How many Slams would Federer have if his BH did not suck? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How many Slams would Federer have if his BH did not suck?

Commander Data
01-21-2010, 08:38 AM
?

:)

EnriqueIG8
01-21-2010, 08:48 AM
36

Beforehand
01-21-2010, 08:50 AM
All of them.

brithater
01-21-2010, 08:57 AM
Forget the backhand. The forehand is his real weakness.

Commander Data
01-21-2010, 09:15 AM
All of them.

Bingo!

Arkulari
01-21-2010, 09:18 AM
I don't even want to think about it :lol:

osalsyst
01-21-2010, 09:19 AM
I don't know maybe like 5 or 6?

Apemant
01-21-2010, 09:30 AM
His BH doesn't really 'suck' - it's just a poor rally shot. His BH slice is exquisite, BH passing shots are great, and BH dropshot as good as well.

BH neutral rally topspin, that's the weakness.


If he had Guga's BH topspin... ugh, that's actually a scary thought. :devil:

Halba
01-21-2010, 10:19 AM
His BH doesn't really 'suck' - it's just a poor rally shot. His BH slice is exquisite, BH passing shots are great, and BH dropshot as good as well.

BH neutral rally topspin, that's the weakness.


If he had Guga's BH topspin... ugh, that's actually a scary thought. :devil:

davy, nadal/murray, and djoker will give it a good test this week.

but when he's on, fed doesn't need to use a BH.

Apemant
01-21-2010, 10:22 AM
davy, nadal/murray, and djoker will give it a good test this week.

but when he's on, fed doesn't need to use a BH.

Doesn't need to use BH topspin too much... off clay. The task is often accomplished by mixing BH slice with an occasional BH topspin to break the rhythm, then if it catches the opponent of guard, running around the BH and unleash the FH. But, if FH doesn't work well - as it sometimes doesn't - then he's doomed. :devil:

MatchFederer
01-21-2010, 10:31 AM
15. His backhand doesn't suck. It isn't even a 'poor' rally shot.

Keeping it real folks.

Peace out.

*flies away*

Sampras is King
01-21-2010, 10:50 AM
Same as above, his backhand sucks? OK.

Now here's a real honest question for you, how may grand slams would Sampras have won if he didn't have a blood disorder?

Are people even aware of that?

Or how many grand slams would Borg have won if he'd kept playing?

What's done is done.

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 10:58 AM
His BH doesn't really 'suck' - it's just a poor rally shot. His BH slice is exquisite, BH passing shots are great, and BH dropshot as good as well.

BH neutral rally topspin, that's the weakness.


If he had Guga's BH topspin... ugh, that's actually a scary thought. :devil:

True, although if you remember when he was at his peak (2004-6, maybe 7), all the talk was about how he didn't have any weaknesses. When Nadal came along, everybody said he just had a problem with high-bouncing balls to his backhand on clay. And that was partly true, though it's also true that nobody has been as adept as Nadal at forcing him to play neutral rally backhands.

Apemant
01-21-2010, 11:08 AM
True, although if you remember when he was at his peak (2004-6, maybe 7), all the talk was about how he didn't have any weaknesses. When Nadal came along, everybody said he just had a problem with high-bouncing balls to his backhand on clay. And that was partly true, though it's also true that nobody has been as adept as Nadal at forcing him to play neutral rally backhands.

Only Fedtards talked about having 'no weakness' - his BH topspin was always a weakness, from his early days people were trying to beat him by pouncing his BH. It's not 'easy' to do, because he is very quick (extremely, in his younger days) and has a great defensive BH slice. But that slice doesn't work vs. Nadal on clay (and not even on grass since they made it slow as ass), and against other people who are great movers and have rock-solid backhands (very few of those).

brithater
01-21-2010, 11:11 AM
I am not a fanboy but he has one of the greatest backhands of all time if not the greatest. Name me three players that can match it in terms of versatility.

He also has one of the most underated returns of serve of all time. Hes obviously not at the form he once was but saying his backhand is weak is a joke.

Gasquet may have the greatest backhand I have ever seen but it is not as versitile. That include all the great one handers from different eras.

Up until Federer I would have said Korda or Edberg but Federers is better.

Apemant
01-21-2010, 11:14 AM
15. His backhand doesn't suck. It isn't even a 'poor' rally shot.

