Nadal vs the single-handed backhand

Evening folks. I was mulling over the matches tomorrow, and just couldn't see a way for Dimitrov to win, although of course there's always a puncher's chance in tennis. However, it got me thinking, and I decided to pull some data. We've talked about how the SHBH struggles to deal with heavy lefty spin before - but to what extent? Here are Nadal's head-to-head records against all the players with SHBHs that I could think of in the top 100:

(6) Federer: 22-10 (13-2 on clay)
(8) Wawrinka: 12-0 (5-0)
(9) Gasquet: 12-0 (5-0)
(12) Haas: 5-0
(14) Almagro: 10-0 (8-0)
(15) Youzhny: 10 - 4 (3-0)
(18) Robredo: 7-0 (2-0)
(22) Dimitrov: 3-0 (1-0)
(23) Kohlschreiber: 11-1 (5-0)
(27) Lopez: 9-2 (4-0)
(41) Berlocq: 3-0 (2-0)
(46) Mahut: 1-1
(58) Garcia-Lopez: 4-1 (2-0)
(60) Montanes: 2-0 (2-0)
(70) Volandri: 3-0 (2-0)
(76) Hanescu: 4-0 (3-0)
(82) Stakhovsky: 1-0 (1-0)
(98) Leonardo Mayer: 3-0 (1-0)

Combined record: 122 - 19 (64 - 2 on clay)
Combined record sans Federer: 100 - 9 (51 - 0)

There's plenty to be drawn from this; is the SHBH valid in the spin arena of the game today? Is this due to Nadal's ATG status, poor players, or a combination of both? Is it time to start cutting Federer some slack on the H2H debate? Does Dimitrov have any shadow of a chance tomorrow? Will the top players - Wawrinka, Gasquet, Almagro - ever beat Nadal?

Beating Nadal with one handed backhand is the equivalent of winning a battle with spears and bows and arrows against an army that has rifles. It can happen on occassion but 98 percent of the time it isn't going to end pretty. That being said Nadal probably has nearly the same win percentage against the tour in general because he is in my mind the GOAT.

That's a good point - I should hasten to add that these wins aren't solely down to the spin + lefty combination! Nadal is an unbelievable player and has a chance to go down as the GOAT, so he'd be expected (and does) have good H2H records everywhere. Still, even by his standards these numbers are impressive...

Impressive that the Youz has 4 wins against Nadal v. 10 losses I wonder when those wins were?

socal1976 wrote:Impressive that the Youz has 4 wins against Nadal v. 10 losses I wonder when those wins were?

Your wish is my stat-hunting, good sir:

Chennai 2008: 6-0, 6-1
Dubai 2007: 7-6, 6-3
US Open 2006: 6-3, 5-7, 7-6, 6-1
Dubai 2004: 6-2, 1-6, 6-1

Yeah like I suspected all of his wins on hardcourt and over 5 years ago. That is the difference Silver between Nadal on hardcourt and Nadal pre-2010 on a hardcourt. Just a vastly superior player on the surface.

Does Stan have the best SHBH on tour?
I think so.

I think Stan does he certainly flattens it out better than Gasquet or some of the others.

Yep, no way was Gasquet competing like that today.

I'm now of the mind that Nadal will have beat 17 by a distance, maybe 2 or 3 slams, before I consider him the "greatest" (as opposed to most successful).

He has such an inbuilt advantage simply by being a lefty. From pounding a SHBH, to being different to most players' usual patterns, to the good old "Ad Court Lefty Serve Advantage"... it all mounts up.

If here were right handed, he'd still be a multi-slam winning great. But some of those H2Hs would not be so skewed. Especially the Federer one.

Yes I think Stan has the best SHBH. Gasquet's seems to get a lot more attention, and I agree it's a stunning looking shot. But Stan's is more solid. And it's better on the back foot than Roger's, in my opinion anyway.

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm now of the mind that Nadal will have beat 17 by a distance, maybe 2 or 3 slams, before I consider him the "greatest" (as opposed to most successful).

He has such an inbuilt advantage simply by being a lefty. From pounding a SHBH, to being different to most players' usual patterns, to the good old "Ad Court Lefty Serve Advantage"... it all mounts up.

If here were right handed, he'd still be a multi-slam winning great.  But some of those H2Hs would not be so skewed. Especially the Federer one.

Yes murdoch and if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle. Then you would also have to discount Laver, Mac, and Connors because they had left advantages. Nadal is the best player I have ever seen but again everyone is entitled to their opinion and a case can be made for Federer that is quite persuasive.

Like all things it's about circumstances. Stick all these guys back into the '80's and the SHBH would do just fine. Stick them on wood now, or play with gut, and it'd be the same.

