The backhands: Double-HBH and Single-HBH

First topic message reminder :

Away from the Murray debates, I thought now would be a good time to discuss what is probably the most important shot in tennis: The backhand.

We say a player's serve is as good as his/her second serve cause this is where he/she is going to be tested in a match. This is even truer regarding the BH. Very few players have a BH better than their FH. In fact, I am not sure there is any player in the top 100 who has a better BH than their FH. (no this is not a thread about Murray). Nalbandian possibly may be the exception as he can generate as much pace and better angles from his BH than FH but it's really difficult to say as we are so used to seeing the BH as being the weaker side that we tend to exaggerate the strength of a BH when comparing with the FH. When talking about a great BH we talk in comparison with the other players BH. I don't know any player who turns around his FH to hit a BH....not even Nalbandian or Gasquet for that matter. At best, it seems BH can be as good as a FH.

So being the weaker side in absolute value, we can say, in our baseline tennis era, a player is as good as his/her BH. Finding the opponent’s BH is the first strategy once the ball is in play and whom can find his opponents BH first or more often usually wins!

Nadal v Federer, Djokovic v Nadal and Federer v Djoko are great examples showing just that.

So based on the importance of the BH, it’s quite easy to understand why everybody taking up the game is now playing with a DBH. We have some rare youngsters (Golubev, Dimitrov), probably inspired to stick to their SBH by Federer’s success, being overtaken in the ranking by younger players using their 2 hands on the BH (Harrisson, Young, Raonic, Tomic, etc…) despite their huge (superior?) talent. I am convinced that all SBH in the top 100 are extremely talented and I would say, on average, significantly more talented than their DBH peers. However being talented nowadays is simply a small factor in the success of a player.

The reason is simple, a DBH has a bigger sweet spot and can generate more power with increased safety, making the DBH almost as solid and powerful as the FH . The downside of the DBH is the loss of versatility and need for better coverage of the court but in today’s slow conditions and advanced fitness programs, those downsides are simply negligeable in comparison with its upside. We just need to look at the top 10 to see that only Federer can still hold a place there in this week’s ranking. Like last year, he will be the only one again with a SBH in the WTF in London. The fact that rallies are 5 or more rally long on average simply gives the DBH an incredible advantage in today's game.

In short the SBH is doomed, and its life was only extended by Federer. It is an obsolete shot and we did not realise how archaic it was earlier because it is used by an exceptional player whose talent could, at least at the beginning, overcome its handicap. Since Wimbledon 2004, all slams were won by DBH when not won by Federer. Only once in the last 10 years 2 SBHers were in the final of a slam! That was at the AO07 before the physical tennis settled in for good at the very top.

Should the ITF do something about it to keep the variety of the game? Tennis can quickly turn boring if we only allow one type of players to thrive.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:rubbish. Golubev isn't an "extremely talented player", he's a mindless ball-basher. The fact that he has a SHBH doesn't change that, and I'm perfectly happy to see guys like that ranked outside the top 100. Do you honestly believe if he had a DHBH he'd be ranked top 10? Dimitrov has a lot of promise but as yet is failing to deliver for a number of reasons: too much pressure at an early age that he hasn't been able to cope with, not physically strong enough (that's right, tennis is still a sport and that means you have to be an athlete to compete). Gasquet struggled to ever break the very top for the same reasons, don't think it was down to the fact he had a SHBH at all.

So for you being talented is about getting stronger? Can't you see that what you call talent is simply better stamina and muscles? Look at Murray for instance, what does he say? Is he saying I am going to learn how to hit a better FH or is he saying I am going to get stronger? You don;t see that the purpose of getting stronger is actually to be able to engage on longer rallies with the very specific aim to test that famous BHs over the distance. If you cannot see that Golubev is a talent, then surely I wonder what you call talent? As I said I think you are mixing up talent with power and stamina. And Gasquet is the perfect example of a player able to teach Murray how to play but failed twice or thrice over the distance. Stamina saved Murray at Wimbledon 08 and FO 09 v Gasquet...not his talent!

