Novak's performance in the two tiebreaks seem to me to show that the idea that he goes into "lockdown mode" is missing something. He may well reduce errors but he also seems to up his overall quality. I get somewhat annoyed when commentators refer to him as a "wall" as this also is an extremely misleading way to describe his fairly aggressive game these days.
He's definitely more offensive now than say, 2011, but a lot of those seven winners were still off the back of turning defence into offensive; that's what he excels at. "Wall" isn't the right word for sure, because as soon as he gets the right ball these days he takes it on. I think it's hard to look offensive too when so much of your career has been against uber-aggressive players like Fed and Carlos; anyone looks defensive against them (except perhaps sinner).
It seems something the big three excelled at. Wawrinka in his best matches as well. Djokovic’s forehand in the second tiebreaker took me back in time. A shot the Sampras and Agassi would have hit as well.
Couldn't wait to read your analysis and sure didn't disappoint!
One thing Alcaraz talked about in his presser was how the pressure of trying to win Gold got to him, similar to what happened last year at Roland Garros vs Djokovic where he was also the overwhelming favorite. Though I agree Alcaraz did play at a high level for most of the match, it seemed to me that he was more passive than usual especially in the TBs that might have allowed Djokovic to get the upper hand.
I would also love to see Alcaraz's match result win % with vs. without JCF. My impression is that when JCF can give instructions, Alcaraz has got better results. But I'm curious to see the data.
Yesterday, Djokovic wanted more. He was cold and controlled, until he finished the job. He was so sharp. The first gif above is a perfect symmetry vs. the match point. At Match point, the last forehand wasn't returned...
Great analysis and happy to see a reversion to the mean with the Djokovic running FH being the difference maker (also happy with the props to Alcaraz’s locked wrist BHs that helps in so many situations).
Before going into this Olympic tournament, I had a theory about BO3 now being Novak’s prefered format if he wants to beat those guys over BO5 which for almost the entirety of his career was his thing. It made me predict as my favorite. Let me explain my reasoning :
Now that Novak has lost a bit of speed/fitness and his average level has gone down from his prime, we can maybe say that in general, Alcaraz and Sinner (other guys remain to be seen) have a slight margin over him when going into a match. Over BO5, if your opponent is better than you, well you’re likely to lose and that margin will be tough to overcome.
Plus over BO5 at slams Djokovic usually has a big fitness / stamina load from the previous matches, and the likelihood of an off day similar to what we saw at Wimbledon is higher (but I mean that isn’t really related to BO3/5, just his margins).
Over BO3 however, given those margins are thinner, chances for upset are bigger and most importantly, it can be about a few pressure points / tiebreaks where the margins are a bit different : not really talking about clutch factor because i don’t like it, but more technical. See, this match was close enough to get into two breakers, and both times Novak made it work especially because of that advantage on the running FH. Whereas maybe over BO5 he can’t just make those situations happen enough and loses in a more « traditional » fashion (can still win, but less likely)
Let me know what you think of my point if you understood it, but that match ending up in two tiebreaks gave me some comfort in it
Yeah I mean BO5 gives the "better" player an edge, and part of being a better player is fitness for sure, so maybe that is true. But this final was nearly 3 hours, on clay, against Carlos, and I can't remember Novak dipping much, so I won't be writing him off yet, especially if he serves well, as he did here, because it makes his service game way more efficient
Remember his meniscus problems are still there. Grass and Clay courts are easier on the knees. Hardcourts, BO5 and the wear of the season are not good for him. Australian open might be a better measure.
What makes you say serve and backhand are weaknesses for Alcaraz? For sure the backhand is a lot more offensive and reliable than Fedal's especially at the same age. And on serve, Alcaraz has power and variety more so than Nadal.
Alcaraz's baseline level was quite high but I thought his returning was below average to poor - Novak served well but many of Carlos's returns were very shallow (Tennis Abstract's MCP gives it at 30% shallow returns from Carlos, up nearly 5% from his Clay avg of 25%), allowing Novak to dictate the play.
It was a tight match but I think Carlos's return game wasn't up to the mark - not good enough when Novak is playing at this level.
Hmm, I wonder how much of that is due to Novak's serving though? His second serve returning was deeper than usual, so I think Novak's very high serve % in set two maybe hurts carlos on that stat.
Yes. On second serves, his returns were deeper. Could be down to Novak's serving like you say - it's quite difficult to identify whether this is due to Novak's serve being better or Carlos's return being worse - I dunno really, my gut feel was that Carlos could have returned better than he did.
I am really not a fan of the deep return position. I think as Hugh has pointed out, the tradeoff is there. In principle, hitting a heavier ball from a deeper position has advantages. To me it is better to apply constant pressure being closer in with an occasional drift back or some readjustment. Carlos returns better when he stands closer and doesn't try to rip it. Sure, he might apply pressure but the deep position will require him to run more. And, if you haven't seen me write it, I will now. Sampras somewhere is just wondering why they are not running gang busters to the net any time someone parks back near the linespeople. Even on clay, it would force anyone to move up.
Yup, Djokovic did move up on some of the BPs in the first set - S&V on second serves, no less and Alcaraz made errors on the returns. I understand why Alcaraz returns from a deep position - allows him to get a larger cut at the ball and go on the offense quicker - much like post knee injury Rafa did. I just think that his FH or BH right now, don't quite have the same depth or angle that Rafa's did.