It's just strings and bounce that tip it all one way. That's what they play on now so that's how it is. No point moaning about it, but equally no point extrapolating across time and circumstances either.

I agree socal. In the 127-year history of Wimbledon there have been only 11 left-handed singles champions, 8 men and 3 women. That's well below the natural population 11% occurrence rate.

Furthermore, an interesting fact is in the modern game from 1985 until Nadal arrived in 2005, only 3 winners (out of 77 slams) were left handed: Andres Gomez at Roland Garros in 1990, Thomas Muster in Paris in 1995 and Goran Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001. Since then only Nadal. It seems an argument is trying to be made using the obvious current example but the stats show otherwise.

lydian wrote:Does Stan have the best SHBH on tour?
I think so.

Yes, I agree. Best-looking though? Maybe still Gasquet's.

I think Gasquet can hit his the biggest. Fastest i've seen him hit was 105mph i think.

Between 1955 and 2004, 41 of the 200 available slams were won by lefties.

Of the 14 players to win 5 or more slams in the open era, 4 are left handed.

Stick those stats in ya pipe! 

So left handers generally don't play tennis, but when they do, they are bladdy brilliant? Sounds legit.

lydian wrote:Furthermore, an interesting fact is in the modern game from 1985 until Nadal arrived in 2005, only 3 winners (out of 77 slams) were left handed: Andres Gomez at Roland Garros in 1990, Thomas Muster in Paris in 1995 and Goran Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001. Since then only Nadal. It seems an argument is trying to be made using the obvious current example but the stats show otherwise.

You've missed Petr Korda!  

I think being a lefty is an edge but it is not that big of deal if you hit against them enough to get used to the different spin on the ball. Lets not forget that the CC backhand of righty also goes to the lefties backhand. And we have seen players sometimes pin Nadal in his backhand corner wit hthe same pattern. It is a bit of an advantage but at world class levels against world class strikers it is not as huge as you are making it Murdoch. But I also won't say that it is no advantage at all, I think it is because it takes awhile to get used to and the patterns of play are flipped.

Lydian, you are a bit cavalier with your stats:

lydian wrote:I agree socal. In the 127-year history of Wimbledon there have been only 11 left-handed singles champions, 8 men and 3 women. That's well below the natural population 11% occurrence rate.

There were 8 LH men who won, but they won a combined 16 titles, which is slightly above the 11% expected.  For women, the number is indeed below 11%.

lydian wrote:Furthermore, an interesting fact is in the modern game from 1985 until Nadal arrived in 2005, only 3 winners (out of 77 slams) were left handed: Andres Gomez at Roland Garros in 1990, Thomas Muster in Paris in 1995 and Goran Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001.

I do not know whether or not you took it from this article:

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Playing-left-handed-articolo6240.html

but wording there is almost identical (including Petr Korda's omission):

An interesting fact revealed by the statistics on Slam , is what shows that in the twenty years 1985 - 2005, among men there were only three winners (out of 77) of major-handed: Andres Gomez at Roland Garros in 1990, Thomas Muster in Paris in 1995 and Goran Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001.

If so, then you are a bit underhanded in your selection of the quote.  The article itself is just highlighting it as an "interesting fact", but it treats it almost as an oddity, because it makes it clear that both in the open era, as well as beforehand, the numbers were well above 10-11%.  A couple of other quotes from the same article:

To see if indeed, left-handedness is more weapon to win tennis matches, we can ask for help in the statistical analysis. Since 1968, the beginning of the open, have been played a total of 179 Grand Slam (Roland Garros from 1968 up to the U.S. Open this year). Among men, lefties took home the title for 40 times (22.3%), while among women this event occurred in 28 occasions (15.6%). Both percentages are very high, if weighted at the human beings who have left in your dominant hand, as we have already mentioned is around 10%.
There are many reasons that can be found to explain these percentages. First, with regard to men, it is necessary to note, that in forty slam "left", 27 were won by Nadal Mcenroe and Connors, three of the greatest players in history, while among the women of the 28 majors, well 18portano signing the great Martina Navratilova and nine of the equally great Monica Seles. However, opening our point of view and taking into consideration the pre-open era, the percentage not to deviate too much from that of the period of professionals, as in the past left-handers (Rod Laver in the first place) took home major tournaments with great continuity.

Probably we’ll never obtain one irrefutable proof that lefties are actually an advantage in the game of tennis , but the fact that Nadal, Connors, Mcenroe, Laver, Martina Navratilova and Seles, six of the greatest performers in the history of our sport, play and have played with the left hand, is surely significant. Or not?