Chazfazzer wrote:Yeah, I think it's a bit simplistic to say that the main reason for every player with a SHBH not making it is the fact that they use a SHBH. Gasquet not making it IMO has more to do with his poor forehand, average serve, and tendency to resort to standing 5 yards behind the baseline playing loopy topspin shots rather than taking control of the point.

You see Chaffazzer, without knowing you are confirming my points. Why is Gasquet standing further back? cause there is the added risk of mistiming when taking the ball earlier. We think Gasquet has a great FH cause he swings it freely and makes great winners but those winners don't buy him a match win. He is under the same spell as all the other SHBHers, he is going to make great winners but more likely will lose the match over the distance.

It's so simple I am surprised you don;t see it....and worse that you don;t want to see how little the SHBH is learnt nowadays at the professional level for this very reason: It doesn't pay off anymore.

Please don't put words in my mouth Tenez. I never said Gasquet and Dimitrov weren't talented, but for me they both suffer from lack of mental strength (possibly due to being put under too much pressure from an early age) and also a lack of physical strength. The defeats Gasquet suffered to Murray are a consequence of both of these things (remember he was up a break in the third both times). You need all three to be a great tennis player, talent can only take you so far.

yes I believe Murray is talented, the guy has great hands and a fine variety to his game (best sliced BH with Federer), but he recognised (incidently after that match against Gasquet at wimbledon) that he wasn't strong enough physicaly to compete at the very top, so went away and worked on that aspect of his game. I'm not confusing talent with stamina, merely saying that talent alone isn't (nor should it be) enough to get you to the top of any sport.

laverfan wrote:
There is no proof of that, but just your assertion. Federer, has, so far, won 16 slams with an SHBH, including beating players with DHBH. He is the one 'swallow' which has made '16' summers.

Strange logic really. You base your argument on one player? I base my argument on all of them. Including Federer who despite being a genius has lost a tremendous amount of close matches, without counting the many BPs, STs and MPs he has wasted versus Nadal and now Djokovic. So please, again, make valid points!

Tsonga, now uses both, which seems to be a wise decision. Beating Federer from two sets down in W QF does not make him psychologically fragile.

?? another of your famous diversion??? Cause you are not seriously suggesting that the 2 SHBH that Tsonga played earned him the match, are you?

There is a strong inclination to become a creature of habit, hence change is harder to make, but it is possible. Nadal with a 135mph serve, Federer with a drop shot, Djokovic with an extreme fitness regimen are examples of successful changes.

Increasing power and stamina? vesrsus what? increasing safety of a SHBH while hitting harder? Do you realise they are completely different annimals?

I agree with MfC regarding Golubev and Chazzfazzer (and his Gasquet observation. Murray has a DHBH and is not as successful as Djokovic or Nadal, if you use statistics to define success.).

Amazing attempt to get lost in other topics. We are comparing SBH v DBH...not the relative strength and weaknesses of players with a DHBH. Sincerely. I am curious....what was your point there?

BTW, Tenez, do you utilize a SHBH or a DHBH?

SBH cause I play for fun at club level. If I had to become a professional and make a living, I'd do like the other 99.9% of the juniors...I'd play DHBH as I am not twice as talented as Federer.

[/quote]

Back on the subject at hand, players with a SHBH ranked in the top 50:
Federer - 3
Almagro - 11
Wawrinka - 20
Ljubicic - 26
Lopez - 28
Llodra - 33
Youzhny - 37
Garcia-Lopez (I think) - 44
Robredo - 46

Not sure about Andujar.
Going down to n°100 it's about the same, for pretty much every ten players they're two, sometimes three SHBHs. I'd say the DHBH in this day is an easier shot to hit, and as such most players choose to hit it. Doesn't mean they're less talented than those with a SHBH though...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Please don't put words in my mouth Tenez. I never said Gasquet and Dimitrov weren't talented, but for me they both suffer from lack of mental strength (possibly due to being put under too much pressure from an early age) and also a lack of physical strength. The defeats Gasquet suffered to Murray are a consequence of both of these things (remember he was up a break in the third both times). You need all three to be a great tennis player, talent can only take you so far.

