Gasquet or Wawrinka : Better Backhand

Dark Knight
04-03-2013, 09:37 AM
Two of the best one handed backhands on tour: Gasquet and Wawrinka.

Both can blast winners of that wing and look pretty at the same time.

Who do you think has the better backhand?? :)

leng jai
04-03-2013, 09:39 AM
Wawrinka probably has the best offensive single handed top spin backhand in the game. Gasquet's can't really compete because of his nonsense court positioning.

B-Nard
04-03-2013, 09:39 AM
This question has been battered and asked to death. Gasquet hits with more precision and angle and Stan has more flatness and power.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 09:41 AM
almagro

blackwell
04-03-2013, 09:42 AM
Also Almagro, Haas and Youzhny..
But the most beautiful BH probably Wawrinka's and he plays exciting tennis unlike an annoying pusher Gasquet.
Gasquet's BH is more reliable though

B-Nard
04-03-2013, 09:43 AM
I'm not a Gasquetfan and I prefer Wawrinka, but Gasquet's backhand is clearly even better than Wawrinka's.

Even offensively.

Please elaborate.

Puschkin
04-03-2013, 09:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX6JPZQiu9Q

Nixer
04-03-2013, 10:00 AM
Wawrinka probably has the best offensive single handed top spin backhand in the game. Gasquet's can't really compete because of his nonsense court positioning.

I agree. Wawrinka's BH is consistently better offensively. Gasquet will generally push a lot of BHs only to hit some flashy winner once per game.

B-Nard
04-03-2013, 10:03 AM
I can't elaborate a lot :shrug:

The only things I can say is :

- when you say than "Stan has more flatness and power", actually Gasquet can hit it flat and powerful as well ;
- videos might be helpful but I'm at work and have no access to youtube.

Gasquet has a less offensive mind and has a very far court-positioning but it's only partly because of his backhand imo (it's also because of his mind and footwork, and because of his forehand), because yes he's more comfortable when the ball is low, that's the ideal conditions for his backhand, but I saw him hit great backhands on high balls as well. And Stan also is more comfortable when the ball is not too high.

Any tennis player can hit the ball "hard" and "flat", but it's how you adopt this style and bring it to the court. Gasquet is capable of ripping excessively powerful BH's, but elects to be more precise and angle-driven (which is beneficiary in the long run), whereas Warwrinka pushes and attacks with much more frequency and manages to give it incredible pop. Both are impeccable for different reasons. It entirely depends of the surface, as well.

afterglows
04-03-2013, 10:04 AM
At the end of this video :
http://www.tennistv.com/video/clip/1957164

Fish and Tipsarevic seem to give the edge to Gasquet.

Dougie
04-03-2013, 10:19 AM
Gasquet´s big backswing requires time, that´s one (if not the only) reason he likes to play so far back. Wawrinka´s bh is more compact, so it´s easier for him to step in and be offensive with the shot. If we are talking just about winners, then there´s not much difference because Gasquet can blast those from practically any position, but Wawrinka is better at taking the ball earlier and taking time off from his opponent. In other words, it´s offensively a bit more versatile.

leng jai
04-03-2013, 10:21 AM
Gasquet can hit it better than Wawrinka but at the same time Wawrinka's peak backhand is just as good. Gasquet wastes so much of the match hitting backhands that have close to zero offensive value that it's almost impossible for me to say it's better. A few flashy winners and passing shots on the run don't change the fact that Gasquet's backhand is simply not as good for the "meat" of the match.

MIMIC
04-03-2013, 10:28 AM
Better? I guess that depends on which quality you see as more superior. Gasquet his a more precise BH while Wawrinka can hit a more powerful one and basically bludgeon you with it.

Almost like apples and oranges; they're both great in their own right. But if I'd have to pick, I'd go with Gasquet.

Dark Knight
04-03-2013, 10:30 AM
Wawrinka probably has the best offensive single handed top spin backhand in the game. Gasquet's can't really compete because of his nonsense court positioning.

Agree with you there dude.

Gasquet goes way back into the court to get his swing....Stan doesn't seem to do that.

