Interactive Forum: May 2013: Tommy Haas One-Handed Backhand

[indnix]

Through The Slot!

Haas really accelerates through the "slot" starting close to his body and moving outward. He is still in the French Open after the first week. Impressive!

[tennis_chiro]

I can see that point, but...

By grabbing the racket at the higher part of the throat, his non-hitting hand is spread open more and therefore not as able it seems to clutch the racket as forcefully and as long; it is as though the racket frees itself from the clutch more responsively with the forward swing. Seems to work for him and his relatively small hands....

So, in other words, it is harder to fall back to the two-handed stroke and easier to get the non-hitting hand to let go. As I said, on checking the archives, this looks the more prevalent choice among today's players. But I see it as a disadvantage in terms of speed of preparation for return of serve with a grip change and in terms of the opposite hand pulling the hitting arm a little further back to "load" the shot.

I just feel it is really important for the non-hitting hand to control the racket in the backswing as the grip is changed; and I don't think the grip is as secure when it is the fingers on the throat as opposed to the palm on the shaft of the racket.

don

[johnyandell]

is anyone else completely loving the fact that 8 of the final 16 men hit with one hand??

On red clay??

And anyone want to hazard an explanation why this could be?

[dimitrios]

is anyone else completely loving the fact that 8 of the final 16 men hit with one hand??

On red clay??

And anyone want to hazard an explanation why this could be?

Those impressive above-mentioned numbers are different now, of course, but I don't know that there is a really good explanation for it. In fact, I don't know how much we should read into it -- unless it happens routinely, which it hasn't yet.

[tennis_chiro]

Can't explain it

is anyone else completely loving the fact that 8 of the final 16 men hit with one hand??

On red clay??

And anyone want to hazard an explanation why this could be?

Can't explain it, but if there are any more matches like todays display of one-handed style between Wawrinka and Gasquet, a lot more kids are going to want to learn to hit a one-handed backhand. Don't think I've ever seen such consistent huge hitting of one-handed backhands; and I don't think they would have been able to reproduce that with two-handed backhands. There is a difference in how far you have to go to set up for the ball and hit it well and they were operating just about at the edge of the envelope which is almost by definition outside the range that you can cover with a two-hander.

don

[stotty]

Can't explain it, but if there are any more matches like todays display of one-handed style between Wawrinka and Gasquet, a lot more kids are going to want to learn to hit a one-handed backhand. Don't think I've ever seen such consistent huge hitting of one-handed backhands; and I don't think they would have been able to reproduce that with two-handed backhands. There is a difference in how far you have to go to set up for the ball and hit it well and they were operating just about at the edge of the envelope which is almost by definition outside the range that you can cover with a two-hander.

don

I'd like to know the average speed/spin of those 8 one-handers versus the 8 two-handers. It can't be that clearcut the two-hander has become better by default. There is no substitute for power...so if the two-hander on average travels faster than the one-hander, it must win the day.

The edge of the envelope concept is interesting...makes you think.

[don_budge]

Fads and fashion...plus the engineering effect.

Those impressive above-mentioned numbers are different now, of course, but I don't know that there is a really good explanation for it. In fact, I don't know how much we should read into it -- unless it happens routinely, which it hasn't yet.

I think...

One should always try to read something into it. It is the derivative nature of discovery that will eventually lead to some conclusion...as fleeting as it might be.

Sixteen players...eight with one handed backhands and eight with two handed backhands. What can we derive from this fun fact? How about this? At the round of 16 level of play at Roland Garros there is no clear cut division of choice in the matter of which style to play. So then we get to the quarterfinals...and we find that there are four two handed left in the tournament and four one handed...thus at the quarterfinal stage of the French Open there is still no clear cut advantage to either the two hand backhand or the one hand backhand.

Is this a recent trend? Since when? Why is that? These are the questions that we must ask ourselves in order to read something into this phenomena...and it is worth doing so. I would say that next to the endless discussions of forehand technique the second most frequent discussion is about style of play and the modern game as it compares to the classic game.

From a theoretical point of view and from a historical point of view this could turn into a rather lengthy discussion with all of the makings of a squirrel chasing it's tail. Simply put...much of tennis style is a matter of fad and fashion. Once something starts to stick or stand out it seems that the multitudes follow and of course this may have something of the fickle nature of coaches in it too. Simply put...historically speaking the two handed game got a serious shot in the arm in the 70's when Jimmy Connors, Chris Evert and Björn Borg used the two handed backhand. Then in the early 80's with the change of equipment the Nick Bollitierri school of thought further bolstered the two handed effort.