I have explained why they are mentally "weaker". Nothing to do with having pressure young cause when they had pressure then they proved they were the best of the lot tennis wise AND mental wise by winning finals of GSs versus other "weaker" juniors. No the reality is that they are mentally "weaker" for the same reasons Murray is mentally "weak" when he himslef has to hit risky winners...except that Gasquet and Dimitrov have no choice on that BH to go for winners more often cause the more the rally lasts, the more he is likely to tire and shank.

I'm not confusing talent with stamina, merely saying that talent alone isn't (nor should it be) enough to get you to the top of any sport.

The problem in tennis, and that talent can shine through only if you are as strong or pretty close physically as your opponent. We saw this perfectly between Djoko and Nadal. Once Djoko became close to be as fit as Nadal, he has exposed how much more talented he is than Nadal. It was not obvious to some before.

That's why the physcality of the game has made the SBH an obsolete shot. No coach will tell you otherwise nowadays....unless you have more talent than Federer...but even if you had, you might want to bet on the safe side and learnt to play DHBH.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Back on the subject at hand, players with a SHBH ranked in the top 50:
Federer - 3
Almagro - 11
Wawrinka - 20
Ljubicic - 26
Lopez - 28
Llodra - 33
Youzhny - 37
Garcia-Lopez (I think) - 44
Robredo - 46

Not sure about Andujar.
Going down to n°100 it's about the same, for pretty much every ten players they're two, sometimes three SHBHs. I'd say the DHBH in this day is an easier shot to hit, and as such most players choose to hit it. Doesn't mean they're less talented than those with a SHBH though...

Isn't that a list of talented players? with no youngsters and 6 out of 8 being in their 30th year or plus and the 3 who are not are over 26! ...and out of the 9 listed 6 are below part of the top 50. I rest my case.


Yes DBHer can be talented and more than SBHers. However, some DHBH are able to hide behind their stamina and power like a SHBH can't!

IMO, five most talented players
- in the top ten: top 4 + Tsonga, 1 SHBH
- 11-20: Tipsy, Del Potro, Gasquet (shamefully left him out of my list of SHBH), Dolgopolov, Wawrinka. 2 SHBH
- 21-30: Melzer, Mayer, Verdasco/Monaco, Stepanek, Ljubicic. 1 SHBH
- 31-40: Davydenko, Dodig, Bogomolov, Youzhny, Tursunov. 1 SHBH
- 41-50: Haase, Young, Nishikori, Malisse, Gulbis. 0 SHBH
So for me the proportion SHBH/total number of players is about the same as talented SHBH/Talented players.

My point is that they are less and less SHBH around as it's not an easy shot to master, particularly with racquet technology making it easier for players to get the ball up and above shoulder height (where playing a SHBH is particularly difficult). This doesn't mean that the more talented players aren't getting to where they should be because of the SHBH, just that less players are using it...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:My point is that they are less and less SHBH around as it's not an easy shot to master, particularly with racquet technology making it easier for players to get the ball up and above shoulder height (where playing a SHBH is particularly difficult). This doesn't mean that the more talented players aren't getting to where they should be because of the SHBH, just that less players are using it...

This is contradiction to me. Isn't talent the art of making what looks difficult easy? That is exactly what those SHBHers do. You say it yourself: "it (SHBH) is not an easy shot to master". They are not achieveing as much because the physical players have the stamina and power to test those SBH and that is why guys like Blake, Ljubo, Robredo, Haas, Gonzalez, Gasquet, who up to 2007 could be in the top 10 even top 5 are nowhere to be seen at the top nowadays.

I also completely disagree that the top 4 are the most talented players. It doesn't work like that! This is too simple. Talent wise you can easily compare Federer with Nalbandian for instance..but what's Nabandian's ranking?

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:My point is that they are less and less SHBH around as it's not an easy shot to master, particularly with racquet technology making it easier for players to get the ball up and above shoulder height (where playing a SHBH is particularly difficult). This doesn't mean that the more talented players aren't getting to where they should be because of the SHBH, just that less players are using it...