Even with Rafa. I remember Fed serving wide on the deuce side and making it almost impossible for Nadal to break in the last AO final they played. Rafa did stay way back but even there I preferred when he returned and chipped the ball if he had to. I still think that Rafa/Sampras on a hard court goes to Sampras every time. Just no way to break someone who has a great serve and all the forecourt to work with.
I keep rewatching Fed against Nole in the FO semis back in 2011. That to me was a masterclass in how to beat him on clay in a big match. Taking time away and staying with Djokovic. Fed had a MUCH better running forehand than Alcaraz. He also varied the ball and used slice a lot more. I know the Alcaraz’s 2hbh is great. But still wonder if a 1hbh and a bit more classical game as noted in death of a forehand would more than compensate for the injection of pace. Variety by one handers worked just fine up to five years ago. The other amazing thing is Feds eastern grip. Might be the best forehand of modern times. Surprised more of the new gen has hasn’t tried to imitate it. Still on the fence with tradeoffs of the modern game. Djokovic just got everything back under pressure and Alcaraz never tried to destabilize him with guile. He is young so maybe as he gets older he will learn.
"But still wonder if a 1hbh and a bit more classical game as noted in death of a forehand would more than compensate for the injection of pace. Variety by one handers worked just fine up to five years ago."
The variety by one-handers you speak of is really dependant on the person and the factors (strength, racquet specs etc.). Wawrinka has boat loads of variety if you stack his one-handed backhand to anyone else not of his pedigree. Soon as you put him up against the big 3 and Murray the margins play finer and then you really see someone's factors on their one-handed backhand for what it is. In Wawrinka's case it served better as a "bruiser" one-handed backhand capable of blocking, deflecting and delivering boatloads of power and spin and unplayable heaviness not to mention the insane accuracy at end-range sometimes which pays dividends in todays baseline warfare. But how did his OHBH hold up the more he was drawn towards the net? not as well as someone's like FRauderer. You have to understand Stan's physical stature and racquet specs and mentality, all thread a perfect order allowing him to play such way that gives him a deadly baseline OHBH but a not such a great OHBH forecourt. The more you are drawn towards the net you really do need bonafide tangibles, flicks, deadly slices, subtle changes of directions with that backhand side will be rewarded as the reaction times just get shorter and so the margins in which you need to pull such variety on a OHBH requires a racquet that is quite whippy (Polarized = not so much lead on the sides of the head, Wawrinka is Depolarized) and manoeuvrable to assist in such quick-witted and brave plays forecourt and at net. FRauderer's specs were lighter, more polarized than Stans (he used natural gut too in a full bed before hybriding it for the rest of his career) and so attaching that with his game, body, mentality all had a unique thread of order pairing well for forecourt roulette variety kind of plays on his OHBH which was aided by faster courts which made him appear more talented than he would on slower courts but was prone to being bullied at the baseline for that kind of trade-off as part of the issue for his was he couldn't rely on court speed on slower courts to give his ball extra "zip" unlike quicker surfaces (he is not a big dude to get free power like Wawrinka).
No OHBH is perfect to this day, if it primes for a surface and kind of play it will fall short for another when stacked on skills, pressure and performance that are of the same or higher pedigree. Kuerten was almost a myth on the grass yet people claim his OHBH was the best and even though I love it a lot there is good reason he avoided the surface for a while. The variety you speak cannot be remedied solely by use of the OHBH but rather the person using it and how mentally flexible (brain plasticity) they are to have the "off the whim" kinds of plays, can they bully, block and redirect pace on the ball in Wawrinka-esque fashion whilst curating devious changes to ball flight, skidding slices and "without warning"-type droppers on the OHBH side? Very tough ask that's yet to be seen.
Also I wouldn't call the OHBH technically inferior that would imply there is no upside to that shot. I would call it technically challenging. The 2HBH is more friendlier to learners, easier to utilize and adapt (in comparison to the OHBH, otherwise no shot in tennis is actually an "easier shot"). However the quality of a lot of 2HBHs is shocking. If you see a lot of the 2HBHs on tour a lot of them aren't great and are prone to breaking down again this is the consequence of a shot with a easier learning curve and adaptation possibility (to the OHBH) is you get a lot of them without the quality because they can get away with slightly off centre contact, late contact off strike zone without really cleaning the technique up on it, you can develop it to a level where it can act as a "shield" enough for your game and most just neglect it and really focus on their forehand for attack purposes etc. and I would consider those 2HBHs "technically inferior". Only few have a technically great 2HBH (Djokovic, Murray, Agassi, Safin, Davydenko, Kafelnikov, Nalbandian, Nishikori, Medvedev, Zverev, Fritz etc.) and then some others are decent.
You mentioned - "If two players have equal levels of playing ability, a two-handed topspin backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand will always be a technically superior shot in all aspects to the one-handed backhand shot simply due to the physics of reality." Offering advantages is not the same as superior technique. The shot is very well adaptable making it appear superior but it depends who's behind those backhands. In reality there is no superior backhand only superior player. You can give a not so good/decent 2HBH player a OHBH and it can change their life a la Wawrinka, Sampras, Edberg and Thiem. Would you tell them for their specific game and their unique individual playing styles that they had successful careers over something that change was to a "technically inferior" shot? Do you tell them their skill levels are crap because they found success with a "technically inferior" shot instead of a 2HBH?.