'Poor' compared to other facets of his game, of course. Not in absolute sense of the word.

rolandgarros
01-21-2010, 11:19 AM
idot

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 11:24 AM
Only Fedtards talked about having 'no weakness' - his BH topspin was always a weakness, from his early days people were trying to beat him by pouncing his BH. It's not 'easy' to do, because he is very quick (extremely, in his younger days) and has a great defensive BH slice. But that slice doesn't work vs. Nadal on clay (and not even on grass since they made it slow as ass), and against other people who are great movers and have rock-solid backhands (very few of those).

All strengths & weaknesses are relative. Was the backhand weaker than the forehand? Yes, by far. Was it worse than most other backhands? By no means. When non-tards talked about no weaknesses, they meant in the 2nd sense. That's why (for the reasons you mention) very few players enjoyed any success targeting Federer's backhand. Hewitt used to do it relentlessly, with little to show for it. Obviously didn't help that his shots don't bounce very high.

Great mover + rock-solid backhand = Murray.

JolánGagó
01-21-2010, 11:27 AM
retardest thread so far this year.

brithater
01-21-2010, 11:32 AM
Murray.......does not even compare. The versitility is not there and besides that its a two hander. The only reason his backhand looks good is because his forehand is so weak. Murrays forhand is not even top 5 in history for two handers.

Movement.......get real. Federer is top 3 for greatest movers in history (Borg, Edberg, Federer). Maybe even #1.

This Murray insanity never ends. Whats next...Murray has the greatest return of all time???

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 11:37 AM
Murray.......does not even compare. The versitility is not there and besides that its a two hander. The only reason his backhand looks good is because his forehand is so weak. Murrays forhand is not even top 5 in history for two handers.

Movement.......get real. Federer is top 3 for greatest movers in history (Borg, Edberg, Federer). Maybe even #1.

This Murray insanity never ends. Whats next...Murray has the greatest return of all time???

I wasn't comparing Murray with Federer, although now you mention it, I think his backhand is better and his movement on a par. I was pointing him out as somebody who fitted Apemant's criteria for successfully targeting Federer's backhand. Why else would Murray have such a good record against Fed?

JolánGagó
01-21-2010, 11:38 AM
Murray movement in par with Federer's... :scratch:

:spit:

Lopez
01-21-2010, 11:41 AM
All strengths & weaknesses are relative. Was the backhand weaker than the forehand? Yes, by far. Was it worse than most other backhands? By no means. When non-tards talked about no weaknesses, they meant in the 2nd sense. That's why (for the reasons you mention) very few players enjoyed any success targeting Federer's backhand. Hewitt used to do it relentlessly, with little to show for it. Obviously didn't help that his shots don't bounce very high.

Great mover + rock-solid backhand = Murray.

Yeah and people just can't seem to see the context of the whole thing. In tennis, you play to your strenghts and that's why weaknesses tend to stem from strenghts.

Federer has an awesome forehand, naturally he will run around the backhand in matches since he wants to win. Repeat that a good few years, and you can see that's why the backhand isn't as good.

Same with Roddick and to an extent Karlovic for example... People are always criticizing their serves, e.g. "If he didn't have that serve he wouldn't be in the top 100". Well, if they didn't have those serves, their ground games would be better since they would be forced to play more of those shots in match play.

How many Slams would Federer have with a good backhand, but also merely a good forehand?

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 11:44 AM
Murray movement in par with Federer's... :scratch:

:spit:

Well, he's faster, I would say. Maybe not as good at positioning himself to hit a decent shot when he's got there.

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 11:46 AM
Yeah and people just can't seem to see the context of the whole thing. In tennis, you play to your strenghts and that's why weaknesses tend to stem from strenghts.

Federer has an awesome forehand, naturally he will run around the backhand in matches since he wants to win. Repeat that a good few years, and you can see that's why the backhand isn't as good.

Same with Roddick and to an extent Karlovic for example... People are always criticizing their serves, e.g. "If he didn't have that serve he wouldn't be in the top 100". Well, if they didn't have those serves, their ground games would be better since they would be forced to play more of those shots in match play.

How many Slams would Federer have with a good backhand, but also merely a good forehand?

There's SOME truth in this, but against top players Federer has to play many more backhands than forehands.

Haelfix
01-21-2010, 11:50 AM
His topspin backhand is a solid B or B+ stroke. He gets great angles with it, especially when he takes it early and can really put some spin on it. During his prime, the DTL backhand shot was a thing of beauty and a huge weapon. His passing shots are also top tier. Rally stroke wise, when he takes it late its merely average.

Depending on the surface it gets better or worse. For instance, at Wimbledon his backhand is one of the more deadly shots on tour, whereas on clay its merely average.