The change of equipment and the Bollitierri school of thought both encouraged rather less sophisticated style of play with a heavy emphasis on power. But even so...throughout the whole "evolutionary" period of transition between modern tennis and classic tennis the top spot in professional tennis until recent years has normally been a player with relatively classic tendencies with regards to style of play. McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Becker, Edberg...Federer. The one handed backhand was never obsolete.

So is it really a recent development that we should be startled by? I don't think so. It was sort of inevitable. The game of tennis is designed from an engineering point of view to use the whole court and the one handed backhand is the style of play that most effectively, most of the time enables the player to play this style. There has been much talk in the last couple of years about how the style of play in tennis has grown monotonous and boring. From the announcers booths to our forum true tennis aficionado's have been clamoring for more versatility and more stylish play. But beyond the aesthetics...is the dollars and sense. The results. Roger pretty much captured the admiration of the tennis world and human behavior being what it is...the herd will follow.

Is there any clear cut reasons? Well...if they are not so clear at least we can try to read between the lines. It is really wonderful to observe the phenomenon or the resurgence of the one handed backhand. It will be nice to observe the tactical changes in the game that will follow. What we will have then is the classic confrontations of one handed vs. two handed ala the John McEnroe vs. Björn Borg of the bygone era of classic tennis. At least a reasonable facsimile.

There is no substitute for power...so if the two-hander on average travels faster than the one-hander, it must win the day.

As far as there being no substitute for power...I beg to differ here as I believe that tactical objectives are equally as compelling if not more so than opting for more power.

[dimitrios]

I think...

Roger pretty much captured the admiration of the tennis world and human behavior being what it is...the herd will follow.... It is really wonderful to observe the phenomenon or the resurgence of the one handed backhand.

Like John, I also attended this year's Easter Bowl and don't recall seeing any males hitting with one-handed backhands. These would be kids who would have had ample time growing up to digest the one-handed brilliance of Roger. The girl whom John mentioned earlier (her name is Mayo Hibi) who won the 18s with a one hander hits, like Roberta Vinci, almost entirely with slice (coupled with outstanding movement and very good feel) on the backhand side. I'm frankly not sure that will cut it any longer at the pro level.

As for the "resurgence of the one handed backhand," I would hesitate to call it that. We now have two men's semis and zero one handers left. If we get a similar percentage of half one-handers in the final 16 at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open then we might be talking about a resurgence; until then it strikes me more as a curiosity.

[stotty]

One v two

The two-hander isn't for everyone. Despite the fact most coaches teach kids the two-hander by default, a small number of kids feel the urge to switch to a one-hander later down the line. Some are just natural one-handers. Good for them. It ensures the shot will never die.

But because kids are certain to have more success as juniors with a two-hander, it looks likely the two-hander will continue to dominate the landscape. Kids want success. Coaches want success, too. That just about puts the mockers on the one-hander.

[johnyandell]

But what is success? Being ranked a few numbers higher in the juniors? Or if like Stotty says you are naturally a one-hander (and there are many many more that still hit with two hands) having a versatile game for life?
Statistically no one is going to make it in the pros. At the age of 60 I thank god the two-hander didn't exist when I was learning.

[stotty]

One v two part 2

But what is success? Being ranked a few numbers higher in the juniors? Or if like Stotty says you are naturally a one-hander (and there are many many more that still hit with two hands) having a versatile game for life?
Statistically no one is going to make it in the pros. At the age of 60 I thank god the two-hander didn't exist when I was learning.

At local level, success often means a lot, to both student and coach. Few see the bigger picture and are more concerned with "results now". Besides, things like this are all relative. Coaches like to be seen as successful even it's just within their small vicinity. Most coaches have an ego to some degree. The two-hander is a shortcut to good backhand; the one-hander develops far more slowly...that kind of explains a lot. The problem starts at local level coaching rather than top flight coaching. Local level coaches seek the shortcut to success...obvious really.

I have a worn out right hand. A small bone in my right hand is worn down flush to the level of a nerve...''ouch', it's getting sore at times. People say, "Why not go two-handed"...Why? Because it's bloody hard work compared to a one-hander! All that reaching across, rotating and bending...phew...hard work at my age.