Dark Knight
04-03-2013, 10:31 AM
At the end of this video :
http://www.tennistv.com/video/clip/1957164

Fish and Tipsarevic seem to give the edge to Gasquet.

I think this has to do with the fact that Gasquet is the more successful player.

Dark Knight
04-03-2013, 10:32 AM
This question has been battered and asked to death. Gasquet hits with more precision and angle and Stan has more flatness and power.

Didn't know that....joined MTF few weeks back mate. :)

leng jai
04-03-2013, 10:41 AM
Gasquet's backhand is more reliable and that's a very important quality even if it's an underrated one.

Gasquet looks more than Stan for the ideal position but actually he can adapt to more shots directed to his backhand than Stan. Stan is more of a rhythm player.

as for the "peak", Gasquet's peak backhand is better but he uses it less often than Stan for sure.

To be honest if you're going for reliability you might as well go with a double handed backhand. Single handers are inherently unreliable and prone to error eventually so they're best used for offense and versatility. Gasquet's backhand is more reliable than most single handers because he sits back and his it with huge margin of the net. In my mind that defeats the purpose of his backhand in the first place. I've never seen Gasquet dominate a match with his backhand like Wawrinka has. For a shot that's supposed to be "amazing" it's far too reactive for my liking.

Abel
04-03-2013, 10:45 AM
Agree entirely with leng jai.

arm
04-03-2013, 10:55 AM
Wawa has the most beautiful single handed BH I ever saw. The movement is just beautiful. :hearts: Is it the best? I'll leave that assertion for the single BH lovers. :p

Henry Chinaski
04-03-2013, 11:20 AM
Wawrinka's backhand holds up much better in the average cross court rally.

even average backhands like ferrer can take control of a rally if they keep the ball to a decent length crosscourt against gasquet. he cedes too much court position. wawrinka is much more dominant in such exchanges.

asmazif
04-03-2013, 11:29 AM
I feel Stan is more consistent in his aggression (and I prefer watching him), but that seems to be mostly through choice?

Lugburz
04-03-2013, 11:43 AM
Both great, Wawrinka's better imo. I also prefer it considering his bh is way more flat and aggressive.

TigerTim
04-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Wawarinka's is a joy to watch

The Prince
04-03-2013, 11:47 AM
Almost two whole pages, and nobody has brought up Fed's single hander? :lol: I'm surprised.

I think Wawrinka's is a bit better. If I was a pro player, I'd much rather get into backhand exchanges with Gasquet, as his ball isn't as heavy as Wawrinka's.

redshift36188
04-03-2013, 12:48 PM
At the end of this video :
http://www.tennistv.com/video/clip/1957164

Fish and Tipsarevic seem to give the edge to Gasquet.
Ferrer: "Andy Murray, he never misses it."
Sums up Ferrer's tennis philosophy very well.

Slice Winner
04-03-2013, 12:49 PM
Everytime, I see the word "Ferrer" somewhere, I give up making any kind of sensible argument on MTF.

Anyway, everytime a player plays against Ferrer, he plays bad, that's MTF's jurisprudence. Watch Gasquet against Ferrer, you will find him unbelievably bad. Watch Wawrinka against Ferrer you will find him unbelievably bad. Watch Murray against Ferrer you will find him unbelievably bad (it was clear on sunday that Murray outplayed Ferrer in the backhand-to-backhand rallies :rolleyes: )

Lenders has given you some kind of complex :lol:

Henry Chinaski
04-03-2013, 01:00 PM
Anyway, I'm sure that if there was a poll "who has the better forehand, backhand, serve ?" Wawrinka would be ahead of Gasquet in each category.

The same for a poll "Ferrer vs Berdych", Berdych would be ahead in each category.

Which is of course shown in the rankings and when they play against each other ...

MTFers could at least try to be coherent by concluding : well if Ferrer is less good than them in all of these categories but still regularly defeats them and is ranked more highly, it could mean that legs are the most important quality in tennis nowadays ?