This is contradiction to me. Isn't talent the art of making what looks difficult easy? That is exactly what those SHBHers do. You say it yourself: "it (SHBH) is not an easy shot to master". They are not achieveing as much because the physical players have the stamina and power to test those SBH and that is why guys like Blake, Ljubo, Robredo, Haas, Gonzalez, Gasquet, who up to 2007 could be in the top 10 even top 5 are nowhere to be seen at the top nowadays.

I also completely disagree that the top 4 are the most talented players. It doesn't work like that! This is too simple. Talent wise you can easily compare Federer with Nalbandian for instance..but what's Nabandian's ranking?

First paragraph. We had a debate on talent before, for me it's a lot more complicated to define than that. I'm with you that in this day and age the SHBH is not an easy shot to master. But I'm not with you when you say the reason talented guys with a SHBH are struggling is because of the SHBH. For instance, Nalby and Gulbis are two very talented players with DHBHs who are struggling for various reasons. Blake, Haas and Gonzalez all struggled with injury. Ljubo is stilll doing pretty well for a thrity year old. Robredo was never very good anyway, and gasquet is still in the top 15 or so, and never made it much past top 10, so not much change there.

Second paragraph; You misread what I said: I said that the top 4 (plus Tsonga) are IMO the most talented in the top 10, not that they were the most talented in the world... However, since you ask, yes, I believe those four are more talented than the rest of the world, with in pure talent terms Nalby probably the next best.

Talent is not difficult to define or qualify. It's just difficult to quantify and because of that people can come with big aberrations when comparaing talents as the main criteria used is the record. However sport, especially tennis, requires much more than talent to achieve sucess. In fact, it's even one of the few sport where the physical side can completely whipe out the talent side.

When you see a lighter, frailer Davydenko playing with Nadal like the latter was at the end of a string held by the former, you cannot help but appreciate the big difference in talent between the two.

In tennis it's quite to see who has talent, at least at first. It's, largely, the one who can take the ball earlier. Nadal explains his losses to Djokovic very openly..."he takes the ball early". So if he knows what's easy to do to dictate...how come he doesn't do it (considering he is a top 4 talented player an
d has more power and stamina than anybody out there)? Subject for another topic...but back to backhands.....

I think where this thread has gone wrong is in equating a playing style or technique to talent.

Is the technique of the SHBH more difficult to master? I'd say certainly: tried it as a wee kid and always felt more comfortable with the easy power and control of the DHBH.

That said, choosing either BH isn't indicative of talent just because one technique is more difficult. Nadal, for example is a natural right-hander who for some reason was made to play with his weaker left since he was little. To most of us that would be difficult but a determined pro like him has spent his career honing it to achieve great success.

I made the Nadal reference because making the employment of the SHBH synonymous with talent just because of its difficulty would be like claiming Nadal must be the most talented out there cos playing with your naturally weaker arm should be more difficult.

And it's all well giving our definitions of talent but the sooner people realize how unquantifiable it is, the better.

A lot of people would tell you Gasquet is more talented than Nadal but other than a prettier backhand, what does he really do better to justify the claim?

Self-destruct?

mthierry wrote:I That said, choosing either BH isn't indicative of talent just because one technique is more difficult.

It's not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that because it's more difficult and that it is more tested than ever down to slow courts and longer and physical rallies, those who reach teh top with a SBH are undeniably talented whereas those who have a DBH "can" use some other factors like physique and stamina to hide some timimg/skill weaknesses.

At a time when most professional players used a SHBH, Laver said that you win a 5th set by attacking the BH. If all players today were forced to learn to play tennis with a SHBH, it woudl be more obvious to see who has more talent and who hasn't as much though I agree it is not the sole factor.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
There is no proof of that, but just your assertion. Federer, has, so far, won 16 slams with an SHBH, including beating players with DHBH. He is the one 'swallow' which has made '16' summers.

Strange logic really. You base your argument on one player? I base my argument on all of them. Including Federer who despite being a genius has lost a tremendous amount of close matches, without counting the many BPs, STs and MPs he has wasted versus Nadal and now Djokovic. So please, again, make valid points!

Surprised that you have forgotten Sampras and Edberg (who switched from DHBH to SHBH). You have ignored Rosewall. Laver was an SHBH.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Tsonga, now uses both, which seems to be a wise decision. Beating Federer from two sets down in W QF does not make him psychologically fragile.

