Larger head size and the one handed backhand

[arturohernandez]

Hi Everyone,

I am wondering if anyone has some thoughts on the larger head size and how it impacted the AO final and the future of the one handed backhand. When Roger switched from 90 to 97 I immediately noticed that he was not being pushed around as much. We all know what Sampras said about the larger head size (and poly strings). My sense is that part of the "matchup" problem was 90 vs. 95+. At some point Fed fell behind and could not win against all these players. As soon as he switched he began to beat the Berdych's and Tsonga's again.

My son and I both switched to 100 from 95 a few years ago. Immediately both of our one handed backhands improved. That is where I noticed the biggest change and it was from big to bigger.

I am sure that 90 to 97 feels very different for Fed and makes him shank a lot less.

I also think that Fed tweaked his technique just a tad. He seems to not come across the ball as much.

But I think the main difference is the larger head size.

See for yourself when comparing 2012 to 2017. Yes, Rafa was faster and the courts were slower. But most of all Feds backhand was loopier. Just not as explosive. This would also add up over the match as fatigue set in.

Look around the 1:55 for one rally in the 2012 SF tiebreak where Fed hits his backhand high but it only reaches the service line. Fed hits some backhand winners early but cannot sustain it like he did last Sunday.

2012 SF

https://youtu.be/FblE5Jy7qgA

2017 Final

https://youtu.be/QIpkHPzshLY

All backhand winners in final

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IOrCBo4kWM&t=146s

Any thoughts?

Arturo

[bottle]

Seems very true. The announcers kept talking about how Fed "flattened out" this shot. At one point somebody even suggested that he was hitting "underspin," something I somehow have to doubt since he's got slice shots for when he wants to do that.

The idea that he was putting no spin on the ball at all in some shots was pretty provocative though.

Me like others with a lifetime sentence am always trying to improve my one-hander. And noticed in one slo-mo sequence from the Wawrinka match how racket tip, once turned in, seemed to slide straight down the back edge of his body almost as if it was hooked on it before squaring more toward the target.

He certainly was coming down just to the ball and not below it.

[arturohernandez]

I guess the definition of less loopy is flatter. But he seemed to come across the ball more before. Now he seems to be going straight up the back more.

It would be interesting to see if one of the biomechanically oriented people could do an analysis.

I found this article that seems to confirm the Fed Backhand hypothesis:

http://deadspin.com/science-shows-th...def-1791829176

[stotty]

Interesting topic...

I have yet to watch the final but will certainly weigh in once I have. Roger's backhand has been much better for a while.

From Rafa's standpoint I will be interested to see how deep he hits his forehand in the 2017 final. He was hitting hit painfully short against Dimitrov in the semi.

What Dimitrov did better than anyone was whip up high but pacy balls up to Nadal's forehand. When these were thrown in now and again, Nadal didn't like it all. Who would have thought that?

[don_budge]

Hi Everyone,

I am wondering if anyone has some thoughts on the larger head size and how it impacted the AO final and the future of the one handed backhand. When Roger switched from 90 to 97 I immediately noticed that he was not being pushed around as much. We all know what Sampras said about the larger head size (and poly strings). My sense is that part of the "matchup" problem was 90 vs. 95+. At some point Fed fell behind and could not win against all these players. As soon as he switched he began to beat the Berdych's and Tsonga's again.

My son and I both switched to 100 from 95 a few years ago. Immediately both of our one handed backhands improved. That is where I noticed the biggest change and it was from big to bigger.

I am sure that 90 to 97 feels very different for Fed and makes him shank a lot less.

I also think that Fed tweaked his technique just a tad. He seems to not come across the ball as much.

But I think the main difference is the larger head size.

See for yourself when comparing 2012 to 2017. Yes, Rafa was faster and the courts were slower. But most of all Feds backhand was loopier. Just not as explosive. This would also add up over the match as fatigue set in.

