I think that the one handers out there have caught on to something that you bring up here. They are starting to use slice more and more. I have been following Diane Parry for a while. She is one of the few young women on the ATP who made it through the juniors (made it all the way to the SF of Wimbledon) and was ranked number 1 in 2019 as an ITF junior. Her one handed backhand has a lot of topspin and it is a great shot. But when she moved to the pros it did not work as well. In the last year or so, I can see her slicing more and more. The topspin only comes out when she has time and can really hurt her opponent. She almost never uses it as a rally shot.
It seems to be working better. Then I was watching her play another french player, Jessica Ponchet, who also plays with a one hander. It was so weird to see two female players play against each other. Both had one handed backhands.
There is another model for winning that works for the WTA, Ash Barty. Of course, there is Graf as well. Use slice A LOT and then wait for something to attack. It helps Parry setup her big inside out forehand very well. My guess is that she will also start to find the shots where she can hit topsping backhands to change it up.
Now I am wondering two things. 1) As you point out, the one hander will have to chip and slice more than he or she did in the past. There might be a way through the juniors and up to the pro level with a great slice and a decent topspin shot.
2) This might be an easier path for women because it appears that women just don't like hitting a slice as much as men. Men seem to be able to handle the slice even if they play with two hands. But for women, the slice is just devastating. That is how Ash Barty made her living. I wonder if the one hander will be kept alive by the women who realize that they can use it to scale all the way to the top.
I agree. At the moment the slice seems to have a bigger payout in the women's game, as you pointed to Barty. With Barty, what also made the slice so effective is that she could hit kick serves and heavy topspin forehands to really give you a different look with each side. Women don't have the same topspin or wrist action (and therefore net clearance) of the men, so they can't attack a slice as well. But it's hard to get juniors to buy into the one-hander, especially as it is seen as a weaker shot in the modern game.
Thoughts on the Ben Shelton vs Fonseca serve. Yes, Shelton has an explosive shot but that kind of exaggerated motion seems likely to not be sustainable and Shelton is already having shoulder issues. Would seem it's too injury prone to recommend .
A neat technical article I'd love to see sometime from you is what is it that the average size pros do on the serve to be effective? Ex. What was it that Roscoe Tanner or Johan Kriek did to generate their great shots?, the unique Becker/Edberg/McEnroe deliveries, etc
The biggest serve I ever saw in person from someone with a casual looking delivery was Aussie Wayne Arthur's, an obscure 90's journeyman whom by all ATP serve metrics has a top 5-10 all time great serve. He looked effortless in motion vs someone like Roddick or Shelton with an exaggerated coil.
As for Tanner and 'average dudes' serving big, he does the same thing I think a lot of players do: a lower toss, keep the racquet building speed from the hip, good coil of the upper body etc. Look how low Tanner tosses!
Arthurs had a phenomenal bowl. The shelton/roddick physicality comes from how well they internally rotate the shoulder so they have a lot of power. But you can be almost as effective with a well disguised and accurate the serve as Federer and now Djokovic have been showing. Once you hit it 190km/h, if it's in the corner it's plenty of speed to ace someone.
It's a shame what happened to Thiem, as I think his continued presence in the top 10 would have served as an inspiration/proof of concept to juniors for how to play as a versatile, aggressive one-handed baseliner in the modern game. Even watching him now in much-diminished form, his backhand is still a world-class shot; it's the forehand that seems to have lost its depth and aggression (that, plus some sort of mental block—he plays a lot of 3- or 5-setters now where he gifts a break in the decider and then subsequently gets tight on returns).
Currently the face of the one-hander is Tsitsipas, whose backhand is inferior to Thiem's in every way, and for whom the shot is a clear liability that opponents ruthlessly exploit.
100% agree. Thiem is living proof that you can be a top player and grand slam winner with a backhand that isn't just something that you cover up; it was a bonafide weapon.
I regularly go back and watch highlights of his circa 2019/2020 stuff. The tour finals matches against Novak are just phenomenal hitting.
His forehand has been the downfall since the comeback. Just lost it's sizzle. I hope he can find it.
Always love your insight, especially when you write about the two handed backhands! Would love to know more about your opinion on the David Goffin's backhand, which Djokovic once chose as he built his "perfect player" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXNDfgvuzVA
I see him play it very flat and with an open racket face on the takeback. Reminds me a bit of Jürgen Melzer's backhand too. Curious to hear how you would compare their backhands to other "styles"
Thank you for the column! And whatever happened to the idea of a podcast?
Goffin has a great flat backhand. He has that straight left and bent right-arm hitting structure that is very common with very little drop. I'd compare it a little to Benoit Paire's with that open, long take back. Melzer also a good comparison!
Podcast is on ice for the moment; just too busy with my Masters and coaching.