But no they won't ... they will keep on making polls "who has the best weapons ?" and argue that this or that player will never make the top-10-20-50-100 whatever "because he has no weapon".

And anyway Gasquet will be glad to learn from MTFers that he has one quality that Wawrinka doesn't have : fitness :lol:



Everytime, I see the word "Ferrer" somewhere, I give up making any kind of sensible argument on MTF.

Anyway, everytime a player plays against Ferrer, he plays bad, that's MTF's jurisprudence. Watch Gasquet against Ferrer, you will find him unbelievably bad. Watch Wawrinka against Ferrer you will find him unbelievably bad. Watch Murray against Ferrer you will find him unbelievably bad (it was clear on sunday that Murray outplayed Ferrer in the backhand-to-backhand rallies :rolleyes: )

haha wtf?

calm down. I'm just using Ferrer as an example of someone with a fairly average backhand, neither very good nor very bad. would you deny he falls in that category? I was struck by how often he was able to dominate those rallies with gasquet last time I watched him.

I also find the match ups with Nalbandian interesting. Wawrinka owns Dave, yet Gasquet can't win a set from him. And no I'm not trying to draw definite conclusions from one match either, just saying it's interesting to compare the match ups against one of the elite 2-handers.

Henry Chinaski
04-03-2013, 01:40 PM
I'm very calm and I think that my post was very accurate.

And what do you think of the other things I said about the fact that if there was a poll "Gasquet against Wawrinka : forehand, backhand, serve", Wawrinka would be ahead in the poll for each category ?


The topic here is specifically about one of those weapons so I don't understand the relevance.

I explained why I used Ferrer as an example. Your rant about MTF and Ferrer is both irrelevant and absurd to the discussion.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 01:47 PM
The topic here is specifically about one of those weapons so I don't understand the relevance.

I explained why I used Ferrer as an example. Your rant about MTF and Ferrer is both irrelevant and absurd to the discussion.

Ignore him. It's pretty clear that I'm the only poster on MTF who can analyse Ferrer with a level head from an unbiased and fair perspective, Duong can't help let his bias get in the way unfortunately.

FlameOn
04-03-2013, 01:56 PM
Wawrinka.

Timot
04-03-2013, 02:07 PM
Almagro's one-hander is also nice when he's on. Although, I'll give edge to Wawrinka if we talk about offensive. Gasquet's is nice but I don't think it's as dangerous for opponents.

timafi
04-03-2013, 02:09 PM
both Wawrinka's and Gasquet's backhands are terrific but Gasquet's backhand has won him titles on ALL surfaces!

Slice Winner
04-03-2013, 02:12 PM
The real discussion: Who has the best backhand in tennis - Wawrinka or Djokovic?

BauerAlmeida
04-03-2013, 02:33 PM
Both are fantastic, but Gasquet's is a bit better IMO. And yes, he can flatten it and hit very powerful backhands, he doesn't only push with it.

Burrow
04-03-2013, 02:40 PM
The topic here is specifically about one of those weapons so I don't understand the relevance.

I explained why I used Ferrer as an example. Your rant about MTF and Ferrer is both irrelevant and absurd to the discussion.

Dung is always like that. A very sensitive person. Handle Dung with care.

I think Gasquet's court positioning lets him down in a tactical sense as well as technical sense. One may say that Gasquet needs time to set up his backhand, which in part is true, but earlier in his career he showed no signs of weakness in dealing with hard and flat shots to the backhand side. I don't think it's surface specific, because it's not like faster surfaces today are so fast that only those with compact swings can succeed. Look at Nadal as a perfect example. It seems to me that the longer a match goes, the deeper Gasquet becomes. Due to this, it's pretty impossible to say who has the best backhand. Wawrinka certainly uses his more appropriately to where his strengths lie.

Nole Rules
04-03-2013, 02:53 PM
Stan.

ProdigyEng
04-03-2013, 03:07 PM
Ignore him. It's pretty clear that I'm the only poster on MTF who can analyse Ferrer with a level head from an unbiased and fair perspective, Duong can't help let his bias get in the way unfortunately.
Mentioning your secret lover once more I see.

