Response to One Hand Backhand Blog

[GeoffWilliams]

The players have decided. Two hands won. Back court won. Now, there are matches when people back up off short shots like crabs, and no doubles players are at the net at all.

They get passed too easily, and miss too many unpracticed easy volleys and over heads. Many women especially can't even hit an over head at all. (Sharascreecha.)

[stotty]

Wow it just keeps going! Here is another two-handed argument:

Thank you for bringing up this interesting topic! It makes for a fun conversation.

Here are just some facts you left off your comments:

1. First off you inaccurately speak of one handed backhands without describing the type of one-handed backhand. 99% of all men pros have a one-handed backhand--a backhand slice which has become a required tool in the tool box. Notice how both Mats Willander and Nadal successfully developed a usable slice backhand late in their careers. Witness Roger's exquisite dismantling of Raonic with his precision backhand slices. Few of the women have developed an effective slice backhand because their pros and coaches haven't taught them this extraordinarily important shot.

2. Secondly you didn't mention women. I think at this point every woman in the top ten has a 2-handed topspin backhand. Any one-handed TS backhands you'll see in the women's game can't hold a candle to the two-handed topspin weapons of Serena, Maria, or many others. No comparison. Certainly Henin had a good one, but it was still limited compared to the top two-handed TS BH's in the women's game.

3. In both the men's and women's game, 99% of all players who hit with one-handed topspin backhands succeed in spite of their one-handed TS backhands not because of it. It's a liability they have to protect and they generally use it sparingly. Certainly there are few one-handed TS backhanders who have strong return of serves on the backhand side, but in both the men's and women's game the two-handed TSBH is a huge advantage when returning serve, especially when complementing an effective slice backhand.

4. The urban myth that Peter Sampras became a better player because he switched to a two-hander is not based on the real facts. He had the best and most effective serve in the history of the game which gave him a huge advantage. He could hit out on the returning games because he knew he wasn't going to be broken--a huge advantage. In my view he would have been a much better player with a two-hand TS backhand. To say that Pete ever beat Andre because of his backhand is almost laughable. And as you all know he didn't really volley that much anyway. He would serve and get ready for the next point. And of course on clay, his backhand was picked on repeatedly by any number of players.

5. Stan's one-handed TS backhand is indeed a weapon, but hardly the biggest weapon in the game. I think Roger's TSFH is a much bigger weapon and there are any number of ATP TSFH's that are more of a weapon than Stan's excellent TSBH. In addition, I would take Novak's two-hander any day of the week. It might not be as powerful but it is more consistent, better placed, and he has the major advantage of being able to return and pass in extrarordinary ways that a one hander could only dream of. And on top of this, Stan's TSBH is streaky. When his timing is off a bit, his game falls apart and this is one reason why his overall consistency in playing against the top players is sketchy.

6. As a coach of juniors, I love it when my students are facing a player with a one-hand TSBH, you know that high and heavy balls deep to the bh will cause them fits and you can approach net way more easily. It's such an obvious weakness sometimes I feel guilty having my players pick on this deficiency.

7. A two-handed topspin backhand is such a major advantage on clay it almost seems unfair. On clay, it's a rare day when a player with a one-handed topspin backhand will beat Nadal. His 2-handed TS backhand is a (no pun intended) a revolutionary shot!

8. Yes, Roger and Stan have excellent TSBH's but Roger can't beat Nadal because his one-handed TSBH can't handle Nadal's high and heavies. As I said Stan is streaky! If, as a pro, you are trying to identify at an early age the next Stan, that's a tough one to figure out. We all know people develop and grow in much different ways. Maybe it's in the genetic makeup of the Swiss? :-) But I have seen so many young players attempt to hit a one-hander and see them eventually quit the game or lose interest because it's such a liability. They start to blame themselves rather than acknowledging that they need to add the second hand!!!

9. Your criticism of American junior coaches is a bit amusing because there are so many tennis professionals I know who still prefer the one-handed topspin backhand. Criticizing tennis professionals because there are so few one-handed TSBH's is comparable to blaming tennis coaches for all the topspin forehands juniors hit instead of continental flat forehands, or overhanded serves instead of underhanded serves, or generally hitting short volleys instead of deep volleys. All of these things are standard for one simple reason they make you a much better player. In the case of this conversation, a two handed topspin backhand is far superior to a one-handed topspin backhand. Any advantages of a one-handed TSBH disappear when a player owns an adequate one-handed slice backhand.