In the summer I will reassess everything and see what direction and energy to put into this little newsletter (which is gathering steam though :) )
Was in awe of Fonseca's strokes in Rio. What stood out to me about that BH was his balance (effectively moving out of it like he was on a HC) and the acceleration through the shot. The latter aspect looked, to me, like it was very front-loaded and got most of its pace thanks to the amazing racket head acceleration (possibly the reason then why he'd look so balance and upright after the shot). Idk if you agree fully, but if that is the case, do you think he'll need to expand his swing to be more receptive to absorbing pace when he inevitably faces more of the top guys on faster surfaces? In Rio (& Santiago), he was taking aggressive cuts at everything with the time he had, and it did feel like that compact burst of a swing endured a few problems when players managed to kick the ball up to shoulder height, where his quickdraw swings led to short & flat responses that took away his own time.
What I loved was the still head and how he can use a roll backhand and a sort of 'locked-wrist' push backhand as well. Alcaraz does that also. Gave me nalbandian vibes.
Oh yes, that’s one thing I’ve found pretty fascinating noticing since reading your initial Death of a BH piece. Some of the best players who roll their BHs will also switch to locking the wrists when it benefits them (like going dtl). I watch a lot of Murray & Zach Svajda, and they both do that, especially the latter
Somehow actually hadn't noticed that. Do you know what the logic is behind it generally? Like, why wouldn't Zach use his left hand to shift his right from the eastern (FH) to the continental (BH)? Even when you talked about Daniil's one, it sounds like he's making a mountain out of a molehill
Interesting you brought up that off-hand and how it contributes well in the coil of the forehands. Does it matter how much you coil, the angle of the off-hand and how high the hitting hand is during prep phase?.
I remember Soderling having such a huge coil that his hitting arm broke past behind his torso at times (similar to the "WTA forehand"), Del-Potro seems to have a ATG forehand despite the angle of his off-hand being diagonal rather than straight like Joachim Johansson, Gonzalez and Frauderer et al. and on Del Potro his hitting arm seems to start higher/level with his chest rather than as low as Alcaraz, Fonseca and the others you mentioned?.
Also how explosive does a shot have to be for it to be effective. I feel as if there is a point where by if the athlete relies so much on explosiveness for shot potency then it is as good as it is explosive. It ages poorly due to reliance of needed to be super twitchy like you mentioned with Shelton (The older one gets the less they can tap into that kind of shot so for longevity I don't think it should be overly stressed). Does strength outperform explosiveness to an extent as strength won't betray you as you get older (Provided the ball is in his strike zone Wawrinka can still tee off) and is a more consistent force source as opposed to explosiveness whereby it's deadly but can get erratic?. Thoughts on this?.
Yes it matters, but there are a lot of variables going on. For example, del Potro didn't have a huge coil or as much of a takeback in terms of breaking the plane as Soderling, but he used an eastern grip and a higher take back, so getting pace was still not a problem.
There's a difference between coiling and breaking the plane. Alcaraz gets amazing coil but doesn't break the plane with his racquet.
As for explosiveness/strength tradeoff, that's also a complicated question. E.g., I dont think Djokovic is the most explosive forehand hitter out there, but his forehand is so good because it suits his absorbing style with redirection. I do think that forehand ages better (but the accompanying movement maybe doesn't).
Would you say then that's an individual touch with Del Potro and Soderling's forehands or is one of them technically at more at fault/could be more error prone in a situation through your analysis? Less moving parts with a higher take back, massive lag and eastern grip VS Slightly more moving parts, breaking the plane, more extreme grip.
Regarding the strength/explosiveness trade-off then Del Potro isn't someone who is super twitchy but consistently will clobber the ball to point ending levels, he isn't someone who plays like Nole trying to absorb and redirect he has an offensive playstyle but then how is it suiting the offensive Del Potro and can this suit less twitchy players even though they aren't of the same stature?. When monitoring his FH it's almost as if he's mainly using his huge body mass and the long lever of an arm he has instead of applying rapid speed and whip like Kyrgios for example. Also what did you mean by the last part "(but the accompanying movement maybe doesn't).?"
Every forehand has an individual touch, but I prefer delpo's. I think it's the simplest forehand our sport has ever seen.
delpo's power came from a combination of (a) a long arm/lever; (b) eastern grip.
Assessing speed is tough because all these guys are using different swingweights; everyon will swing a lighter racquet faster.
The last part I just meant that if Djoker's movement dropped off then his counterpunching forehand would be less suitable; he would need to play more offense if he lost some speed.
I can see Nadal going far here and was actually impressed by his performance in the Netflix slam. He has to stay healthy ofcourse and beat Raonic who I recently saw go toe to toe with Sinner in Rotterdam before he retired.