You mentioned - "It is by no means a coincidence that the one-handed backhand shot is being competitively eradicated through pure professional match play." You are blind if you think because it's somehow inferior it's being eliminated, there are other factors at play and your delusional thinking is not one of them. The skill curve, technique and mental strength it takes to play that shot today is something that is disappearing on every level not just professional.
You mentioned - "Excuses like "no one teaches the one-hand backhand" or "the one-hand backhand takes more time to learn but is effective as well" are fallacious since they do not disprove the superior mechanics of the two-handed backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand compared to a one-handed backhand." OHBH does take a lot of time not just to learn outside of matches but how to adapt it in match the movement patterns and sequence of action is so specific you cannot adapt it easily like a 2HBH in situations. I can choose to shorten my backswing on a rapid incoming ball during a point on a 2HBH but doing that on a OHBH cuts so much kinetic energy momentum it renders my shot weak and easily attacked by my opponent . When people are so dependent on quick fast success its the more efficient roads that prove to be the ones that have people following and because you can adapt the 2HBH and have more upside it's why more players from young are taught this. NO parent or player wants losses dictated by a shot that's hard to play as a major factor to why they lost with so much on the line each competition. You also make zero sense? You cannot disprove mechanics on a shot, they are hit that way because that is the optimal way to hit it. You have an extra hand on your racket now you have more upside especially when racquet and string tech have come really far and the game it's so much more physical you are rewarded if you can keep stable from all the heavy hitting but there is nothing technically superior about this you are confusing advantages and technique otherwise how do you explain Edberg, Sampras, Wawrinka and Thiem? Think they suck because they backhands are "technically inferior"? That shot is part of the reason they are so great, none of them are defensive player all offensive it suits their game style why use a two-handed backhand if that is not who you personally are. If they all have slams with their backhands what is so inferior about it? You are looking at this too surface level and refusing to notice other factors.
You mentioned - "It is simply an objective fact that players with one-handed backhands would be more effective players if they were able to transfer their ability to a two handed-backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand." Tell that to Stefan Edberg, Petros Sampras, Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem. They all started off with their 2HBHs and transitioned to a OHBH. All of them are slam winners. What part of your statement is "objective"?.
It's not even for physical or as you mentioned "much weaker muscles", being the only reason because the OHBH still will have more velocity and weight of shot due to the natural release on shot due to hitting it in such a way. Why the two-handed backhand is technically better today is because you can get away with hitting super late on contact without much issues of instability. How many times have you seen a player return a out wide 120+mph serve spinning out of their contact zone but able to get the ball back in play even though the contact point was slightly too far inside/quite far away their body. You know why this is exclusive to the two-handed backhand? because the other hand provides the stability to drive through the ball. Having to do that task with one hand is impossible the pre-requisite to hitting a world class OHBH which is what's needed in the top 100 is on-time/early contact, you could not hit the OHBH as late as you can with the two-handed the stroke mechanics do not allow. It's also much easier also to manipulate swing path with the two-handed backhand than with a OHBH if the compared racquets static weight, swing weight and balance is all the same. Bottom line is the other arm allows for extra contingency on late balls which is critical on return of serve and groundstrokes in general not to mention the extra stability and manipulation you can get meaning you get less shooting and spraying and more feeling of control on regulation shots unlike the OHBH.
As for whether the shot will disappear? No, I do not think it will disappear from the pro rankings. There will always be floaters around the rankings it's just a case of the frequency in a rankings bracket. For example there are less and less in the top 100 than there was 10-20 years ago. Soon it's highly likely there will be none in the top 10 but there might be a few outside top 50. Again this trickles down soon there might be none inside the top 100 but there might be a few in top 200. There will be a lack of them north of the rankings but the lower the ranking bracket like say outside the top 200 there will be a few around I just suspect they won't be able to make it to the top 10 or it will be harder and harder to make top 10 with a OHBH as the game centre's itself towards a more biased play that renders OHBH useless in that playing meta.
You mentioned - "a two-handed backhand struck with high amounts of wrist rotation could indeed at the very least match or definitely exceed the spin and power of the one-hander."
