Ultimate Fundamentals: The One Handed Backhand

[johnyandell]

Would love to hear your thoughts on "Ultimate Fundamentals: The One Handed Backhand"!

[privas]

Very nice summary. 1. So, assuming I am gonna teach the classic grip to my kiddos, is it okay to emphasize achieving the straight hitting arm position typical of the more extreme grip? (Personally, I've had trouble achieving this position at the last second before contact.) 2. Also, it is reasonable to master both grips and styles, or should we emphasize sticking to one or the other? 3. Finally, Fed's recent dominance by taking it on the rise...is there a change of grip needed for this half-volley from the service line, or is it just a matter of timing and bending the knees? Thanks John.

[klacr]

Is there any other shot that is more aesthetically pleasing than a perfectly executed one-handed backhand?

Great video John.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[johnyandell]

Privas,
I would agree about the straight arm. In fact I teach that as the racket prep position at the bottom of the backswing and let the backswing develop naturally--it will. I say start with the mildest grip--Henman Hass which is a 2 / 1. You can always work toward the stronger. I don't think Fed is making a grip change.

[klacr]

Very nice summary. 1. So, assuming I am gonna teach the classic grip to my kiddos, is it okay to emphasize achieving the straight hitting arm position typical of the more extreme grip? (Personally, I've had trouble achieving this position at the last second before contact.) 2. Also, it is reasonable to master both grips and styles, or should we emphasize sticking to one or the other? 3. Finally, Fed's recent dominance by taking it on the rise...is there a change of grip needed for this half-volley from the service line, or is it just a matter of timing and bending the knees? Thanks John.

Good questions.

Often times when we force things to happen, especially as subtle and precise as timing the straightening of the hitting arm it does more harm than good. I feel that if the set-up is proper and the technical checkpoints are met before this moment of straightening then it should happen on its own. Trying to make things happen "at the last second" rarely goes well.

Listen to John on the grips. I concur.
The Federer backhand improvement I feel is just a tactical and mentality change/commitment more than anything technical. Maybe I'm wrong. But I've seen Federer hit his backhand like this before for many years, just not at the frequency that he is doing it now.

Good luck on teaching the one-handed backhand to your students.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

The Federer backhand improvement I feel is just a tactical and mentality change/commitment more than anything technical. Maybe I'm wrong. But I've seen Federer hit his backhand like this before for many years, just not at the frequency that he is doing it now.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

A good point, and something I came to the same conclusion about myself. I think it was the Wimbledon final against Murray that Federer hit his backhand amazing well; even better than his forehand that day. I think that was one final he felt he was going to win before he even walked out on court, and because of that, he played with abandon on his backhand wing. It's probably a mental thing. The shot has always been there, he's just never used it, or at least, as you say, not nearly so frequently as of late.

[johnyandell]

It's the racket and the confidence not the stroke.

[don_budge]

3. Finally, Fed's recent dominance by taking it on the rise...is there a change of grip needed for this half-volley from the service line, or is it just a matter of timing and bending the knees?

One thing if for certain. He changed racquets. The equipment change with roughly 9% more hitting surface fundamentally changes things. It allows Federer...just like everyone else that changes to bigger racquets...to take "liberties" with his strokes.

I have been speculating that as a result of more hitting surface that Roger has further bolstered his backhand with a grip change and it may be only incremental. Say, in the neighborhood of 9% stronger. Just an incremental turning in the hand makes a world of difference. Try it for yourself.

It's pure speculation. I haven't heard boo from the horses mouth regarding this question but it is an interesting question and you would think that one of the interviewers might just think about asking it since all of the hullabaloo regarding his stronger backhand and the tactical changes he has been able to implement with it. Maybe most tennis journalists don't have much actual knowledge about some of the more intricate aspects about the actual game.

Federer is taking the ball earlier. He is more aggressive off of high balls. These are clues that there has been a fundamental change beyond the equipment. HIs backhand was never that bad...only compared to his forehand would anyone think of it as a weakness. Every aspect of Federer's game has improved...particularly his service game. Maybe about 9% improvement in every department. 9% in the hands of an assassin such as Roger Federer is a world of difference.