Interesting. He looked pedestrian with his movement to me and the serve was missing by a lot at times. Wouldn't be surprised though; he is a legend and the conditions suit him.
"The game evolved; beauty has been handcuffed by function."
This is so true and so sad. 😞 I think this is one of the big reasons why we still hold onto the Fed vs Rafa rivalry with such nostalgia... It'll probably be the last time we see such a contrast in playing styles that was also fiercely competitive.
I was tired of the all the two handers the other day and just turned to watch Fed against Medvedev. Fed was just amazing even in 2017 when he was much older. The one thing that stood out was how quickly he got to the net. I still think the one hander creates the notion of hitting balls on the rise very far in front of the body. It HAS to be hit that way. Once a one hander realizes he or she HAS to hit the ball out in front, they begin to move forward. This translates into net play and trying to cut off balls that float. It doesn't feel like the modern junior will try this. But you have to think that enough juniors out there who decide to go retro and play like Fed could emerge. And if you have enough, one of them will start to take time away from his opponent and get to the net. Not like Sampras did but like Fed. If that happens and a person is very talented, they could become a champion. Not by following everyone else but by not following them. Then, because they are different they might just stand out. It is a risk, but it is a risk with a big reward. The question is whether enough juniors out there are willing to take the risk.
"Not by following everyone else but by not following them. Then, because they are different they might just stand out. It is a risk, but it is a risk with a big reward. The question is whether enough juniors out there are willing to take the risk."
I feel like the OHBH has been put in this chokehold of only pertaining to "forecourt/midcourt/forward moving/attacking" style of tennis but has no one paid attention to the baseline ventures of those such as Wawrinka, Gasquet and Almagro et al. in terms of how deadly it can be played from the back. I think for me the way to the top would be a marriage of how flexible you can be with your OHBH because one boat seems to as you mention "hitting the balls on the rise very far out in front of the body," so basically your classic forward pressure players like Roger Frauderer and then the other you have people that like slower courts and with time will crack their backhands (not that they don't hit out in front either, they do but Wawrinka's takeback for example has a little less to undo) with heaviness, pace and RPMs that surpass several world class FHs so that would be like a Wawrinka, Gasquet, Thiem and Kuerten.
They each have a trade-off and that being the example you put down forward usually is at mercy of being harassed at the baseline and will be starved opportunities to start attacking and moving forward by virtue of a heavy ball going above shoulder height they didn't manage to cut-off in time or the baseline biased OHBH which will undo itself the more forward you move in the court probably why Wawrinka cannot win Wimbledon. What he lacks in the midcourt, forward attacking backhand flicks, tangibles, subtle swift changes and swindling that Frauderer could pull of to win multiple GS titles he makes up for in needing a bit more slower ball to set up but unload a point-ender (this is actually strange as Wawrinka has a bit more shorter and efficient takeback than most OHBH) in which you then have to find other ways to exploit someone like him because they can kill you with their OHBH. Almagro was quite similar in that Nadal sometimes actively avoided his OHBH on clay even because Almagro even being about 6'0 wasn't bothered too much by high bounce, his OHBH was made to kill incoming heaviness and create damaging pace in return for less towards the net.
I suspect this is one of the major edges a 2HBH has over OHBH, based on the trend it seems easier to play more flexible anywhere on the court with a 2HBH that's why its been adopted by so many and the OHBH presents so much hardships trying to combine the two. So to me it has to be about not forcing someone at the mercy of only moving forward and always attacking with their OHBH because the game won't always reward attack but also not being at the mercy of needing more time to unload and damage by virtue of a longer takeback/slower court otherwise you limit yourself to take advantage on faster courts/more options inside the court like Frauderer.
But your last point on the paragraph I quoted in the beginning actually might be correctly speaking for someone willing to put those two things together for the OHBH. Thanks for that last part I needed it.
Yes!!! Wawrinka had no trouble ripping it from way back there. I suspect that his legs and torso gave him a lot of power. He was never the fastest. I think he knew that so he trained to just get to the ball. Then when he got there he would just unload. He is the only one that consistently battered Djokovic from the backhand corner. But look at his legs and his core. He is built like a lumberjack. He just took his axe and wreaked havoc when he was on. Kuerten and Almagro are also interesting examples. I could see Musetti following in this mold. He is a MUCH better clay court player. If you are right, he could threaten at the French by standing farther back and just unloading on his backhand. I really hope that you are right and that eventually Lorenzo proves all the OHBH naysayers wrong!