You however only looked at the 1985-2005 period - just after McEnroe and Connors were done, and just before Nadal entered, and - not surprisingly - you ended up where you wanted to end up in the first place.

HM Murdoch wrote:If here were right handed, he'd still be a multi-slam winning great.  But some of those H2Hs would not be so skewed. Especially the Federer one.

So Nadal's H2H over Federer is because of the Left Hand of Nadal? Please explain to us then why Lopez, Verdasco, Niemenen, Melzer (lefties all) are owned by Federer H2H  ?

lydian wrote:Does Stan have the best SHBH on tour?
I think so.

At the moment without a doubt .  

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm now of the mind that Nadal will have beat 17 by a distance, maybe 2 or 3 slams, before I consider him the "greatest" (as opposed to most successful).

He has such an inbuilt advantage simply by being a lefty. From pounding a SHBH, to being different to most players' usual patterns, to the good old "Ad Court Lefty Serve Advantage"... it all mounts up.

If here were right handed, he'd still be a multi-slam winning great.  But some of those H2Hs would not be so skewed. Especially the Federer one.

Yes murdoch and if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle. Then you would also have to discount Laver, Mac, and Connors because they had left advantages. Nadal is the best player I have ever seen but again everyone is entitled to their opinion and a case can be made for Federer that is quite persuasive.

Why not you apply this logic when you called Nadal the GOAT when he has only 13 slams so far.   

Great post summer I think lefties do have an advantage and the numbers you produced certainly seems to provide very strong support. From my own playing experienced they are tricky and require you to reverse a lot of the normal patterns of play. Not to mention that the ball spins and breaks the other way. I just don't think you can discount a players accomplishments because they are lefty.

antonico wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:If here were right handed, he'd still be a multi-slam winning great.  But some of those H2Hs would not be so skewed. Especially the Federer one.

So Nadal's H2H over Federer is because of the Left Hand of Nadal? Please explain to us then why Lopez, Verdasco, Niemenen, Melzer (lefties all) are owned by Federer H2H  ?

Coz Federer stamp mugs.   

socal1976 wrote:Great post summer I think lefties do have an advantage and the numbers you produced certainly seems to provide very strong support.

I also think they probably have advantage - in most one-on-one sports, you would expect them to have some advantage.  But, to be honest, I am not too fussed about it.  At the end of the day, being lefty is not all that different from being the right height or having good hand-eye coordination - it is part of the package just like everything else.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Great post summer I think lefties do have an advantage and the numbers you produced certainly seems to provide very strong support.

I also think they probably have advantage - in most one-on-one sports, you would expect them to have some advantage.  But, to be honest, I am not too fussed about it.  At the end of the day, being lefty is not all that different from being the right height or having good hand-eye coordination - it is part of the package just like everything else.

Its not being a Leftie that scares the GOAT its the name Rafael Nadal that scares the GOAT.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Great post summer I think lefties do have an advantage and the numbers you produced certainly seems to provide very strong support.

I also think they probably have advantage - in most one-on-one sports, you would expect them to have some advantage.  But, to be honest, I am not too fussed about it.  At the end of the day, being lefty is not all that different from being the right height or having good hand-eye coordination - it is part of the package just like everything else.

In Nadal's case it is an acquired skill playing left handed as he is a naturally a right hander, so in my opinion it makes it more impressive to me that he has developed his game with his off hand it is very difficult to do and would require a great deal of work in particular on the serve. But I agree with you it is like having great hand eye coordination, speed, or the proper height it is an inherited trait that provides an edge.

It was mentioned a while ago by someone I can't remember that Nadal's backhand is a mix between a single & a double because he releases the supporting hand at some point in the swing to get increased backhand spin or something?  It has also been said that because he is a natural right handed player he plays like someone with two forehands (rather than a forehand & a backhand).

However it seems that although Nadal has adapted his game for the hard courts etc an important factor in the demise of the SHBH is the relative slowness of the hard court conditions plus racquet technology.  Federer has been emphasizing the point that playing semi-finals and finals during colder parts of the day (evening finals) is an additional important factor in slowing down the conditions (Australian open & US Open) - that has favoured Nadal et al and disfavoured the SHBH (which might become extinct).

but is he naturally a right handed player? to my knowledge he had two backhands, and picked his left hand... I mean he even plays table tennis left handed... Sharapova is naturally left handed, her backhand is probably her more stable wing, and she plays table tennis left handed...

lydian wrote:I agree socal. In the 127-year history of Wimbledon there have been only 11 left-handed singles champions, 8 men and 3 women. That's well below the natural population 11% occurrence rate.

The difference (between 11/127 or 9% vs 11%) is too slight to prove anything. Random statistical deviation around a mean could easily produce such a result.