Obviously the slice backhand is one of the best the tour has ever seen. Some say thats his best shot and what differentiates him from other guys who have huge forehands. Its one of the tools that sets up his brilliant point construction.

So no, i'd venture to guess he wouldn't have as many slam wins without the backhand that he currently has. You might find some guys with better topspin bhs, but not with the variety and it wouldn't necessarily help him more than he has now.

madmax
01-21-2010, 11:53 AM
He would win all of them and haters would be crying the rivers about "mugs", handing wins to him on a platter...

brithater
01-21-2010, 11:53 AM
I wasn't comparing Murray with Federer, although now you mention it, I think his backhand is better and his movement on a par. I was pointing him out as somebody who fitted Apemant's criteria for successfully targeting Federer's backhand. Why else would Murray have such a good record against Fed?

Murray goes out and does a square dance while Federer, Edberg, and Borg looked like they could be in a ballet.

There are also different kind and styles of movers. Watch Gasquet move. He is the best I have seen of the hard movers. Better than Chang and that is saying alot. Murray is more of a manufactered mover and not even one of the best of those. Murray is slightly above average. He does not even rival guys like Ferrer or Nadal. Maybe Robredo and Verdasco.

brithater
01-21-2010, 12:05 PM
His topspin backhand is a solid B or B+ stroke. He gets great angles with it, especially when he takes it early and can really put some spin on it. During his prime, the DTL backhand shot was a thing of beauty and a huge weapon. His passing shots are also top tier. Rally stroke wise, when he takes it late its merely average.

Depending on the surface it gets better or worse. For instance, at Wimbledon his backhand is one of the more deadly shots on tour, whereas on clay its merely average.

Obviously the slice backhand is one of the best the tour has ever seen. Some say thats his best shot and what differentiates him from other guys who have huge forehands. Its one of the tools that sets up his brilliant point construction.

So no, i'd venture to guess he wouldn't have as many slam wins without the backhand that he currently has. You might find some guys with better topspin bhs, but not with the variety and it wouldn't necessarily help him more than he has now.

Which Backhand in Tennis History is Better? There might be players like Gasquet with a better topspin Backhand but they lack in all other areas such as Passing shots, touch, slice, return of serve, handleing pace, taking the ball early etc. There is no backhand more complete in the history of this game.

Its the same on his forehand side. There are guys that can hit harder and more spin but in terms of versatility there isnt a better forehand in the history of the game.

Even the all time great two handed backhands cannot rival Federers diversity of the backhand side. There more to it than pace and spin. There touch and variety as well. Federer pretty much has it all.

I have never seen a one handed backhand as lethal as Gasquets. Korda's was close.

Haelfix
01-21-2010, 12:09 PM
Murray has great recovery movement and court sense/anticipation. His sprint speed is ok, but not like say Blake or Monfils (both of who probably would beat the rest of the tour in a 40 yard dash at their best). What he does do well is to go 100% all the time (alla Nadal), whereas a guy like Federer is naturally quicker but not always going gungho.

He has top tier movement, but I wouldn't put him in the same class as prime Federer or prime Nadal.

castle007
01-21-2010, 12:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2OcNKr011E

Apemant
01-21-2010, 12:12 PM
All strengths & weaknesses are relative. Was the backhand weaker than the forehand? Yes, by far. Was it worse than most other backhands? By no means. When non-tards talked about no weaknesses, they meant in the 2nd sense. That's why (for the reasons you mention) very few players enjoyed any success targeting Federer's backhand. Hewitt used to do it relentlessly, with little to show for it. Obviously didn't help that his shots don't bounce very high.

Actually, I agree with the above. Surely, if some decent but non-spectacular top20 player had the exact same BH, it would be ludicrous to consider it a 'weakness'. So it is indeed relative; the fact that certain people have the ability to capitalize on that relative weakness, doesn't mean that it is generally a 'big liability'.

Like I said, many facets of his BH are not just OK, but rather 'great' (slice, dropshot, volley, block return, short backswing passers) - it's just his topspin BH that isn't 'on par' with the rest of his arsenal.

Lopez
01-21-2010, 12:13 PM
There's SOME truth in this, but against top players Federer has to play many more backhands than forehands.

Sure, even more so with Nadal and Murray. But when he was young, he dominated with the forehand, that's when his game developed.

And Federer will run around his backhand given the opportunity. This also shows his mentality: he likes to play the shot he trusts more. This confidence in the shot is a major part of the shot itself.

