This week in the Rally, Richard Pagliaro and I discuss the recent resurgence of the one-handed backhand on the men's side, and its potential ramifications down the road.
**
Richard,
Stan Wawrinka’s win in Australia was, among other things, the capstone on a year-long resurgence of the one-handed backhand among the men. In Melbourne, Wawrinka became the first man other than Roger Federer to win a Grand Slam using a one-hander since Gaston Gaudio won the French Open in 2004. On a lower-profile but just as important note Down Under, Grigor Dimitrov showed that his own single-hander, which had once appeared to be his fatal weakness, can seemingly hold its own with anyone, including Rafael Nadal and his topspin.
It was assumed for years that the one-hander was heading for extinction, and it still seems to be on the women's side; 31-year-old Roberta Vinci is the only player in the WTA's Top 15 who currently uses one. Yet it's the toast of tennis once again; everyone who watched Wawrinka win in Oz was duty-bound to remark on how amazing and beautiful his backhand is.
I agree that this is something to celebrate; visually, there’s nothing like the sweep of a one-hander. But I can get tired of hearing the celebration. Sometimes it sounds as if people consider the one-hander to be a morally superior shot to the two-hander; as in, "that's the way tennis should be played." Few people ever speak up for the more-utilitarian two-hander, but there have also been plenty I've liked watching in recent years—Nalbandian, Djokovic, Murray, Safin, Baghdatis, Dolgopolov, Li Na, Sharapova, Azarenka, Jankovic, and others. Genie’s Bouchard’s versatile version is the latest.
What do you think, Richard, would you rather watch a one-hander or a two-hander? And do you think its recent resurgence is good for the game? I'd be happier if it actually led to more net-rushing, but it's not clear that's going to happen anytime soon.