Look around the 1:55 for one rally in the 2012 SF tiebreak where Fed hits his backhand high but it only reaches the service line. Fed hits some backhand winners early but cannot sustain it like he did last Sunday.

2012 SF

https://youtu.be/FblE5Jy7qgA

2017 Final

https://youtu.be/QIpkHPzshLY

All backhand winners in final

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IOrCBo4kWM&t=146s

Any thoughts?

Arturo

You are mirroring my thoughts for the past years that I have been writing here on this forum. Nearly from the get go I was advocating big change...in Roger Federer's racquet. My logic was simple...he was giving how many percent in racquet head size when he was playing with 90 square inches as compared to 100 square inches. Who can afford to give that much real estate away in a game where the ball is traveling so fast that "Hawkeye" is seeing balls out micro millimeters from the line? Argument over.

The larger racquet improves every shot in the repertoire. Propagandists will argue that it doesn't make any difference but the one fundamental rule of the game has to do with passing the face of the racquet through the path of the ball. Increase the size of the racquet and you increase your chances of hitting the ball on the sweetspot.

The backhand has always been the glaring weakness in the Federer game...particularly so when he was up against Nadal. This is of course because Nadal's strength is coming from his left handed game and it would play the very strength of his game into Federer's weakness.

The last time that three of four semifinalists have been using one handed backhands was the 2007 Australian Open. The winner? Roger Federer. One has to wonder how many Grand Slam tournaments that Roger did not win he might have won if his equipment equation was equal to that of his opponents. He was handicapping himself every time he went up against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic or whoever when he was using the 90 square inches of "Excalibur".

Since just about any tennis player is trained from birth to attack the opponents weakness it was the backhand of Federer that was attacked. Against the unrelenting pressure of Nadal's forehand for instance he was unable to play aggressively into the strength of Nadal, which would be crosscourt, and he was handicapped in trying to exploit the "weakness" of Nadal which would be the lesser of two evils...the backhand.

It hasn't been just the backhand of Federer that has improved with the racquet but it is the most obvious. His serve has improved at the same rate as well. His perfect motion and match tactical game have enabled to control his service game to a higher degree. This became so important in this tournament and he was a beautiful thing to watch once he was up a break in sets...he mowed them down serving out the sets. Love games galore.

That question of yours is loaded beyond explanation. Beyond your question is the pace of the courts...and the relative height of the bounce and what effect this had on the Federer backhand. But starting with the racquet is the logical place to begin.

I am an advocate of speeding up the courts and reducing the size of the racquets.

[bottle]

Skims Down Rear Edge of Bod

Sic.

[arturohernandez]

Since just about any tennis player is trained from birth to attack the opponents weakness it was the backhand of Federer that was attacked. Against the unrelenting pressure of Nadal's forehand for instance he was unable to play aggressively into the strength of Nadal, which would be crosscourt, and he was handicapped in trying to exploit the "weakness" of Nadal which would be the lesser of two evils...the backhand.

It hasn't been just the backhand of Federer that has improved with the racquet but it is the most obvious. His serve has improved at the same rate as well. His perfect motion and match tactical game have enabled to control his service game to a higher degree. This became so important in this tournament and he was a beautiful thing to watch once he was up a break in sets...he mowed them down serving out the sets. Love games galore.

.

The amazing part was how good his game was with the 90. I did notice that Fed used to return to Nadal's backhand almost all the time. But Nadal would move over if Federer went there too much and hit a forehand to control the point.

Last Sunday he was much less afraid of Nadal's forehand and in some way he kind of did what other people have done to Nadal.

He made Nadal cover the extreme cross court forehand which is his less preferred shot. Rafa usually just defends from there.

It's almost as if both of them lost about a half step.

This leads to Nadal not being able to do what he did before (hit all forehands) but also affects Fed's ability to hit the inside out forehand.

Given this limitation, Fed had no choice but to improve his backhand once again.