Haelfix
01-21-2010, 12:14 PM
Several tennis players in history have had imo better overall backhands. Often what they lack in Feds variety, they make up for in power and crucially consistency (which is a weak point of both Gasquet and Roger). For instance Nalbandian's backhand is a ridiculous shot, ditto with Safin and Agassi.

Now, would it help Federer if he had their backhands? Probably not, b/c of the way he plays the game, but then they're still better if I was starting an average player from scratch.

abraxas21
01-21-2010, 12:14 PM
I have never seen a one handed backhand as lethal as Gasquets. Korda's was close.

Kuerten's one handed backhand during his prime was much better and consistent than gasquet's, imo.

Apemant
01-21-2010, 12:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2OcNKr011E

Damn, that was TMF at his finest. I miss those days. :devil:

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 12:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2OcNKr011E

Always seemed to hit the backhand well in Shanghai, but he never hit it as well anywhere as he did in this match. His backhand would probably look better if there were more fast indoor courts around, allowing him to feed off an opponent's pace without having to worry about bounce.

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 12:31 PM
Actually, I agree with the above. Surely, if some decent but non-spectacular top20 player had the exact same BH, it would be ludicrous to consider it a 'weakness'. So it is indeed relative; the fact that certain people have the ability to capitalize on that relative weakness, doesn't mean that it is generally a 'big liability'.

Like I said, many facets of his BH are not just OK, but rather 'great' (slice, dropshot, volley, block return, short backswing passers) - it's just his topspin BH that isn't 'on par' with the rest of his arsenal.

Agreed.

Sophocles
01-21-2010, 12:31 PM
This confidence in the shot is a major part of the shot itself.

That's a good point.

brithater
01-21-2010, 12:32 PM
Kuerten's one handed backhand during his prime was much better and consistent than gasquet's, imo.

Nope. Not even on clay. Also with Guga...his backhand was weak in 97 and 98. In 99 it started to get a little better. By 2001 I would say he and Gaudio had the two best one handers on clay.

Gasguets backhand is god given and completly natural. Its great on every surface. Guga's was great on clay and ok on everything else. Gasquet's topspin backhand is rediculous and it has been since birth. I believe it is the result of some kind of genetic defect.

Commander Data
01-21-2010, 12:39 PM
retardest thread so far this year.

Thanks! It really means the world to me.

Commander Data
01-21-2010, 12:45 PM
Okay "suck" was maybe a strong word. But is BH is clearly his weak point. So what if it was as great as his FH?

brithater
01-21-2010, 12:51 PM
Probably the same amount. Maybe another French or two, Maybe not. Nadal would still be beating him though. Its more of a mental thing with him and Nadal. Besides, Nadal is really about the only player that has the shot to exploit his backhand.

Now if you really want to be serious lets answer me this......

How many more slams would Federer have if he did not bring purses on court and act like a metrosexual?

Vida
01-21-2010, 01:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2OcNKr011E

...and against such an inspiring opponent.

MIMIC
01-21-2010, 01:22 PM
15

LocoPorElTenis
01-21-2010, 01:23 PM
how many slams would Nadal have if he had Karlovi'c serve?
how many slams would Potro collect in his career if he moved like Coria at his peak?
how many slams would King Oscar have if he had Karlovic's serve, Federer's FH, Gasquet's BH when it's on, Nadal's movement and passing shots, Murray's versatility and return, Del Potro's mental strength and power, Sampras' volleys and Baghdatis' charisma?

:confused:

Commander Data
01-21-2010, 01:45 PM
how many slams would Nadal have if he had Karlovi'c serve?
how many slams would Potro collect in his career if he moved like Coria at his peak?
how many slams would King Oscar have if he had Karlovic's serve, Federer's FH, Gasquet's BH when it's on, Nadal's movement and passing shots, Murray's versatility and return, Del Potro's mental strength and power, Sampras' volleys and Baghdatis' charisma?

:confused:

what has charisma got to do with it :confused:

Logical
01-21-2010, 01:59 PM
Zero. If his backhand was great, players would of ripped his forehand and made him another Richard Gasquet.

swebright
01-21-2010, 01:59 PM
at least 15.

KolyaLegend
01-21-2010, 02:06 PM
46 in singles and 58 in doubles

Stefanos13
01-21-2010, 02:16 PM
His backhand doesn't suck – it's actually great. This myth has stemmed from the fact that it can't cope with Nadal's topspin. But other than that it's great. The question is how many slams he would've won if Roddick hadn't choked at Wimbledon and Djokovic at the USO finals and if Nadal hadn't been injured at the French (and Wimbledon for that matter) :) *ducks*

dombrfc
01-21-2010, 07:38 PM
how many slams would King Oscar have if he had Karlovic's serve, Federer's FH, Gasquet's BH when it's on, Nadal's movement and passing shots, Murray's versatility and return, Del Potro's mental strength and power, Sampras' volleys and Baghdatis' charisma?