Wawrinka would be the kind of player where he was not super quick so he knew how to deal with the ball the more it was in his strike zone/could keep it in reach that's most likely why his backhand is devastating from the back because then you don't limit him expressing the strength he not only has to compensate for his lack of speed but consequently his body possesses. Because of this the racquet he uses is old school heavy because he is strong enough to wield it, similar to what big boys like Philippoussis and Safin would use. Problem? the further you bring him up the court the less options he can turn up for on that backhand side by virtue of the mass and the time it takes to be swinging that mass/swingweight/balance. He just doesn't finesse his OHBH like Fraud and he isn't trying to play that way but that becomes the reason he doesn't play up court like you think a OHBH stereotypically should and vice versa for Frauderer for why he is at someone's mercy sometimes at the baseline and unable to crank it like Thiem and Gasquet.
Kuerten, Almagro and funny you mention Musetti also all express their OHBH best on a clay court which is synonymous with what people disdain as monotonous long rallies but the fact the courts and balls are slower means that they can take a giant cut at the balls and the natural RPMs of a OHBH takes care of business. However that strategy of Musetti cracking it far back will just leave him susceptible to someone pulling him in which will cripple him as his OHBH is baseline biased so no Frauderer mid-court swindling. I think it would be tough once someone's OHBH has an affinity to a certain portion of the court to create some flexibility because then they have to vary hitting in front and the takeback based on how close they are to the net on court which can wreak havoc for baseline biased OHBH as they need a more fuller takeback unlike the 2HBH in which you can get away with catching it late, easier to compact/adjust the swing and therefore more flexible solutions have been made for 2HBH instead of questions. As Hugh usually highlights brain plasticity for improvement and tinkering one's game can pay dividends as in the case of Sinner but then again he's got two hands on his backhand instead of one so.
I know of someone that will be up to that challenge of really making a diamond in the rough/anomaly of a one-handed backhand and not just for reasons that have been constantly and boringly rehashed but really deeper nuances that imo will be what trumps the efforts made by todays 2HBHs. The OHBH naysayers will be shocked in due time.
I don't know if you listen to the new Andy Roddick/Jon Wertheim podcast (Served), but it's excellent and Andy commented that he's thinking there might be someone in the future who returns the serve with two hands but then utilizes a one hander during the rally. So you have the benefit of return stability and then the flexibility of the one hander.
I think the reason why some of us adore the one hander is that it reminds us of swordfighting. It's like somebody pulling out their sword from their sheath and taking care of business! :) I still have a 1HBH, and many of my contemporary club players do as well. However, I have a two-handed FOREHAND! Not because it's superior, but because it keeps me from getting hurt. I have a torn labrum and it's never going to untear, and I've aged out of surgery (not that I'd get it, even if I could). During the switch to a 2HFH, I tried to also switch to a 2HBH, but it just didn't work...
You've got Monica Seles and Jan-Michael Gambill for forehand inspiration!
There's an aesthetics piece sitting in my drafts with the neuroscience behind why certain shapes/forms are considered universally aesthetic and how the one-handed backhand ticks a lot of those boxes (symmetry, balance, contrast etc.). Maybe I'll get arond to posting it one day
Yes, please. I even bought the audio book for Spiral Dynamics. Really interesting that these forms matter and that aesthetics is not just aesthetic. Beauty has its place in functionality. This is especially true in the day of cyber productivity. Live music has never been more beautiful. Please post your article for those of us who believe in the beauty of the 1hbh.
And Fabrice Santoro and Marion Bartoli, too. :) Please do post that aesthetic piece when you can -- it's no coincidence that Christopher Clarey's book on Fed has him with a beautiful slice stroke. I also love that the 1HBH looks different on so many players -- Wawrinka's looks just super powerful, Fed's is of course gracefully strong, Shapo's looks furiously out of control...I wish the older videos of Edberg and Becker were higher quality, they both hit the ball so low, or at least that's what it looks like to me.
Brad Gilbert has been floating a similar idea for a while too. Maybe like Borg. He seemed to let go of his offhand during the followthrough. Yhouzhny also used to hit a two and one hander, at least in practice. The two hander could be a block shot with a little more stability. It's an interesting idea. Tennis evolves in interesting ways. So who knows.
Sorry to hear about your forehand. I am dealing with knees that like tennis less and less these days. It is all about adapting to play in whatever way works!
It is sad! Although I still see plenty of one handers out in the non-professional tennis world. Even those who were once two handed players can switch to one as they get older. It becomes harder for some to get in position when speed drops. As people get older, the power game drops as well. So, there is plenty of time to hit the one hander without feeling pressed. The chip returns work just fine. So, it might be that some current two handers will switch once they retire. So, we will have to go to the legends matches to see the one hander in all its glory.
I think that the one handers out there have caught on to something that you bring up here. They are starting to use slice more and more. I have been following Diane Parry for a while. She is one of the few young women on the ATP who made it through the juniors (made it all the way to the SF of Wimbledon) and was ranked number 1 in 2019 as an ITF junior. Her one handed backhand has a lot of topspin and it is a great shot. But when she moved to the pros it did not work as well. In the last year or so, I can see her slicing more and more. The topspin only comes out when she has time and can really hurt her opponent. She almost never uses it as a rally shot.