You have to be careful here. If you're talking about pound for pound technique wise no. This statement holds poorly as you cannot release on the ball like you can on the one-handed backhand. The high power and RPMs you can get on it is not just chance, the technique itself lends to why you can impart so much more because you have to open up your shoulder/torso as you hit the ball. You naturally must rotate to do this and with that comes release energy transfer from doing this action meaning the ceiling for how much power and spin one can hit on their OHBH is and always will be greater than how much one can hit on their 2HBH. The reason why the ceiling for power and spin is lower on the 2HBH is you naturally cannot rotate and release on the shot due to the presence of your other arm not letting your arm travel across your body even further however this downside for power and spin is actually the upside for the control purpose for the 2HBH. If you mean someone with a great technical ability on their 2HBH can hit with power and spin that exceeds the average tour OHBH? Yes I do believe this also, it's just when the players in question are both world class level the advantages of why each shot has its pros and cons are shown more clearer because the players demonstrating are skilled enough to make full use of those benefits and display it consistently. There is a graph from a twitter user called "Vestige du jour" proving my point with a chart that displayed data of forehand and backhand topspin rates in 2018. With no surprise Gasquet, Cecchinato, Shapovalov, Wawrinka, Tsitsipas, Dimitrov, Cuevas and Jaziri were the top 7 for backhand topspin rates and all of them have a one-handed backhand. Their backhands are not better than someone's like Djokovic (Wawrinka has a better one for power and spin but doesn't fare well in other areas so overall Djokovic's is better) but they are able to just easily produce more pace and spin due to the mechanics of shot, if people of equal level both have great backhands the one using the OHBH will always have a higher ceiling for creating more pace and spin.
You also mentioned - "playstyle "bias" will have nothing to do with it because the one-hand backhand simply cannot technically compete with a two-hand backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand."
Playstyle bias or meta I like to call it is definitely part of the reason the OHBH is becoming obsolete. If someone is coming at you with a well hit 120 mph+ serve out wide powered by polyester strings and fancy racquet material/technology would you rather use a OHBH to return or a 2HBH? There is a reason OHBH chip/block or volley the return. You cannot get the timing right consistently with a OHBH especially when it matters most (match/championship/break point down pressure etc.), the sequence and energy transfer is so critical the moment you try to compact it too much or skip a step you failed at hitting one. With a 2HBH like Murray for example there are so many instances on return of serve he just takes his racquet back from below instead of staring upright to return when the ball is coming rapid at him, that's how much easier it is to adapt that shot for a different situation with a 2HBH that is not available for the OHBH. It's harder to perform the OHBH sequence of action and hit it with clean enough contact every single time on return when the serving meta is now not limited to giants (6'5"+) anymore. The "technically compete" part is confusing, what exactly do you mean by this? What specifically about the OHBH do you mean cannot technically compete against the 2HBH, if it is the adaptability, stability and greater consistent control then sure. That's exactly why the tour prefers the 2HBH upside instead of the OHBH but that's not something a shot is "competing" for because it depends what you would want to do to the ball, if you want a very spinning high bouncing backhand with high RPMs kicking out of your opponents strike zone then look at Gasquet, the objective and mechanics of the OHBH lend itself to a efficient result if you want that kind of shot especially on clay but that's not something Safin, Nalbandian or Agassi with their 2HBHs care about because if so why couldn't they do the same? It's the mechanics of the shot that put a ceiling on their potential to do so but they were never playing in such a way for the mechanics of the 2HBH to be a disadvantage for their specific unique game so there is no "technical competing" with shots only the player themselves can technically compete against another player not the shot itself.
Great analysis once again here. Awesome as always. One thing I am surprised to see is that Novak served so well throughout the match and especially in the 2nd set to keep Alcaraz in control. This gave him some precious time to get into the rally and make his way through it. How much do you fancy his chances of winning both of those Wimbledon finals against Alcaraz if Djokovic served like he did in this Gold Medal match?
Wimbledon 2023 obviously has better chances because of how close he was. This year his whole game wasn't close to Alcaraz. Not sure elite serving would have gotten him over the line.
The last time Carlos won Wimbledon, he came into the US hardcourt swing pretty flat. This time, he's had a real run where he fell short. My hope is that he maintains his level, that maturity he's gained over the past year, and produces better tennis in Cinci and NY than he did last year.
I also wonder if he pulls back on the schedule post US Open.
last year, post Wimbledon he played Canada, Cinci, US Open, Beijing, Shanghai, Paris, ATP finals.
This year, he's scheduled to play Cinci, US Open...after that, Laver Cup in Berlin. My hope is he stays on the continent and plays Vienna/Basel, Paris and Turin.
Now that we are in the S&V retro phase of the thread (or I am at least). What do you make of O'Shaughnessy's view on percentages? Craig O'Shaughnessy argues that the percentage at the net is better than the percentage from the backcourt. He argues that it is and has always been over 70% on average. He argues that it hovers around 50% from the baseline.
I feel that it could stay at 70% because in the past players came in more which means it was more favorable. Today, they come in less because it is less favorable. It averages out 70% because players will only come in when their average is about 70% and adjust how often accordingly. On the other hand, it may just be that coming in IS more favorable. And that more people should serve and volley more often. Back to 2011, we see Fed wrong footing Djokovic when he comes to the net. Just no way to camp out in the back if someone can come in and wrong foot you.
This is probably more relevant in Death of the Forehand but given clay and the Olympics I thought I would add it here. You can see two points in the highlights in which Fed and Djokovic both create a forehand angle from an angle. It got me to thinking that maybe tennis today is less focused on defense to offense than it was before. At the very least, it seems that the modern forehand is less setup to do that. https://youtu.be/WXJDufXDRvU?t=687
Great analysis as always!
Novak's performance in the two tiebreaks seem to me to show that the idea that he goes into "lockdown mode" is missing something. He may well reduce errors but he also seems to up his overall quality. I get somewhat annoyed when commentators refer to him as a "wall" as this also is an extremely misleading way to describe his fairly aggressive game these days.