Finally, I hope that you convince more players to use one-handed TS backhands because it makes it so much easier for the student I coach to win!

Good conversation and bring it on!

Laury Hammel, Member of USTA New England Hall of Fame and coach of nationally ranked players every year since 1973.

I like this one the most....don't agree with all of it...but it's a considered (perhaps opinionated some might say) response...and I do like a coach with strong views. Well done Larry.

[johnyandell]

Another thoughtful one:

There are a number of questions packed into your commentary, the primary question being whether the two-hander is actually superior to the one-hander. The other questions concerning the impact two-hand instruction and culture have on lifelong recreational tennis are quite unrelated but nonetheless interesting, as well.

On the primary question, determining what it is that makes those one-handers so great would seem to me to be very difficult, indeed. Is it the one-handed backhand itself that gives those stars their advantage? Or might it be that the one-handed backhand is so inherently difficult that anyone capable enough of mastering it is likewise also an all-around superior athlete (even superior to others at the world class level)? What if, in effect, the one-hander functions as a kind of world-feature qualification/disqualification criterion: that is, it’s such a difficult stroke that if you’re skilled enough to master it for competition at the world class level, you’re probably an altogether better athlete?

Looked at from an entirely different angle, it may be that all court players have a great advantage, and the pedagogical and strategic approach taken by coaches who teach the one-handed backhand is to train their students to develop an all court game. So that’s the game they eventually master. Perhaps two-handers end up disadvantaged at the world class level simply because they aren’t encouraged to (and thus never do) develop the all court game.

Personally, I think both things are in play. But it’s an admittedly unfounded hunch.

As to the corollary questions concerning the impact on tennis, I can’t quite agree that the two-hander has an overall adverse impact, because it at least makes the game accessible to youth, and without some kind of serviceable backhand, the game can be incredibly frustrating. No matter where one starts off in exposing kids to sports, there simply can’t be the assumption that a particular sport will be a “game for life.” That might turn out to be true, it might not. Whatever one does for sport, physical activity, and physical conditioning, it really has to be a “game for fun.” And if it stays that way, then it will be a game for life. If not … well, that’s a shame.

--Craig Stainbrook

[GeoffWilliams]

Two handers cannot produce the rpms that one handers can. But they are better at defending high ball serve/returns. They never develop the same confident bh volleys at net or attacking slices/although can develop change up slices. Nowadays, the change up gets clobbered, ie, look at Nadal attacking any bh slice! Kills it, and makes it a weakness, not a strength. Why are so many kids taught two handers out of the gate? Is it really due to lack of upper body ability to strike a one hander well? Or a lack of confidence in doing so/left /right brain thing.? The new slice string coming out may make the slice a weapon against Nadal types again. Stringing techniques can also accentuate slice. Not many devotees of the methods though, and they are not well known.

[stotty]

John, some of these post are really good, can you entice these guys onto the forum? Tell them Stotty, don_budge and Klacr will be serving round the clock aperitifs and a warm welcome to all thought-provoking newcomers.

[johnyandell]

Stotty couldn't agree more. I have extended invitations...

[klacr]

John, some of these post are really good, can you entice these guys onto the forum? Tell them Stotty, don_budge and Klacr will be serving round the clock aperitifs and a warm welcome to all thought-provoking newcomers.

Absolutely!!!

Great commentary from these members. Wish they shared all their thoughts on what we post. Great discussion.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[johnyandell]

Here is another from a long time subscriber:

Nadal"s fore hand is one of the most punishing and successful strokes ever witnessed on a tennis court. Because of his infinite success against Roger, many of the cognoscenti and generic players believe it should be expunged from the game. Nadal's fore hand has been most propitious against Roger because he can attack uncompromisingly. Nadal , of course, can achieve these results against many players.