It was nice to see that the one handed backhand is alive and well.

Now all we need as a woman major champion with a one hander to emerge.

Then people will stop wondering why my 11 year old daughter wants to hit with one hand...

[bottle]

Amelie was pretty good. Justine, too. Nobody comparable on that side now though-- you are right about that, Arturo.

I see two different things being discussed here. Size of racket and change in backhand technique. Size of Roger's racket change has been discussed endlessly in this forum, in fact too much.

But if Roger did change his technique, we'd like to know every possible detail of that change. And me, I would be likely to listen politely to anything anyone had to say on the subject, even might listen to myself. We all need to be seekers rather than suckers, in my view, people looking for any stupid little thing that might make a big difference whether we find it or not.

[don_budge]

The amazing part was how good his game was with the 90. I did notice that Fed used to return to Nadal's backhand almost all the time. But Nadal would move over if Federer went there too much and hit a forehand to control the point.

Last Sunday he was much less afraid of Nadal's forehand and in some way he kind of did what other people have done to Nadal.

He made Nadal cover the extreme cross court forehand which is his less preferred shot. Rafa usually just defends from there.

It's almost as if both of them lost about a half step.

This leads to Nadal not being able to do what he did before (hit all forehands) but also affects Fed's ability to hit the inside out forehand.

Given this limitation, Fed had no choice but to improve his backhand once again.

It was nice to see that the one handed backhand is alive and well.

Now all we need as a woman major champion with a one hander to emerge.

Then people will stop wondering why my 11 year old daughter wants to hit with one hand...

I wrote some analysis regarding the tactics that Roger Federer should employ in the "Australian Open" thread. Take a look at my posts if you care to. I pretty much wrote what you are outlining in this post of yours. I wrote a little about some tactics that are straight out of a Bill Tilden "How to Play Better Tennis" book. A book you might want to acquire and pass on to your kids. Truly "white light" illumination stuff.

Don't wait for a woman major champion to emerge. It isn't going to happen for a while. But go ahead and train your daughter in one handed play. Teach her to play all court tennis...classic style. Trust me...by the time she is at her peak the game will have changed and this manner of play will trump the baseliners. It doesn't matter anyways regards the professional game. Your daughter will enjoy tennis for a lifetime playing the classic game and look elegant doing so. Teach her not to grunt...please. Decidedly unladylike.

[arturohernandez]

I saw that analysis. Tilden's idea are golden. I bought one of Tilden's books on Amazon. I was amazed how much the game has not changed from a feel based perspective. HIs description of spin and strategy was very eye opening. He also describes players that fit today's types.

My daughter does not grunt. And her backhand has a more flowing, slower cadence to it. It is not as punishing as all the two-handers I see. And she has lots of feel with slices, lobs and her volleys are coming along nicely.

All my kids play tennis well but school is the priority, so we have the luxury of developing their game without the pressure of results or scholarships.

[stotty]

All my kids play tennis well but school is the priority, so we have the luxury of developing their game without the pressure of results or scholarships.

Good move. This is how I played it with my children. The benefits are enormous when you do it this way. Tennis becomes a game for life rather than something a child can easily burn out of. You're a wise man.

[arturohernandez]

Yes, plus I read a book by a German coach who worked with Juniors. Besides prodigies, Men peak at 24 and women some time in their late teens/early twenties. It seems ridiculous to make decisions about their tennis "careers" when they are very young.

Plus, I have heard many stories of burnout as well.

I found two clips of Federer's backhand:

My feeling is that Federer used to point his racket backward at the end of his followthrough

https://youtu.be/oX7CcDIkMhE

Now he seems to not need to do it. Watch the replay of the backhand winner (there are two).

https://youtu.be/n2a0i4MMpUY?t=274

I think the larger head size allows him easier power and he does not need to be as violent with his finish.

Maybe you guys see something else.