It seems to be working better. Then I was watching her play another french player, Jessica Ponchet, who also plays with a one hander. It was so weird to see two female players play against each other. Both had one handed backhands.
There is another model for winning that works for the WTA, Ash Barty. Of course, there is Graf as well. Use slice A LOT and then wait for something to attack. It helps Parry setup her big inside out forehand very well. My guess is that she will also start to find the shots where she can hit topsping backhands to change it up.
Now I am wondering two things. 1) As you point out, the one hander will have to chip and slice more than he or she did in the past. There might be a way through the juniors and up to the pro level with a great slice and a decent topspin shot.
2) This might be an easier path for women because it appears that women just don't like hitting a slice as much as men. Men seem to be able to handle the slice even if they play with two hands. But for women, the slice is just devastating. That is how Ash Barty made her living. I wonder if the one hander will be kept alive by the women who realize that they can use it to scale all the way to the top.
Any thoughts?
I agree. At the moment the slice seems to have a bigger payout in the women's game, as you pointed to Barty. With Barty, what also made the slice so effective is that she could hit kick serves and heavy topspin forehands to really give you a different look with each side. Women don't have the same topspin or wrist action (and therefore net clearance) of the men, so they can't attack a slice as well. But it's hard to get juniors to buy into the one-hander, especially as it is seen as a weaker shot in the modern game.
Great column!
Thoughts on the Ben Shelton vs Fonseca serve. Yes, Shelton has an explosive shot but that kind of exaggerated motion seems likely to not be sustainable and Shelton is already having shoulder issues. Would seem it's too injury prone to recommend .
A neat technical article I'd love to see sometime from you is what is it that the average size pros do on the serve to be effective? Ex. What was it that Roscoe Tanner or Johan Kriek did to generate their great shots?, the unique Becker/Edberg/McEnroe deliveries, etc
The biggest serve I ever saw in person from someone with a casual looking delivery was Aussie Wayne Arthur's, an obscure 90's journeyman whom by all ATP serve metrics has a top 5-10 all time great serve. He looked effortless in motion vs someone like Roddick or Shelton with an exaggerated coil.
I've kind of touched on the serve in this piece below:
https://hughclarke.substack.com/p/serves-and-returns
As for Tanner and 'average dudes' serving big, he does the same thing I think a lot of players do: a lower toss, keep the racquet building speed from the hip, good coil of the upper body etc. Look how low Tanner tosses!
https://youtu.be/oBTvfUIaTmM?t=84
Arthurs had a phenomenal bowl. The shelton/roddick physicality comes from how well they internally rotate the shoulder so they have a lot of power. But you can be almost as effective with a well disguised and accurate the serve as Federer and now Djokovic have been showing. Once you hit it 190km/h, if it's in the corner it's plenty of speed to ace someone.
It's a shame what happened to Thiem, as I think his continued presence in the top 10 would have served as an inspiration/proof of concept to juniors for how to play as a versatile, aggressive one-handed baseliner in the modern game. Even watching him now in much-diminished form, his backhand is still a world-class shot; it's the forehand that seems to have lost its depth and aggression (that, plus some sort of mental block—he plays a lot of 3- or 5-setters now where he gifts a break in the decider and then subsequently gets tight on returns).
Currently the face of the one-hander is Tsitsipas, whose backhand is inferior to Thiem's in every way, and for whom the shot is a clear liability that opponents ruthlessly exploit.
100% agree. Thiem is living proof that you can be a top player and grand slam winner with a backhand that isn't just something that you cover up; it was a bonafide weapon.
I regularly go back and watch highlights of his circa 2019/2020 stuff. The tour finals matches against Novak are just phenomenal hitting.
His forehand has been the downfall since the comeback. Just lost it's sizzle. I hope he can find it.
Always love your insight, especially when you write about the two handed backhands! Would love to know more about your opinion on the David Goffin's backhand, which Djokovic once chose as he built his "perfect player" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXNDfgvuzVA
I see him play it very flat and with an open racket face on the takeback. Reminds me a bit of Jürgen Melzer's backhand too. Curious to hear how you would compare their backhands to other "styles"
Thank you for the column! And whatever happened to the idea of a podcast?
Thanks Stefan!
Goffin has a great flat backhand. He has that straight left and bent right-arm hitting structure that is very common with very little drop. I'd compare it a little to Benoit Paire's with that open, long take back. Melzer also a good comparison!
Podcast is on ice for the moment; just too busy with my Masters and coaching.