He's definitely more offensive now than say, 2011, but a lot of those seven winners were still off the back of turning defence into offensive; that's what he excels at. "Wall" isn't the right word for sure, because as soon as he gets the right ball these days he takes it on. I think it's hard to look offensive too when so much of your career has been against uber-aggressive players like Fed and Carlos; anyone looks defensive against them (except perhaps sinner).
It seems something the big three excelled at. Wawrinka in his best matches as well. Djokovic’s forehand in the second tiebreaker took me back in time. A shot the Sampras and Agassi would have hit as well.
Couldn't wait to read your analysis and sure didn't disappoint!
One thing Alcaraz talked about in his presser was how the pressure of trying to win Gold got to him, similar to what happened last year at Roland Garros vs Djokovic where he was also the overwhelming favorite. Though I agree Alcaraz did play at a high level for most of the match, it seemed to me that he was more passive than usual especially in the TBs that might have allowed Djokovic to get the upper hand.
I would also love to see Alcaraz's match result win % with vs. without JCF. My impression is that when JCF can give instructions, Alcaraz has got better results. But I'm curious to see the data.
Yesterday, Djokovic wanted more. He was cold and controlled, until he finished the job. He was so sharp. The first gif above is a perfect symmetry vs. the match point. At Match point, the last forehand wasn't returned...
Congrats to Nole and to Serbia!
Was waiting for this analysis. Thanks for your great work. It really makes you appreciate these incredible athletes and their game plans.
Hi Hugh,
Great analysis and happy to see a reversion to the mean with the Djokovic running FH being the difference maker (also happy with the props to Alcaraz’s locked wrist BHs that helps in so many situations).
Before going into this Olympic tournament, I had a theory about BO3 now being Novak’s prefered format if he wants to beat those guys over BO5 which for almost the entirety of his career was his thing. It made me predict as my favorite. Let me explain my reasoning :
Now that Novak has lost a bit of speed/fitness and his average level has gone down from his prime, we can maybe say that in general, Alcaraz and Sinner (other guys remain to be seen) have a slight margin over him when going into a match. Over BO5, if your opponent is better than you, well you’re likely to lose and that margin will be tough to overcome.
Plus over BO5 at slams Djokovic usually has a big fitness / stamina load from the previous matches, and the likelihood of an off day similar to what we saw at Wimbledon is higher (but I mean that isn’t really related to BO3/5, just his margins).
Over BO3 however, given those margins are thinner, chances for upset are bigger and most importantly, it can be about a few pressure points / tiebreaks where the margins are a bit different : not really talking about clutch factor because i don’t like it, but more technical. See, this match was close enough to get into two breakers, and both times Novak made it work especially because of that advantage on the running FH. Whereas maybe over BO5 he can’t just make those situations happen enough and loses in a more « traditional » fashion (can still win, but less likely)
Let me know what you think of my point if you understood it, but that match ending up in two tiebreaks gave me some comfort in it
Yeah I mean BO5 gives the "better" player an edge, and part of being a better player is fitness for sure, so maybe that is true. But this final was nearly 3 hours, on clay, against Carlos, and I can't remember Novak dipping much, so I won't be writing him off yet, especially if he serves well, as he did here, because it makes his service game way more efficient
I agree. It’s the reason that GS titles may be off the table for him. Unless he plays very aggressively at Wimbledon. Then maybe but it’s a big if.
I wouldn’t quite say it’s off the table because last 3 slams he wasn’t at this best. Let’s see at this US open, but the margin now is thinner for sure
Remember his meniscus problems are still there. Grass and Clay courts are easier on the knees. Hardcourts, BO5 and the wear of the season are not good for him. Australian open might be a better measure.
What makes you say serve and backhand are weaknesses for Alcaraz? For sure the backhand is a lot more offensive and reliable than Fedal's especially at the same age. And on serve, Alcaraz has power and variety more so than Nadal.
Alcaraz's baseline level was quite high but I thought his returning was below average to poor - Novak served well but many of Carlos's returns were very shallow (Tennis Abstract's MCP gives it at 30% shallow returns from Carlos, up nearly 5% from his Clay avg of 25%), allowing Novak to dictate the play.
It was a tight match but I think Carlos's return game wasn't up to the mark - not good enough when Novak is playing at this level.
Hmm, I wonder how much of that is due to Novak's serving though? His second serve returning was deeper than usual, so I think Novak's very high serve % in set two maybe hurts carlos on that stat.
Yes. On second serves, his returns were deeper. Could be down to Novak's serving like you say - it's quite difficult to identify whether this is due to Novak's serve being better or Carlos's return being worse - I dunno really, my gut feel was that Carlos could have returned better than he did.
I am really not a fan of the deep return position. I think as Hugh has pointed out, the tradeoff is there. In principle, hitting a heavier ball from a deeper position has advantages. To me it is better to apply constant pressure being closer in with an occasional drift back or some readjustment. Carlos returns better when he stands closer and doesn't try to rip it. Sure, he might apply pressure but the deep position will require him to run more. And, if you haven't seen me write it, I will now. Sampras somewhere is just wondering why they are not running gang busters to the net any time someone parks back near the linespeople. Even on clay, it would force anyone to move up.