Here's an article about the "Death of the One Hand Backhand". Read it...there is a little surprise in it for tennisplayer.net subscribers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/m...hand.html?_r=0

I am pretty certain that Federer has changed his grip to better drive the backhand...perhaps only incrementally but Roger would certainly know how to capitalize on incremental changes. Plus all he has to do is look at his comrade...Stan Wawrinka to see what a stronger grip accomplishes.

[don_budge]

Would love to hear your thoughts on "Ultimate Fundamentals: The One Handed Backhand"!

GREAT video on the fundamentals of the one handed backhand. It's alive and kicking afterall.

[johnyandell]

Thank you sir. I believe it should be kicking a lot more than it is in junior tennis here...

[curiosity]

This is just the sort of careful thorough exposition players need. I'm going to have to spring for a month's worth of TPdotnet for a few juniors.

I have noticed that failure to succeed with a one-hander, frustration, seems often to flow from inability to avoid deceleration, hitches, in the player's swing. They just know they should be getting more power and spin. I suppose grip, forearm-to-racquet angle, good top-of-the-backswing form, and full rotation back... really have to be emphasized from the start, to enable a full energetic rotation to contact? Perhaps then the finish will take care of itself? Again, great post.

Incidentally, did you get a new mic or a better pre-amp? The recording sounds best yet. The pace, too, seemed more relaxed. "Well, thanks for sharing, curiosity." laugh.

[privas]

Personally, I lost several decades on the 1/1 grip. My shots kept going into the net. This is quite frustrating. But every coach insisted on this. I therefore switched to the two-handed backhand for 10 years. I then re-examined the one-hander, starting with the 1.5/1 grip, taught to me by my friend Barry Mills, and this changed everything! Now I use the 1/8, 1/1, 1.5/1 for the drives and of course the 2/1 for the slice. I'm not sure a kid would be willing to learn multiple grips but as John noted above, a less extreme grip like the 1.5/1 in my case, would be a reasonable start.

[johnyandell]

Not sure who made that last post--but it wasn't me! Don't agree on the two-handed return either.

[stotty]

Not sure who made that last post--but it wasn't me! Don't agree on the two-handed return either.

That was weird. Whose post was it then?

I did however agree the two-handed return trumps the one-handed return. The very best returners have all been two-handers. The one hander gets it for variety but in modern tennis that doesn't buy you much it seems. Murray is perhaps the only player who enjoys the best of both worlds in that he has a very good slice backhand, but he seldom uses it when returning, which tells us something. He opts for the two-handed return above a chip virtually every time.

[don_budge]

That was weird. Whose post was it then?

I did however agree the two-handed return trumps the one-handed return. The very best returners have all been two-handers. The one hander gets it for variety but in modern tennis that doesn't buy you much it seems. Murray is perhaps the only player who enjoys the best of both worlds in that he has a very good slice backhand, but he seldom uses it when returning, which tells us something. He opts for the two-handed return above a chip virtually every time.

It was an interesting post. It's strange someone has access to Yandell's account. Could it be the Ruskies? Sneaky devils. The post didn't seem to be keeping with Yandellian tennis philosophy. I picked up on that immediately and I was mentally kicking around a response when I left to go to the golf practice for four hours of continuous practice. The comeback is in process. It went really well...by the way. As if anyone cares. I care...that is what counts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85GDRA4UHZA

Watch the "New Kid on the Block" dismantle the most boring world's number one player ever. The two handed return trumping the one hander? How is that? Not that big of a deal. Perhaps in some situations...but the one handed return has strengths of it's own. The thing about two handed players serves...they are rather one dimensional in their own right. Murray isn't doing much with his serve and Dominic Thiem's return of serve is perfectly adequate.

Even if the two handed return was clearly superior that alone would not be reason enough to play the two handed game. It is the transition game and the net game that disappear at this supposed advantage in the return of serve. That post was clearly not Yandellian...it had holes in it.