In the summer I will reassess everything and see what direction and energy to put into this little newsletter (which is gathering steam though :) )
Was in awe of Fonseca's strokes in Rio. What stood out to me about that BH was his balance (effectively moving out of it like he was on a HC) and the acceleration through the shot. The latter aspect looked, to me, like it was very front-loaded and got most of its pace thanks to the amazing racket head acceleration (possibly the reason then why he'd look so balance and upright after the shot). Idk if you agree fully, but if that is the case, do you think he'll need to expand his swing to be more receptive to absorbing pace when he inevitably faces more of the top guys on faster surfaces? In Rio (& Santiago), he was taking aggressive cuts at everything with the time he had, and it did feel like that compact burst of a swing endured a few problems when players managed to kick the ball up to shoulder height, where his quickdraw swings led to short & flat responses that took away his own time.
What I loved was the still head and how he can use a roll backhand and a sort of 'locked-wrist' push backhand as well. Alcaraz does that also. Gave me nalbandian vibes.
Oh yes, that’s one thing I’ve found pretty fascinating noticing since reading your initial Death of a BH piece. Some of the best players who roll their BHs will also switch to locking the wrists when it benefits them (like going dtl). I watch a lot of Murray & Zach Svajda, and they both do that, especially the latter
I watched Svajda against Cerundolo at the US. Uses the Medvedev flip to change grips.
Somehow actually hadn't noticed that. Do you know what the logic is behind it generally? Like, why wouldn't Zach use his left hand to shift his right from the eastern (FH) to the continental (BH)? Even when you talked about Daniil's one, it sounds like he's making a mountain out of a molehill
yeah baffles me. No idea. I get it for Khachanov and Sock, but with those conservative forehand grips it is quite strange.
Interesting you brought up that off-hand and how it contributes well in the coil of the forehands. Does it matter how much you coil, the angle of the off-hand and how high the hitting hand is during prep phase?.
I remember Soderling having such a huge coil that his hitting arm broke past behind his torso at times (similar to the "WTA forehand"), Del-Potro seems to have a ATG forehand despite the angle of his off-hand being diagonal rather than straight like Joachim Johansson, Gonzalez and Frauderer et al. and on Del Potro his hitting arm seems to start higher/level with his chest rather than as low as Alcaraz, Fonseca and the others you mentioned?.
Also how explosive does a shot have to be for it to be effective. I feel as if there is a point where by if the athlete relies so much on explosiveness for shot potency then it is as good as it is explosive. It ages poorly due to reliance of needed to be super twitchy like you mentioned with Shelton (The older one gets the less they can tap into that kind of shot so for longevity I don't think it should be overly stressed). Does strength outperform explosiveness to an extent as strength won't betray you as you get older (Provided the ball is in his strike zone Wawrinka can still tee off) and is a more consistent force source as opposed to explosiveness whereby it's deadly but can get erratic?. Thoughts on this?.
Yes it matters, but there are a lot of variables going on. For example, del Potro didn't have a huge coil or as much of a takeback in terms of breaking the plane as Soderling, but he used an eastern grip and a higher take back, so getting pace was still not a problem.
There's a difference between coiling and breaking the plane. Alcaraz gets amazing coil but doesn't break the plane with his racquet.
As for explosiveness/strength tradeoff, that's also a complicated question. E.g., I dont think Djokovic is the most explosive forehand hitter out there, but his forehand is so good because it suits his absorbing style with redirection. I do think that forehand ages better (but the accompanying movement maybe doesn't).
Would you say then that's an individual touch with Del Potro and Soderling's forehands or is one of them technically at more at fault/could be more error prone in a situation through your analysis? Less moving parts with a higher take back, massive lag and eastern grip VS Slightly more moving parts, breaking the plane, more extreme grip.
Regarding the strength/explosiveness trade-off then Del Potro isn't someone who is super twitchy but consistently will clobber the ball to point ending levels, he isn't someone who plays like Nole trying to absorb and redirect he has an offensive playstyle but then how is it suiting the offensive Del Potro and can this suit less twitchy players even though they aren't of the same stature?. When monitoring his FH it's almost as if he's mainly using his huge body mass and the long lever of an arm he has instead of applying rapid speed and whip like Kyrgios for example. Also what did you mean by the last part "(but the accompanying movement maybe doesn't).?"
Every forehand has an individual touch, but I prefer delpo's. I think it's the simplest forehand our sport has ever seen.
delpo's power came from a combination of (a) a long arm/lever; (b) eastern grip.
Assessing speed is tough because all these guys are using different swingweights; everyon will swing a lighter racquet faster.
The last part I just meant that if Djoker's movement dropped off then his counterpunching forehand would be less suitable; he would need to play more offense if he lost some speed.
I can see Nadal going far here and was actually impressed by his performance in the Netflix slam. He has to stay healthy ofcourse and beat Raonic who I recently saw go toe to toe with Sinner in Rotterdam before he retired.