182

born_on_clay
01-21-2010, 08:29 PM
6 more than he has now

McAlistar
01-21-2010, 09:44 PM
Wawrinka and Gasquet have superior backhands.

DrJules
01-21-2010, 09:53 PM
how many slams would Nadal have if he had Karlovi'c serve?
how many slams would Potro collect in his career if he moved like Coria at his peak?
how many slams would King Oscar have if he had Karlovic's serve, Federer's FH, Gasquet's BH when it's on, Nadal's movement and passing shots, Murray's versatility and return, Del Potro's mental strength and power, Sampras' volleys and Baghdatis' charisma?

:confused:

It would kill tennis because a player would win everything.

Federer has been the most dominent player in the history of tennis particularly from 2004 to 2007 inclusive. If he did have a better backhand he would have been unbeatable and bored the viewing public with such domination.

Tsonganator
01-21-2010, 10:48 PM
His backhand doesn't suck – it's actually great. This myth has stemmed from the fact that it can't cope with Nadal's topspin. But other than that it's great. The question is how many slams he would've won if Roddick hadn't choked at Wimbledon and Djokovic at the USO finals and if Nadal hadn't been injured at the French (and Wimbledon for that matter) :) *ducks*

I don't think Federer's current backhand is great other than against Nadal. He constantly hits it short defensively, and his attack lacks power compared to most 2-handers in top 20. I'm not saying it was always like this, but even in good matches ie. yesterday vs. Hanescu, even a non-tennis fan could tell that it is somewhat weak (topspin rally that is).

Federerhingis
01-22-2010, 12:37 AM
I am not a fanboy but he has one of the greatest backhands of all time if not the greatest. Name me three players that can match it in terms of versatility.

He also has one of the most underated returns of serve of all time. Hes obviously not at the form he once was but saying his backhand is weak is a joke.

Gasquet may have the greatest backhand I have ever seen but it is not as versitile. That include all the great one handers from different eras.

Up until Federer I would have said Korda or Edberg but Federers is better.

Versatility and greatness aren't always synonyms, actually they're not in any dictionary but usually versatility is equated with greatness or superiority, but in Fed's case his backhand is far from great or the greatest of any generation, maybe his passing shot abilities may place him some where in the top 5. In fact Guga beat an almost peak Roger at Roland with his far superior backhand almost exclusively relying on that shot and his great movement on clay.

leng jai
01-22-2010, 12:39 AM
If his backhand didn't suck he'd be playing on the Intergalactic circuit.

Ibracadabra
01-22-2010, 01:02 AM
The calendar slam from 02-10 and counting.

Clay Death
01-22-2010, 01:21 AM
?

:)


could you possibly have come with a more useless topic and title? i mean this is stooping to the level of a functionally useless 6 year old lab chimp.

mods: drag this pathetic thread outside and have a couple of rabid dogs shit on it repeatedly for 3 days.

Commander Data
01-22-2010, 07:56 AM
could you possibly have come with a more useless topic and title?

I can try...

for example:
How many GS would Nadal have if his knees were strong?
What would Nadals legend be like if there was no Söderling?
How many GS would Nadal have, had he played in Kuertens era?
How many GS would Fed have if the court speeds wouldn't have been normalized?

And my current fav:

How many Slams would Fed have with a two-handed BH?

gusavo
01-22-2010, 10:08 AM
Murray.......does not even compare. The versitility is not there and besides that its a two hander. The only reason his backhand looks good is because his forehand is so weak. Murrays forhand is not even top 5 in history for two handers.

Movement.......get real. Federer is top 3 for greatest movers in history (Borg, Edberg, Federer). Maybe even #1.

This Murray insanity never ends. Whats next...Murray has the greatest return of all time???

yep, the antimurray insanity never ends. yet another hillarious post. so their backhands doesent compare? murray is a million times worse in every way yet they are about even now.
say, how much of a chance does murray have to win this aus open?

ToniTennis
01-22-2010, 10:26 AM
Countless... only that his BH doesn't suck AT ALL.

So 15, :)

justine&coria
01-22-2010, 10:54 AM
If his backhand didn't suck, his forehand wouldn't be as good ;).