?? another of your famous diversion??? Cause you are not seriously suggesting that the 2 SHBH that Tsonga played earned him the match, are you?

You are missing the point. There was no need for Tsonga to even consider a SHBH in his career, yet he did and played some good shots.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:There is a strong inclination to become a creature of habit, hence change is harder to make, but it is possible. Nadal with a 135mph serve, Federer with a drop shot, Djokovic with an extreme fitness regimen are examples of successful changes.

Increasing power and stamina? vesrsus what? increasing safety of a SHBH while hitting harder? Do you realise they are completely different annimals?

You think Federer would have won 16 without Paganini?
You think Budge (considered the best SHBH in history by many) was any less an athlete compared to the current players.

tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
I agree with MfC regarding Golubev and Chazzfazzer (and his Gasquet observation. Murray has a DHBH and is not as successful as Djokovic or Nadal, if you use statistics to define success.).

Amazing attempt to get lost in other topics. We are comparing SBH v DBH...not the relative strength and weaknesses of players with a DHBH. Sincerely. I am curious....what was your point there?

... and can you isolate a SBH or a DBH from the players who execute either shot? Strange coming from you, who keeps espousing talent vs. physicality.

laverfan wrote:BTW, Tenez, do you utilize a SHBH or a DHBH?

Tenez wrote:SBH cause I play for fun at club level. If I had to become a professional and make a living, I'd do like the other 99.9% of the juniors...I'd play DHBH as I am not twice as talented as Federer.

Now you have equated talent or lack thereof to a single stroke, an SBH or lack thereof.

If memory serves me well I seem to recall Federer, if complaining, often complaining about the slow speed of the courts (e.g. at the US Open).

Now I ask myself, is there any relationship between Federer's complaint and what Tenez has been discussing on this thread?

Nore Staat wrote:If memory serves me well I seem to recall Federer, if complaining, often complaining about the slow speed of the courts (e.g. at the US Open).

Now I ask myself, is there any relationship between Federer's complaint and what Tenez has been discussing on this thread?

... and Federer quietly forgot the ball changes and faster clay courts at RG 2011.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/23/players-divided-on-new-french-open-balls.html

From LF's link:
“The balls are very, very fast, so it’s really difficult to control,” Djokovic said. “Maybe it’s going to favor the servers and the big hitters. But you never know. I mean, it still is clay.”

Noted Federer: “The balls are faster, indeed. It might be a bit difficult in the beginning, but in the end, they’re not that fast.”

Schiavone—like Nadal—happens to use a racket made by Babolat and so she spoke to some at the company about the balls.

“They’ve very similar—or maybe the same,” Schiavone said. “The weather makes a big difference with the balls and how big they get. I think they’re the same as last year, with a different logo.”

Strange observation from Schiavone that the size of the balls varies with the weather ...

Nore Staat wrote:Strange observation from Schiavone that the size of the balls varies with the weather ...

Depending on humidity and the wetness of the court surfaces, the balls can absorb water and hence the comment. RG 2011 was relatively dry as you can see from the comments Christophe Proust.

The balls at the FO where designed to be exactly the same size and weight than the Dunlop used in the previous years. THat doesn;t mean they are the same balls. The pressure and the quality of the rubber can make a big difference. The Babolat's have a harder rubber shell whcih means that they deform less and the energy of the impact is conserved when transferred to the ball. If the rubber is softer, the deformation of the ball is as much energy that won't be transferred into the pace. This harder shell is what annoyed Nadal at the beginning cause his strings were not biting the ball as much, making his shots much shorter. He took him a while to understand that he had to hit them slightly flatter and/or harder..

Both backhands have their merits. The champions of tennis tend to use their backhands with two hands, like Moya, Ferrero and Nadal. However the occasional great like Federer, Almagro and true giants in Kuerten and Gaudio used one handers.