Yup, Djokovic did move up on some of the BPs in the first set - S&V on second serves, no less and Alcaraz made errors on the returns. I understand why Alcaraz returns from a deep position - allows him to get a larger cut at the ball and go on the offense quicker - much like post knee injury Rafa did. I just think that his FH or BH right now, don't quite have the same depth or angle that Rafa's did.
Even with Rafa. I remember Fed serving wide on the deuce side and making it almost impossible for Nadal to break in the last AO final they played. Rafa did stay way back but even there I preferred when he returned and chipped the ball if he had to. I still think that Rafa/Sampras on a hard court goes to Sampras every time. Just no way to break someone who has a great serve and all the forecourt to work with.
I keep rewatching Fed against Nole in the FO semis back in 2011. That to me was a masterclass in how to beat him on clay in a big match. Taking time away and staying with Djokovic. Fed had a MUCH better running forehand than Alcaraz. He also varied the ball and used slice a lot more. I know the Alcaraz’s 2hbh is great. But still wonder if a 1hbh and a bit more classical game as noted in death of a forehand would more than compensate for the injection of pace. Variety by one handers worked just fine up to five years ago. The other amazing thing is Feds eastern grip. Might be the best forehand of modern times. Surprised more of the new gen has hasn’t tried to imitate it. Still on the fence with tradeoffs of the modern game. Djokovic just got everything back under pressure and Alcaraz never tried to destabilize him with guile. He is young so maybe as he gets older he will learn.
"But still wonder if a 1hbh and a bit more classical game as noted in death of a forehand would more than compensate for the injection of pace. Variety by one handers worked just fine up to five years ago."
The variety by one-handers you speak of is really dependant on the person and the factors (strength, racquet specs etc.). Wawrinka has boat loads of variety if you stack his one-handed backhand to anyone else not of his pedigree. Soon as you put him up against the big 3 and Murray the margins play finer and then you really see someone's factors on their one-handed backhand for what it is. In Wawrinka's case it served better as a "bruiser" one-handed backhand capable of blocking, deflecting and delivering boatloads of power and spin and unplayable heaviness not to mention the insane accuracy at end-range sometimes which pays dividends in todays baseline warfare. But how did his OHBH hold up the more he was drawn towards the net? not as well as someone's like FRauderer. You have to understand Stan's physical stature and racquet specs and mentality, all thread a perfect order allowing him to play such way that gives him a deadly baseline OHBH but a not such a great OHBH forecourt. The more you are drawn towards the net you really do need bonafide tangibles, flicks, deadly slices, subtle changes of directions with that backhand side will be rewarded as the reaction times just get shorter and so the margins in which you need to pull such variety on a OHBH requires a racquet that is quite whippy (Polarized = not so much lead on the sides of the head, Wawrinka is Depolarized) and manoeuvrable to assist in such quick-witted and brave plays forecourt and at net. FRauderer's specs were lighter, more polarized than Stans (he used natural gut too in a full bed before hybriding it for the rest of his career) and so attaching that with his game, body, mentality all had a unique thread of order pairing well for forecourt roulette variety kind of plays on his OHBH which was aided by faster courts which made him appear more talented than he would on slower courts but was prone to being bullied at the baseline for that kind of trade-off as part of the issue for his was he couldn't rely on court speed on slower courts to give his ball extra "zip" unlike quicker surfaces (he is not a big dude to get free power like Wawrinka).
No OHBH is perfect to this day, if it primes for a surface and kind of play it will fall short for another when stacked on skills, pressure and performance that are of the same or higher pedigree. Kuerten was almost a myth on the grass yet people claim his OHBH was the best and even though I love it a lot there is good reason he avoided the surface for a while. The variety you speak cannot be remedied solely by use of the OHBH but rather the person using it and how mentally flexible (brain plasticity) they are to have the "off the whim" kinds of plays, can they bully, block and redirect pace on the ball in Wawrinka-esque fashion whilst curating devious changes to ball flight, skidding slices and "without warning"-type droppers on the OHBH side? Very tough ask that's yet to be seen.
Also I wouldn't call the OHBH technically inferior that would imply there is no upside to that shot. I would call it technically challenging. The 2HBH is more friendlier to learners, easier to utilize and adapt (in comparison to the OHBH, otherwise no shot in tennis is actually an "easier shot"). However the quality of a lot of 2HBHs is shocking. If you see a lot of the 2HBHs on tour a lot of them aren't great and are prone to breaking down again this is the consequence of a shot with a easier learning curve and adaptation possibility (to the OHBH) is you get a lot of them without the quality because they can get away with slightly off centre contact, late contact off strike zone without really cleaning the technique up on it, you can develop it to a level where it can act as a "shield" enough for your game and most just neglect it and really focus on their forehand for attack purposes etc. and I would consider those 2HBHs "technically inferior". Only few have a technically great 2HBH (Djokovic, Murray, Agassi, Safin, Davydenko, Kafelnikov, Nalbandian, Nishikori, Medvedev, Zverev, Fritz etc.) and then some others are decent.