Interesting. He looked pedestrian with his movement to me and the serve was missing by a lot at times. Wouldn't be surprised though; he is a legend and the conditions suit him.
Draper seems like an absolute gamer, will there be any analysis on his game coming up?
Highly likely - when he reaches a masters final!
Could you drop a quick once-over? Seems to have Alcaraz-like groundstrokes, a little less stopping power but maybe a better BH?
"The game evolved; beauty has been handcuffed by function."
This is so true and so sad. 😞 I think this is one of the big reasons why we still hold onto the Fed vs Rafa rivalry with such nostalgia... It'll probably be the last time we see such a contrast in playing styles that was also fiercely competitive.
I was tired of the all the two handers the other day and just turned to watch Fed against Medvedev. Fed was just amazing even in 2017 when he was much older. The one thing that stood out was how quickly he got to the net. I still think the one hander creates the notion of hitting balls on the rise very far in front of the body. It HAS to be hit that way. Once a one hander realizes he or she HAS to hit the ball out in front, they begin to move forward. This translates into net play and trying to cut off balls that float. It doesn't feel like the modern junior will try this. But you have to think that enough juniors out there who decide to go retro and play like Fed could emerge. And if you have enough, one of them will start to take time away from his opponent and get to the net. Not like Sampras did but like Fed. If that happens and a person is very talented, they could become a champion. Not by following everyone else but by not following them. Then, because they are different they might just stand out. It is a risk, but it is a risk with a big reward. The question is whether enough juniors out there are willing to take the risk.
"Not by following everyone else but by not following them. Then, because they are different they might just stand out. It is a risk, but it is a risk with a big reward. The question is whether enough juniors out there are willing to take the risk."
I feel like the OHBH has been put in this chokehold of only pertaining to "forecourt/midcourt/forward moving/attacking" style of tennis but has no one paid attention to the baseline ventures of those such as Wawrinka, Gasquet and Almagro et al. in terms of how deadly it can be played from the back. I think for me the way to the top would be a marriage of how flexible you can be with your OHBH because one boat seems to as you mention "hitting the balls on the rise very far out in front of the body," so basically your classic forward pressure players like Roger Frauderer and then the other you have people that like slower courts and with time will crack their backhands (not that they don't hit out in front either, they do but Wawrinka's takeback for example has a little less to undo) with heaviness, pace and RPMs that surpass several world class FHs so that would be like a Wawrinka, Gasquet, Thiem and Kuerten.
They each have a trade-off and that being the example you put down forward usually is at mercy of being harassed at the baseline and will be starved opportunities to start attacking and moving forward by virtue of a heavy ball going above shoulder height they didn't manage to cut-off in time or the baseline biased OHBH which will undo itself the more forward you move in the court probably why Wawrinka cannot win Wimbledon. What he lacks in the midcourt, forward attacking backhand flicks, tangibles, subtle swift changes and swindling that Frauderer could pull of to win multiple GS titles he makes up for in needing a bit more slower ball to set up but unload a point-ender (this is actually strange as Wawrinka has a bit more shorter and efficient takeback than most OHBH) in which you then have to find other ways to exploit someone like him because they can kill you with their OHBH. Almagro was quite similar in that Nadal sometimes actively avoided his OHBH on clay even because Almagro even being about 6'0 wasn't bothered too much by high bounce, his OHBH was made to kill incoming heaviness and create damaging pace in return for less towards the net.
I suspect this is one of the major edges a 2HBH has over OHBH, based on the trend it seems easier to play more flexible anywhere on the court with a 2HBH that's why its been adopted by so many and the OHBH presents so much hardships trying to combine the two. So to me it has to be about not forcing someone at the mercy of only moving forward and always attacking with their OHBH because the game won't always reward attack but also not being at the mercy of needing more time to unload and damage by virtue of a longer takeback/slower court otherwise you limit yourself to take advantage on faster courts/more options inside the court like Frauderer.
But your last point on the paragraph I quoted in the beginning actually might be correctly speaking for someone willing to put those two things together for the OHBH. Thanks for that last part I needed it.
Yes!!! Wawrinka had no trouble ripping it from way back there. I suspect that his legs and torso gave him a lot of power. He was never the fastest. I think he knew that so he trained to just get to the ball. Then when he got there he would just unload. He is the only one that consistently battered Djokovic from the backhand corner. But look at his legs and his core. He is built like a lumberjack. He just took his axe and wreaked havoc when he was on. Kuerten and Almagro are also interesting examples. I could see Musetti following in this mold. He is a MUCH better clay court player. If you are right, he could threaten at the French by standing farther back and just unloading on his backhand. I really hope that you are right and that eventually Lorenzo proves all the OHBH naysayers wrong!