[bottle]

Yes, plus I read a book by a German coach who worked with Juniors. Besides prodigies, Men peak at 24 and women some time in their late teens/early twenties. It seems ridiculous to make decisions about their tennis "careers" when they are very young.

Plus, I have heard many stories of burnout as well.

I found two clips of Federer's backhand:

My feeling is that Federer used to point his racket backward at the end of his followthrough

https://youtu.be/oX7CcDIkMhE

Now he seems to not need to do it. Watch the replay of the backhand winner (there are two).

https://youtu.be/n2a0i4MMpUY?t=274

I think the larger head size allows him easier power and he does not need to be as violent with his finish.

Maybe you guys see something else.

No, I think this is a significant difference, probably more significant than the discovery I made when I talked about the slo-mo sequence in TV coverage of the Federer-Wawrinka match. What I saw then is the racket frame just grazing the back edge of Fed's body as it goes down, almost as if it was hooked on a rod and sliding down. It was a unique sequence that the video editor decided to feature. What I will tell you is that if you personally try this after maybe not doing it all along you will notice a difference in your basic backhand for better or worse.

It's funny. You start looking at something specific and then see more and more. I'm seeing other Fed backhands now in which he doesn't do this.

[tennis_chiro]

Yes, plus I read a book by a German coach who worked with Juniors. Besides prodigies, Men peak at 24 and women some time in their late teens/early twenties. It seems ridiculous to make decisions about their tennis "careers" when they are very young.

Plus, I have heard many stories of burnout as well.

I found two clips of Federer's backhand:

My feeling is that Federer used to point his racket backward at the end of his followthrough

https://youtu.be/oX7CcDIkMhE

Now he seems to not need to do it. Watch the replay of the backhand winner (there are two).

https://youtu.be/n2a0i4MMpUY?t=274

I think the larger head size allows him easier power and he does not need to be as violent with his finish.

Maybe you guys see something else.

Arturo, I think you are right that Fed is more effective on his backhand with the larger racket head, but there is more to the difference in the stroke than just more power from the frame. I think he has a better feel for what the power of his stroke is doing. From a physics point of view, when the power is directed through the ball toward the target and the momentum of the racket head is going more toward the target, there is less inclination to pull the racket around and end up with the racket head pointed to the back fence as in your first highlight clip. The emphasis on greater topspin of the backhand side has led to more people coming across the ball more and finishing more around their body like Wawrinka, but if you truly hit through the ball and release all your power in the direction of the target you end up with the classic stroke that we saw from players like Edberg, Korda and Stich. You only saw it from Sampras when he was hitting classic running passes down the line on the grass; most of the time, he preferred to roll the ball and not give his opponents the pace on a ball they could direct back at him. But when you want to hit through the court with the backhand, there is nothing better than the principle I learned from Vic Braden running programs for him in NY in 1970: "see under the racket" at the completion of the followthrough with the wrist still laid back in the same position as at the contact. It's still one of my favorite "instant fixes" for players struggline go hit the backhand firmly and the principle works for two-handers as well except then its the left wrist that stays laid back. Vic's other term was "knuckles to the target". You will also notice that Federer's left shoulder moves hardly at all once the forward swing starts; this helps keep the head and eyes still. Of course, in the case of the two-hander, the shoulders have to come around.

don

[arturohernandez]

Hard for me to visualize what you are saying. I agree to about him staying more sideways and not pulling across the ball as much. What I wonder is whether the bigger racket head size allowed him to experiment with this more. In other words, the smaller racket kind of obligated him to use the other swing to generate power. What we don't know is what would have happened had he made the change with the old smaller racket head size.

But his backhand seems simpler now and my sense is that he is coming up behind the ball and going up and through whereas before he would kind of come across the ball. That is where he would shank or lose power. So Nadal would just keep feeding the ball there until Fed missed or gave him something short.

So I guess my question was a chicken (racket head size)/egg (technique change) question.

In either case, the larger head size has given him options I don't think he had before.

Arturo