You mentioned - "If two players have equal levels of playing ability, a two-handed topspin backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand will always be a technically superior shot in all aspects to the one-handed backhand shot simply due to the physics of reality." Offering advantages is not the same as superior technique. The shot is very well adaptable making it appear superior but it depends who's behind those backhands. In reality there is no superior backhand only superior player. You can give a not so good/decent 2HBH player a OHBH and it can change their life a la Wawrinka, Sampras, Edberg and Thiem. Would you tell them for their specific game and their unique individual playing styles that they had successful careers over something that change was to a "technically inferior" shot? Do you tell them their skill levels are crap because they found success with a "technically inferior" shot instead of a 2HBH?.
You mentioned - "It is by no means a coincidence that the one-handed backhand shot is being competitively eradicated through pure professional match play." You are blind if you think because it's somehow inferior it's being eliminated, there are other factors at play and your delusional thinking is not one of them. The skill curve, technique and mental strength it takes to play that shot today is something that is disappearing on every level not just professional.
You mentioned - "Excuses like "no one teaches the one-hand backhand" or "the one-hand backhand takes more time to learn but is effective as well" are fallacious since they do not disprove the superior mechanics of the two-handed backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand compared to a one-handed backhand." OHBH does take a lot of time not just to learn outside of matches but how to adapt it in match the movement patterns and sequence of action is so specific you cannot adapt it easily like a 2HBH in situations. I can choose to shorten my backswing on a rapid incoming ball during a point on a 2HBH but doing that on a OHBH cuts so much kinetic energy momentum it renders my shot weak and easily attacked by my opponent . When people are so dependent on quick fast success its the more efficient roads that prove to be the ones that have people following and because you can adapt the 2HBH and have more upside it's why more players from young are taught this. NO parent or player wants losses dictated by a shot that's hard to play as a major factor to why they lost with so much on the line each competition. You also make zero sense? You cannot disprove mechanics on a shot, they are hit that way because that is the optimal way to hit it. You have an extra hand on your racket now you have more upside especially when racquet and string tech have come really far and the game it's so much more physical you are rewarded if you can keep stable from all the heavy hitting but there is nothing technically superior about this you are confusing advantages and technique otherwise how do you explain Edberg, Sampras, Wawrinka and Thiem? Think they suck because they backhands are "technically inferior"? That shot is part of the reason they are so great, none of them are defensive player all offensive it suits their game style why use a two-handed backhand if that is not who you personally are. If they all have slams with their backhands what is so inferior about it? You are looking at this too surface level and refusing to notice other factors.
You mentioned - "It is simply an objective fact that players with one-handed backhands would be more effective players if they were able to transfer their ability to a two handed-backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand." Tell that to Stefan Edberg, Petros Sampras, Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem. They all started off with their 2HBHs and transitioned to a OHBH. All of them are slam winners. What part of your statement is "objective"?.
It's not even for physical or as you mentioned "much weaker muscles", being the only reason because the OHBH still will have more velocity and weight of shot due to the natural release on shot due to hitting it in such a way. Why the two-handed backhand is technically better today is because you can get away with hitting super late on contact without much issues of instability. How many times have you seen a player return a out wide 120+mph serve spinning out of their contact zone but able to get the ball back in play even though the contact point was slightly too far inside/quite far away their body. You know why this is exclusive to the two-handed backhand? because the other hand provides the stability to drive through the ball. Having to do that task with one hand is impossible the pre-requisite to hitting a world class OHBH which is what's needed in the top 100 is on-time/early contact, you could not hit the OHBH as late as you can with the two-handed the stroke mechanics do not allow. It's also much easier also to manipulate swing path with the two-handed backhand than with a OHBH if the compared racquets static weight, swing weight and balance is all the same. Bottom line is the other arm allows for extra contingency on late balls which is critical on return of serve and groundstrokes in general not to mention the extra stability and manipulation you can get meaning you get less shooting and spraying and more feeling of control on regulation shots unlike the OHBH.
As for whether the shot will disappear? No, I do not think it will disappear from the pro rankings. There will always be floaters around the rankings it's just a case of the frequency in a rankings bracket. For example there are less and less in the top 100 than there was 10-20 years ago. Soon it's highly likely there will be none in the top 10 but there might be a few outside top 50. Again this trickles down soon there might be none inside the top 100 but there might be a few in top 200. There will be a lack of them north of the rankings but the lower the ranking bracket like say outside the top 200 there will be a few around I just suspect they won't be able to make it to the top 10 or it will be harder and harder to make top 10 with a OHBH as the game centre's itself towards a more biased play that renders OHBH useless in that playing meta.
You mentioned - "a two-handed backhand struck with high amounts of wrist rotation could indeed at the very least match or definitely exceed the spin and power of the one-hander."
