH speeds, as often one-handers hit higher speeds than two-handers. But personally I would consider the Nishikori, Djokovic, and even Zverev two handers more of a "weapon" because the do more damage overall. They force more short balls and lead to more forced errors. They also handle pace and spin a bit better, of course, allowing for better defense to offense.
 
Those stats are misleading in my opinion ... much like the BH speeds, as often one-handers hit higher speeds than two-handers. But personally I would consider the Nishikori, Djokovic, and even Zverev two handers more of a "weapon" because the do more damage overall. They force more short balls and lead to more forced errors. They also handle pace and spin a bit better, of course, allowing for better defense to offense.
I think it's easier to place the ball down the line overall with with two hander from what I've experienced playing as well as watching
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
I hate thread titles like this. It is NOT a liability as the thread author suggests. it is all about the individual.

Would Rafa, Novak or Murray have more slams with a 1HBH?
 

CYGS

Hall of Fame
Ironically you summed up the Novak GOAT discussion succinctly. Just replace Fed with Nole.
Fed fans are the ones who came up with all sorts of hypothetical scenarios far more than any other fan base. I suggest you to open your eyes and learn. You don't know what you were/I was talking about.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
Yex, of course. His weak one handed backhand was exposed many times by Nadal's forehand. Nadal couldn't do the same with Djokovic since he had a stronger two handed backhand.
Like in 2017 when he was hitting bh winners at will against Nadal?

Its not his backhand that was a problem, it never was.

It was his stubborness to keep playing with an outdated small head 90s racquet that made his bh wing a weakness against Nadal heavy spin.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
What bugs you most about Djokovic dude?
Attitude, arrogance, and very suspicious meteoric rise from a normal top contender to unbeatable, never looking tired, and defending things by saying "everything I do is legal" when talking about recovery. I don't care how good tennis player he might be, I just don't like him on that level.

Everyone has an opinion, so that's mine.
 
Those stats are misleading in my opinion ... much like the BH speeds, as often one-handers hit higher speeds than two-handers. But personally I would consider the Nishikori, Djokovic, and even Zverev two handers more of a "weapon" because the do more damage overall. They force more short balls and lead to more forced errors. They also handle pace and spin a bit better, of course, allowing for better defense to offense.
I define "weapon" as the ability to hit winners. The guys with the best capability of lighting up the stat sheets in backhand winners are Federer, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Thiem, etc.

The main advantage for the 2-hander is on the return. Federer's actually somewhat of an anomaly in comparison to other 1-handers in that he's able to return fairly well off that side...at least relative to his 1-handed peers. Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Thiem hate being rushed/having to redirect pace off the backhand.

But while Federer is better than other 1-handers in the backhand return of serve, he's nowhere near Djokovic/Murray in that area. And that really hurt him against Nadal's left-handed serve.
 

byealmeens

Semi-Pro
I define "weapon" as the ability to hit winners. The guys with the best capability of lighting up the stat sheets in backhand winners are Federer, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Thiem, etc.

The main advantage for the 2-hander is on the return. Federer's actually somewhat of an anomaly in comparison to other 1-handers in that he's able to return fairly well off that side...at least relative to his 1-handed peers. Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Thiem hate being rushed/having to redirect pace off the backhand.

But while Federer is better than other 1-handers in the backhand return of serve, he's nowhere near Djokovic/Murray in that area. And that really hurt him against Nadal's left-handed serve.
Yes I see your point … maybe “weapon” is the wrong term. But let me offer a few points of my own… First, I think the number of winners is not a good measure of how damaging a shot is. One handers often have longer swings and more racquet & swing speed so they may produce more winners. Second, we rarely measure forced errors, short balls, and court position per side, but if we did I think you’d notice a big disparity between Djokovic and Thiem, for instance. Novak handles pace better, offers up less weak shots, takes the ball earlier, and places the ball better with his BH and these aspects are just as valuable (if not more so) than the number of winners. Third, I think your points about return are good ones, but not entirely correct. Roger didn’t just struggle against Nadal on return of serve. In fact, most would say his main issue was during rallies where Nadal would pound that side with his FH and often draw a weak reply. Also, though I agree many two handers return well off that side (Novak is amazing of course), Nadal himself is an excellent example of one that did not. For years, he struggled off that wing mainly because of his defensive nature and court position. In more recent years he has stepped in more and really improved that side, but I would still not consider him one of the best returners off that wing.

So in my opinion, the amount of damage a stroke can do relates to many things, and some are difficult to measure. I do agree that Roger would not be the same player with a two-hander, but I disagree that his two-hander would have been weaker or less damaging overall. But who knows … that part is pure speculation, of course.
 
no. once you master the 1HBH, its a far more effective shot than a two hander. you can really uncoil and rip a laser and and hit sharper angles than you can with two hands. not to mention disguising slice and drop shots etc
 
Top