The double hander for me is a sublime shot, probably the most beautiful in tennis. But the one hander clearly is an effective shot, as shown by the number of champions who have used it.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Both backhands have their merits. The champions of tennis tend to use their backhands with two hands, like Moya, Ferrero and Nadal. However the occasional great like Federer, Almagro and true giants in Kuerten and Gaudio used one handers.

SAHARA STALLION,
You are using the words champions of tennis for Moya who was ranked at #1 for 2 weeks and in his whole career has 1 GS at FO and 1 final and 3 masters. Occasional great like Federer ?? So as per you he occasionally plays great?? And he and Almagro are mentioned in the same sentence??? True giants in Kuerten and Gaudio?? Kuerten was a great clay courter, but other than that he was decent, but not better than average top 20 players. And Gaudio a giant?? He is a one slam wonder who will always be mentioned whenever the topic of the weakest and the most lucky GS winners will be brought up? He according to you is a true giant.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:The double hander for me is a sublime shot, probably the most beautiful in tennis. But the one hander clearly is an effective shot, as shown by the number of champions who have used it.

double hander sublime? Now looking at who are your champions of tennis, occasional greats and true giants, I was not surprised what is your most beautiful shot in tennis.

I had a good laugh. Welcome to the forum SS.

Raiders, I think people who read SS posts across threads, laughed a lot and moved on but its only you who had the courage to reply - well done... I could have never persuaded myself to do that!

Welcome to the forum SS - you are very funny

A SS is born. Welcome to 606v2.

SS did post on a different thread first and said 'Wrong Thread'.

Be warned, SS, this is an addictive forum.

Indeed, welcome aboard - anything to raise a smile on here has to be a good thing :-)

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

SAHARA STALLION,
You are using the words champions of tennis for Moya who was ranked at #1 for 2 weeks and in his whole career has 1 GS at FO and 1 final and 3 masters.

Naturally, as Moya is one of the finest players of his generation. He concentrated solely on the one true surface of tennis and he was proud of it. Like Federer, Ferrero and the other legends of his generation he has won the one meaningful slam, but unlike Federer he seldom truly bothered with the shameful slams in Australia e.t.c. Truly he was a fearsome foe and a great champion.

The World Rankings are a bit of laughing stock to be honest, as they represent all surfaces equally. Clay points should be at least treble what you earn on other surfaces, due to the massively increased quality of play on the stuff.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Occasional great like Federer ?? So as per you he occasionally plays great?? And he and Almagro are mentioned in the same sentence???

Oh Ok, i'll let you have that one. Almagro, for all his dedication to the greatest season in sport, and for all his successes in major tournaments in Buenos Ares and Gstaad has not won in Madrid, Hamburg, or Paris, whereas Federer has. Being a big Almagro fan I possibly got carried away. I am slightly biased against Federer at times due to him wasting his time in laughable tournaments just to appear successful, whilst getting obliterated by Nadal in the clay season over and over again. He's actually had more success on clay recently than other surfaces, so clearly he has his priorities correct now; all credit to him.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: True giants in Kuerten and Gaudio?? Kuerten was a great clay courter

That's all that matters. Flawed players like Hewitt and Sampras who could only win on grass and hard, the surfaces of failures, will not even feature on the footnotes of history.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: And Gaudio a giant?? He is a one slam wonder who will always be mentioned whenever the topic of the weakest and the most lucky GS winners will be brought up? He according to you is a true giant.

Well of course, Gaudio's record speaks for itself. Barcelona, Mallorca, Kitzbuhel, Gstaad, Estoril, Buenos Aires, Viña del Mar and of course, the big one, Roland Garros. Only the best of the best can win in Paris, and you have to say, Gaudio did it in style.

He is widely considered the greatest Argentinian player to grace the game, and would cruise into any true tennis fans Top 10. Not to mention his backhand was just beautiful, even if it was one-handed.

On the backhand topic again, I should mention that my favourite player, and the hero of the masses, Tommy Robredo, also utilises the one handed backhand, like many of the great clay-courters before him. I think it's a cheat weapon to be honest.

SAHARA STALLION wrote: I think it's a cheat weapon to be honest.

Budge and Laver cheated their way to three Grand Slams between them. and

... and that too without hard courts in the mix... very poor and dishonest indeed.