Wawrinka would be the kind of player where he was not super quick so he knew how to deal with the ball the more it was in his strike zone/could keep it in reach that's most likely why his backhand is devastating from the back because then you don't limit him expressing the strength he not only has to compensate for his lack of speed but consequently his body possesses. Because of this the racquet he uses is old school heavy because he is strong enough to wield it, similar to what big boys like Philippoussis and Safin would use. Problem? the further you bring him up the court the less options he can turn up for on that backhand side by virtue of the mass and the time it takes to be swinging that mass/swingweight/balance. He just doesn't finesse his OHBH like Fraud and he isn't trying to play that way but that becomes the reason he doesn't play up court like you think a OHBH stereotypically should and vice versa for Frauderer for why he is at someone's mercy sometimes at the baseline and unable to crank it like Thiem and Gasquet.
Kuerten, Almagro and funny you mention Musetti also all express their OHBH best on a clay court which is synonymous with what people disdain as monotonous long rallies but the fact the courts and balls are slower means that they can take a giant cut at the balls and the natural RPMs of a OHBH takes care of business. However that strategy of Musetti cracking it far back will just leave him susceptible to someone pulling him in which will cripple him as his OHBH is baseline biased so no Frauderer mid-court swindling. I think it would be tough once someone's OHBH has an affinity to a certain portion of the court to create some flexibility because then they have to vary hitting in front and the takeback based on how close they are to the net on court which can wreak havoc for baseline biased OHBH as they need a more fuller takeback unlike the 2HBH in which you can get away with catching it late, easier to compact/adjust the swing and therefore more flexible solutions have been made for 2HBH instead of questions. As Hugh usually highlights brain plasticity for improvement and tinkering one's game can pay dividends as in the case of Sinner but then again he's got two hands on his backhand instead of one so.
I know of someone that will be up to that challenge of really making a diamond in the rough/anomaly of a one-handed backhand and not just for reasons that have been constantly and boringly rehashed but really deeper nuances that imo will be what trumps the efforts made by todays 2HBHs. The OHBH naysayers will be shocked in due time.
I don't know if you listen to the new Andy Roddick/Jon Wertheim podcast (Served), but it's excellent and Andy commented that he's thinking there might be someone in the future who returns the serve with two hands but then utilizes a one hander during the rally. So you have the benefit of return stability and then the flexibility of the one hander.
I think the reason why some of us adore the one hander is that it reminds us of swordfighting. It's like somebody pulling out their sword from their sheath and taking care of business! :) I still have a 1HBH, and many of my contemporary club players do as well. However, I have a two-handed FOREHAND! Not because it's superior, but because it keeps me from getting hurt. I have a torn labrum and it's never going to untear, and I've aged out of surgery (not that I'd get it, even if I could). During the switch to a 2HFH, I tried to also switch to a 2HBH, but it just didn't work...
You've got Monica Seles and Jan-Michael Gambill for forehand inspiration!
There's an aesthetics piece sitting in my drafts with the neuroscience behind why certain shapes/forms are considered universally aesthetic and how the one-handed backhand ticks a lot of those boxes (symmetry, balance, contrast etc.). Maybe I'll get arond to posting it one day
Yes, please. I even bought the audio book for Spiral Dynamics. Really interesting that these forms matter and that aesthetics is not just aesthetic. Beauty has its place in functionality. This is especially true in the day of cyber productivity. Live music has never been more beautiful. Please post your article for those of us who believe in the beauty of the 1hbh.
And Fabrice Santoro and Marion Bartoli, too. :) Please do post that aesthetic piece when you can -- it's no coincidence that Christopher Clarey's book on Fed has him with a beautiful slice stroke. I also love that the 1HBH looks different on so many players -- Wawrinka's looks just super powerful, Fed's is of course gracefully strong, Shapo's looks furiously out of control...I wish the older videos of Edberg and Becker were higher quality, they both hit the ball so low, or at least that's what it looks like to me.
Brad Gilbert has been floating a similar idea for a while too. Maybe like Borg. He seemed to let go of his offhand during the followthrough. Yhouzhny also used to hit a two and one hander, at least in practice. The two hander could be a block shot with a little more stability. It's an interesting idea. Tennis evolves in interesting ways. So who knows.
Sorry to hear about your forehand. I am dealing with knees that like tennis less and less these days. It is all about adapting to play in whatever way works!
It is sad! Although I still see plenty of one handers out in the non-professional tennis world. Even those who were once two handed players can switch to one as they get older. It becomes harder for some to get in position when speed drops. As people get older, the power game drops as well. So, there is plenty of time to hit the one hander without feeling pressed. The chip returns work just fine. So, it might be that some current two handers will switch once they retire. So, we will have to go to the legends matches to see the one hander in all its glory.