He and Roger have competed so many times in critical matches that Roger's backhand against Nadal is easily exposed. Because of his success I don't believe it should be deleted from the game. Stan's backhand could be on of the top three in the history of tennis. It is a punishing stroke related to his overall strength in his body. He is very muscular thru his chest and legs and which permits him to over power the ball. The one hander is inferior returning serve. Players of course develop the two hander because they are not fully developed to hit one handers at a young age. To make the transition, they would sacrifice any success they may have had thru the early development of their careers. Pete Fischer should be lauded for recognizing he had a player who would ultimately be more successful with the one hander. I think the one hander would be very successful for certain players . I think a very athletic player would benefit. That decision would have to be made by the coach and the player. Do you think Henin would have benefitted with a two hander? I don't thin so. How about Steffi? Certain players are produced to play within their own styles and incorporating a one hander or a two hander is an asset for that particular player. The development of recreational players is another issue. The two hander is a much easier stroke to successfully develop . The one hander demands a much greater commitment of time to develop.

Tennis is a very , very difficult sport to play well because it has so many elements to it. The commitment to developing a very successful one hander demands many, many more hours to execute it very successfully/. Why do many players make the transition to golf ? When was the last time you heard of a golfer abandoning golf to play tennis? I have never, ever heard of a golfer abandoning his sport to participate in tennis. It never happens. Why? It is much more physically demanding. A friend of mine at IMG academy (you may know him, Chip Brooks) years ago said to the adult class "It is an open ended sport. There are just so many components required to produce a high quality tennis player that playing with two hands greatly facilitates the process.

Leon

[johnyandell]

Here is a very interesting one from Kerry Mitchell our contributor, who taught with me in SF for many years:

I'm in Florence Italy and there is a ITF junior event going on here. I watched parts of about 4 boys matches and there was not one court where at least one if not both players played with a one-handed backhand. At least internationally the one-hander is coming back in a strong way (thanks again to the likes of Fed and Wawrinka). The big difference I noticed is the grip position is more extreme similar to Henin's or Wawrinka. It allows these kids to come over the ball much easier when it is high. If fact, they seem more comfortable driving it than slicing even though all of them had descent slices. I believe the Americans are behind on this.

[stotty]

Here in the UK...

Here is a very interesting one from Kerry Mitchell our contributor, who taught with me in SF for many years:

I'm in Florence Italy and there is a ITF junior event going on here. I watched parts of about 4 boys matches and there was not one court where at least one if not both players played with a one-handed backhand. At least internationally the one-hander is coming back in a strong way (thanks again to the likes of Fed and Wawrinka). The big difference I noticed is the grip position is more extreme similar to Henin's or Wawrinka. It allows these kids to come over the ball much easier when it is high. If fact, they seem more comfortable driving it than slicing even though all of them had descent slices. I believe the Americans are behind on this.

Interesting post from Kerry.

Here in the UK I have just returned from a Grade 3 tournament near London...walked in the door about five minutes ago There were eight courts all in action at once with a boys U16 and U18 event. Every single court, at both ends, sported two-handed backhands. Perhaps more important was the coaching realisation that around a third of the boys would have been better suited to a one-handed backhand. It is very evident when players are NOT truly suited to the two-handed shot.

[GeoffWilliams]

When I have won 4.5 tournaments, it's been due to the opponents intention to attack my one hander, coupled with their inability to return my twist serve off their back hands! They stupidly continue to attack my strong side, even when I continue to punish them on most points. My fh is just a bluff, and often succeeds in fooling them into a stupid tactic.

[lobndropshot]

When I have won 4.5 tournaments, it's been due to the opponents intention to attack my one hander, coupled with their inability to return my twist serve off their back hands! They stupidly continue to attack my strong side, even when I continue to punish them on most points. My fh is just a bluff, and often succeeds in fooling them into a stupid tactic.

Same here... I love my one hander. I think hitting a clean winner down the line with my one hander is 2nd only to the ability to fly.

[klacr]

Same here... I love my one hander. I think hitting a clean winner down the line with my one hander is 2nd only to the ability to fly.

Beautiful! Putting this quote up on my refridgerator. I agree wholeheartedly.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

Same here... I love my one hander. I think hitting a clean winner down the line with my one hander is 2nd only to the ability to fly.

It is second only to the feeling of happiness you get from: you know what.

[bottle]

Same here... I love my one hander. I think hitting a clean winner down the line with my one hander is 2nd only to the ability to fly.

Hear, Hear!