You have to be careful here. If you're talking about pound for pound technique wise no. This statement holds poorly as you cannot release on the ball like you can on the one-handed backhand. The high power and RPMs you can get on it is not just chance, the technique itself lends to why you can impart so much more because you have to open up your shoulder/torso as you hit the ball. You naturally must rotate to do this and with that comes release energy transfer from doing this action meaning the ceiling for how much power and spin one can hit on their OHBH is and always will be greater than how much one can hit on their 2HBH. The reason why the ceiling for power and spin is lower on the 2HBH is you naturally cannot rotate and release on the shot due to the presence of your other arm not letting your arm travel across your body even further however this downside for power and spin is actually the upside for the control purpose for the 2HBH. If you mean someone with a great technical ability on their 2HBH can hit with power and spin that exceeds the average tour OHBH? Yes I do believe this also, it's just when the players in question are both world class level the advantages of why each shot has its pros and cons are shown more clearer because the players demonstrating are skilled enough to make full use of those benefits and display it consistently. There is a graph from a twitter user called "Vestige du jour" proving my point with a chart that displayed data of forehand and backhand topspin rates in 2018. With no surprise Gasquet, Cecchinato, Shapovalov, Wawrinka, Tsitsipas, Dimitrov, Cuevas and Jaziri were the top 7 for backhand topspin rates and all of them have a one-handed backhand. Their backhands are not better than someone's like Djokovic (Wawrinka has a better one for power and spin but doesn't fare well in other areas so overall Djokovic's is better) but they are able to just easily produce more pace and spin due to the mechanics of shot, if people of equal level both have great backhands the one using the OHBH will always have a higher ceiling for creating more pace and spin.
You also mentioned - "playstyle "bias" will have nothing to do with it because the one-hand backhand simply cannot technically compete with a two-hand backhand that mimics a non-dominant forehand."
Playstyle bias or meta I like to call it is definitely part of the reason the OHBH is becoming obsolete. If someone is coming at you with a well hit 120 mph+ serve out wide powered by polyester strings and fancy racquet material/technology would you rather use a OHBH to return or a 2HBH? There is a reason OHBH chip/block or volley the return. You cannot get the timing right consistently with a OHBH especially when it matters most (match/championship/break point down pressure etc.), the sequence and energy transfer is so critical the moment you try to compact it too much or skip a step you failed at hitting one. With a 2HBH like Murray for example there are so many instances on return of serve he just takes his racquet back from below instead of staring upright to return when the ball is coming rapid at him, that's how much easier it is to adapt that shot for a different situation with a 2HBH that is not available for the OHBH. It's harder to perform the OHBH sequence of action and hit it with clean enough contact every single time on return when the serving meta is now not limited to giants (6'5"+) anymore. The "technically compete" part is confusing, what exactly do you mean by this? What specifically about the OHBH do you mean cannot technically compete against the 2HBH, if it is the adaptability, stability and greater consistent control then sure. That's exactly why the tour prefers the 2HBH upside instead of the OHBH but that's not something a shot is "competing" for because it depends what you would want to do to the ball, if you want a very spinning high bouncing backhand with high RPMs kicking out of your opponents strike zone then look at Gasquet, the objective and mechanics of the OHBH lend itself to a efficient result if you want that kind of shot especially on clay but that's not something Safin, Nalbandian or Agassi with their 2HBHs care about because if so why couldn't they do the same? It's the mechanics of the shot that put a ceiling on their potential to do so but they were never playing in such a way for the mechanics of the 2HBH to be a disadvantage for their specific unique game so there is no "technical competing" with shots only the player themselves can technically compete against another player not the shot itself.
Great analysis once again here. Awesome as always. One thing I am surprised to see is that Novak served so well throughout the match and especially in the 2nd set to keep Alcaraz in control. This gave him some precious time to get into the rally and make his way through it. How much do you fancy his chances of winning both of those Wimbledon finals against Alcaraz if Djokovic served like he did in this Gold Medal match?
Wimbledon 2023 obviously has better chances because of how close he was. This year his whole game wasn't close to Alcaraz. Not sure elite serving would have gotten him over the line.
The last time Carlos won Wimbledon, he came into the US hardcourt swing pretty flat. This time, he's had a real run where he fell short. My hope is that he maintains his level, that maturity he's gained over the past year, and produces better tennis in Cinci and NY than he did last year.
I also wonder if he pulls back on the schedule post US Open.
Definitely think he will take it easy post US. He's had a monster Euro summer
last year, post Wimbledon he played Canada, Cinci, US Open, Beijing, Shanghai, Paris, ATP finals.
This year, he's scheduled to play Cinci, US Open...after that, Laver Cup in Berlin. My hope is he stays on the continent and plays Vienna/Basel, Paris and Turin.
Now that we are in the S&V retro phase of the thread (or I am at least). What do you make of O'Shaughnessy's view on percentages? Craig O'Shaughnessy argues that the percentage at the net is better than the percentage from the backcourt. He argues that it is and has always been over 70% on average. He argues that it hovers around 50% from the baseline.
I feel that it could stay at 70% because in the past players came in more which means it was more favorable. Today, they come in less because it is less favorable. It averages out 70% because players will only come in when their average is about 70% and adjust how often accordingly. On the other hand, it may just be that coming in IS more favorable. And that more people should serve and volley more often. Back to 2011, we see Fed wrong footing Djokovic when he comes to the net. Just no way to camp out in the back if someone can come in and wrong foot you.
Do you have any posts on this?
This is probably more relevant in Death of the Forehand but given clay and the Olympics I thought I would add it here. You can see two points in the highlights in which Fed and Djokovic both create a forehand angle from an angle. It got me to thinking that maybe tennis today is less focused on defense to offense than it was before. At the very least, it seems that the modern forehand is less setup to do that. https://youtu.be/WXJDufXDRvU?t=687