Even the one double hander he hits in the vid is a beautiful stroke ... I guess we'll never know, but I'm voting yesThere is simply no way to know.
- It depends on the quality of the two hander
- Does he keep the same quality on the slice?
When he shows you he could've hit the double hander all that timeTwo hander? Poorer short slice?
Two hander? Poorer short slice?
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.Yes Fed would only be perfect in hypotheticals. In real world, he's third best.
In real world he's kingYes Fed would only be perfect in hypotheticals. In real world, he's third best.
and Djokovic wouldn't even be in the conversation since he's veganYes, 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.
This shows an upcoming milestone. Fed's 2 weeks close to 1000 weeks in the top 100.
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 . . .
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.
Nah just MurryGOATand Djokovic wouldn't even be in the conversation since he's vegan
nedl mury goat
That was peak MuryNah just MurryGOAT
Or should I say SIR MURRYGOAT?!?!?!?!?!
Nah just MurryGOAT
Or should I say SIR MURRYGOAT?!?!?!?!?!
He also lives in Surrey.Sir + Murray = Surrey
Surrey = former home of Henry VIII
Henry VIII = 6 wives
Wives back then = Trophies
Therefore mury = will win at least 6 grend slems
Sir + Murray = Surrey
Surrey = former home of Henry VIII
Henry VIII = 6 wives
Wives back then = Trophies
Therefore mury = will win at least 6 grend slems
He also lives in Surrey.
6 letters in Surrey.
The number is 6.
This is right.
Sir + Murray = Surrey
Surrey = former home of Henry VIII
Henry VIII = 6 wives
Wives back then = Trophies
Therefore mury = will win at least 6 grend slems
This is some nigahiga level sh*t right here.
Mury also loves to say ****He also lives in Surrey.
6 letters in Surrey.
The number is 6.
This is right.
That gives me eye cancer6 = 2x3
3 = ilerminaty
mury is trying to establish a second new world order
Its time to join this anti cult.6 = 2x3
3 = ilerminaty
mury is trying to establish a second new world order
Its time to join this anti cult.
Confirmed.
They are coming to get us.
Oh I see what you did there
Edit: pls no ban, a poster tricked me
Mury also loves to say ****
the F is the 6th letter of the alfabet.
What is written shall come to pass
He would win as many slams as Nishikori and Raonic if he didnt have any hands
PROOF
At the WTFWhere can I sign up for 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.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
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.
Yes I guess the main advantage of one hander would be to disguise the slice, which Roger does better than anyoneAlso, 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.