The one-hander has a tactical versatility the two-hander can never quite achieve. A good one-handed slice can neutralise even the best two-hander if played with precision. Federer's used his slice well at Wimbledon over the years.

[10splayer]

At local level, success often means a lot, to both student and coach. Few see the bigger picture and are more concerned with "results now". Besides, things like this are all relative. Coaches like to be seen as successful even it's just within their small vicinity. Most coaches have an ego to some degree. The two-hander is a shortcut to good backhand; the one-hander develops far more slowly...that kind of explains a lot. The problem starts at local level coaching rather than top flight coaching. Local level coaches seek the shortcut to success...obvious really. 

I have a worn out right hand. A small bone in my right hand is worn down flush to the level of a nerve...''ouch', it's getting sore at times. People say, "Why not go two-handed"...Why? Because it's bloody hard work compared to a one-hander! All that reaching across, rotating and bending...phew...hard work at my age.

The one-hander has a tactical versatility the two-hander can never quite achieve. A good one-handed slice can neutralise even the best two-hander if played with precision. Federer's used his slice well at Wimbledon over the years.

A couple thoughts about the first paragraph. First, from a coaching point of view, it matters little to me what the top players use, but rather what is feasible given the time constraints and potential characteristics of any given player.

I've done most of my teaching in colder climates, where I see a kid once, or perhaps twice a week. I think we can all agree, that in most cases, the one hander is generally a slower developer. On top of that, if one gets a kid at 12 or 13 with some talent, realistically, you have only have a couple years to really start getting results if college tennis is a possibility. These are real factors......and it can be serious business if scholarship money is at stake....

I simply dont agree that coaches fail to see the "big picture". What is that, anyway? Top five? No, 99 percent of the coaches are in a similar situation to which i described. Limited time, but responsible for quick development. The two hander, is (in most cases) the answer. I actually see it, as doing my job. (without bias)

Btw, the whole "power" argument in regards to one hander vs two hander gets down to this, IMO. The two hander allows a player to "apply" power from a multitude of stances and much more flexible strike zone, both in terms of height and forward to backward contact point. With the one hander, the ball really needs to be in one's wheel house.

[dimitrios]

The one-hander has a tactical versatility the two-hander can never quite achieve. A good one-handed slice can neutralise even the best two-hander if played with precision.

Please do explain a bit more.

[privas]

1 vs 2-handed backhand article

An interactive forum about the technique of Tommy Haas has evolved into a debate of 1 vs 2. Perhaps John can create a new article on 1 vs 2. Or perhaps I missed this article? I for one have tried to switch from 2 to 1. My biggest obstacle has been a lack of good coaching since most coaches around here teach the 2 well, and the 1 not so well. I appreciate the readers of this site on this thread who have been my main instructors--some even available by phone--with our local pros being secondary. If, John, you decide to write this article, I believe you would get lots of input from this forum. Or did you already? I have also made many personal observations about 1 vs 2 over the years. Thanks to all, Pedro

[stotty]

Federer's slice

Please do explain a bit more.

If you go to 8:45 on this clip you will see a lovely rally between Federer and Djokovic at Wimbledon. Federer uses a lovely blend of topspin and sliced backhands during this rally, which he eventually wins. He returns serve with a sliced backhand which lands deep enough to get him off to a reasonably neutral start. Djokovic immediately starts tucking into Federer's backhand from here on in. When pushed wide, Federer uses his sliced backhand to defend and put the rally back on neutral terms. He is stunningly good at this. Even the short angled sliced backhand he uses just once in the clip is very difficult for Djokovic to do anything with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_5JqB50fOE

It's a lovely rally from both men. The shotmaking and court coverage is just wonderful.

There are many clips of Federer doing things like this with his sliced backhand, using it both when he is starting to get stretched or, even more intelligently, before he gets stretched. He combated Murray's early onslaught at Wimbledon 2012 like this.

The first point in this next clip is nice. A sliced return deep, a floating sliced backhand next, then a knifed sliced backhand. And that's just to kick things off. Not much Murray could do with any of these. It's a great way to start the point as it kind of lulls Murray before the barrage starts. It's great the way Federer mixes the slice and topspin on his backhand. It's an option the two-hander usually doesn't have. Federer's backhand was a revelation in that final. The best it has ever been. None of the commentators picked up on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GnLHnbZwhM

The two-handed backhand cannot be employed like this. Murray has a decent one-handed slice. Djokovic and Nadal have to make do without.

Here's an article about Federer's backhand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/skills/5337544.stm