|
|
|
|
Ball Boy
Posts: 3
|
I can't really say that the backhand caused Federer's loss at the US Open, but it didn't help him. I mean it isn't much of a weakness and up to now nobody's really been able to exploit it but, basically, like Sampras who used the same shot, Federer doesn't really have any way to generate power on backhands from the baseline or behind the baseline. Being the best there ever was at hitting that particular shot is kind of like being the all-time best with a javelin in a world in which some people have guns.
The funny thing is that the same leverage factor which produces power on the two-handed shot can generate even more power on a one-handed shot because arms and wrists don't get in each other's way:
http://bearfabrique.org/sports/backhand.HTML
| |
| | |
ATP-Level Main Draw
Posts: 1027
|
It's an interesting idea you have here...
however, what is essentially being taught in these videos is a flat backhand. there is no brushing up along the back of the ball (hence no topspin) and the resulting shot is just a flat backhand. there is nothing wrong with this (see James Blake and Sampras about 60% of the time).
However, most one-handers that hit with topspin also have the ability to hit slice AND flat. The same can't be said for flat-ballers. Slice, of course. But more often than not, flat ballers rarely use topspin.
And topspin is important in the first place because it reduces the margin of error and increases the aggressiveness and weight of a shot. Unfortunately, I don't see much in the "new" backhand displayed in these videos that would allow someone with this backhand to be a huge threat from the bh due to lack of variety. Consistent perhaps, but not a threat.
And this gentleman refers to 1-handed bh as "inefficient"... just ask Richard Gasquet- whose 1-hander has NEVER broken down (even against some of the biggest players on tour). Gasquet's motion is effortless, fluid, accurate and aggressive.
By the way, you're talking to someone who was trained with a 2-hander and still uses it the majority of the time, but who also hits a slice backhand 35% of the time and a 1-hander 10%. I think one handers CAN be efficient.
| |
| | |
Ball Boy
Posts: 3
|
The slice shots which the pros hit strike me as reasonable enough, it's the standard one handed supposedly hard shot which I don't like.
For that matter, there doesn't seem to be any element of surprise in the picture when you hit slice shots with one hand on the racquet and put the other hand on the racquet to try to hit hard shots. A person who could hit this new shot could at the very least keep people guessing.
| |
| | |
ATP-Level Main Draw
Posts: 1027
|
Understood.
I'm not really sure element of suprise is such a huge issue though. I think consistency, variety, accuracy and efficiency should be the key concerns of most tennis players.
| |
| | |
Futures Qualifier
Posts: 6
|
icebear - 10/5/2009 12:19 AM
I can't really say that the backhand caused Federer's loss at the US Open, but it didn't help him. I mean it isn't much of a weakness and up to now nobody's really been able to exploit it but, basically, like Sampras who used the same shot, Federer doesn't really have any way to generate power on backhands from the baseline or behind the baseline. Being the best there ever was at hitting that particular shot is kind of like being the all-time best with a javelin in a world in which some people have guns.
The funny thing is that the same leverage factor which produces power on the two-handed shot can generate even more power on a one-handed shot because arms and wrists don't get in each other's way:
http://bearfabrique.org/sports/backhand.HTML
I agree. Federer's backhand has been killing him all these years. Only 15 slam titles, a career slam, 20+ consecutive semis...the shot just killed Sampras too...on his way to 14 slam titles.
The 2 hand backhand requires more set up time. It's a nice shot on clay where you have all day and where the ball really kicks up high, making it a hard shot for the 1 hand player, to take the ball so high.
Then again, Kuerten was pretty good on clay, wasn't that tall, and that one hand backhand saw him to 3 FO titles.
Federer served horribly against DP. That was the match. Serve, not backhand. If we assume all tennis balls are coming back slow and loopy, then sure, the 2 hander is great.
If you have to return Andy Roddick's serve, you might prefer the shot that requires less set up time. Also, traditionally 1 handers have done much better at net. Getting to net, and hitting the volley. The 2 hander moors guys to the baseline. The 1 hander allows for much more fluidity moving forward.
And that's why, even on Wimbledon's pathetic excuse for grass courts these days, it's still a tournament dominated by the 1 hand shot...despite the fact that there are no 1 handers in the game. 9 of 10 guys are 2 handers, and Roger has won 6 of 7 there.
| |
| | |
Ball Boy
Posts: 3
|
I didn't say it was much of a weakness in Federer's case or that it was easy to exploit, but it IS a weakness, and Del Potro DID just show the whole world that it CAN be exploited.
Other than that, Federer is arguably the best tennis player of our age by a considerable margin.
| |
| | |
Legend
Posts: 5248
Location: on a voyage in space ship Earth
|
icebear - 11/3/2009 3:01 PM
I didn't say it was much of a weakness in Federer's case or that it was easy to exploit, but it IS a weakness, and Del Potro DID just show the whole world that it CAN be exploited.
Nadal has been able to play that weakness for years . . . why do you think he has a winning record against Fed?
 (closed.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 closed.jpg (36KB - 0 downloads)
| |
| |
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | |
|
|
|