Henry Chinaski
04-03-2013, 03:23 PM
I'm generally sensitive, but here my sensivity was not concerned at all : my post was very calm and serious and I think it was accurate.

Still I've had no answer to the incoherences I mentioned :shrug:

your point is ridiculous but if you want me to address it I will briefly.

even if we say wawrinka has a better forehand, serve and fitness it still doesn't prove gasquet has a better backhand.

the ability to win tennis matches is partly intangible. You can't break it down to simple strengths and weaknesses. one player can have a better career than another despite being inferior in virtually all discernible categories. that's tennis.

I'm surprised you'd resort to such a kindergarten argument.

Gillouthe best
04-03-2013, 03:42 PM
I think Richard has more variety ( better slice, can defend a bit better), but Stan's power i think is unmatched. I would prefer to have Ritchie's though.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Nole Rules
04-03-2013, 04:13 PM
No way Gasquet's BH can do what Stan done with his BH against Djokovic in AO.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 04:52 PM
Gasquet has better bh in case of pushing errors and building combination.And his bh more stable.
As for offensive part of shot, i think Wawrinka has better one. He meets ball earlier and his BH is more compact and his court position is far more better for making winners

simplet
04-03-2013, 05:34 PM
Did Gasquet win a slam when I wasn't looking? Why is every other thread on GM about him these days?

silverarrows
04-03-2013, 05:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX6JPZQiu9Q


Vaporized.

abraxas21
04-03-2013, 06:22 PM
who cares

almagro's bh > gasquet's and wawrinka's btw

fedalrock
04-03-2013, 06:31 PM
Both have one of the best one-handed backhand.:shrug:
Gasquet's backhand looks aesthetically better but his court position negates most of the power he generates. Also he needs a massive backswing. But when his backhand is on it's a pleasure to watch.
Wawrinka on the other hand is much more offensive and hits some ridiculous winners with it with good positioning on the court.
Both are really different. A better comparison maybe between Almagro and Wawrinka as they are similar in style.

HKz
04-03-2013, 06:40 PM
Pretty even to be honest. Gasquet can rip his backhand down the line at will and his slice is adequate. Wawrinka's cross court backhand is extremely heavy and his one down the line is not too shabby. Can't really choose one over the other, but perhaps leaning towards Wawrinka's backhand as seems like such a heavy shot to deal with all the time.

Kyle_Johansen
04-03-2013, 07:01 PM
Stan for me. Gasquet's BH is amazing but I've seen Stan's be just as incredible, like at the AO vs Nole.

SimaoPancao
04-03-2013, 07:02 PM
Gasquet has the beuty, Waw the most effective one.

lidal
04-03-2013, 08:57 PM
Stan's bh is a bit better, Gasquet's bh is (slightly) overrated, imo.

Gasquet has the beuty, Waw the most effective one.
+1

samanosuke
04-03-2013, 08:59 PM
your point is ridiculous but if you want me to address it I will briefly.

even if we say wawrinka has a better forehand, serve and fitness it still doesn't prove gasquet has a better backhand.

the ability to win tennis matches is partly intangible. You can't break it down to simple strengths and weaknesses. one player can have a better career than another despite being inferior in virtually all discernible categories. that's tennis.

I'm surprised you'd resort to such a kindergarten argument.

couldn't agree more



essay posts don't mean you understand the game

janko05
04-03-2013, 09:17 PM
at it's best, I think Gasquet for placement, but Wava definitely hits it harder time after time.

Andi-M
04-03-2013, 09:18 PM
Wawa and Almagro for me :hearts: Gasquet's is tier below these 2 when it comes to aggressive 1HBH, but is more consistent then these 2 defensively.

Federer in 2
04-03-2013, 09:18 PM
The two best one handers in the game for me. I think Wawrinka's is the best one.

janko05
04-03-2013, 09:21 PM
Wava's bh is about closest we have to Guga's in today's game, and in my opinion, Guga had the best of all time.

samanosuke
04-03-2013, 09:26 PM
Gasquet's BH is more like highlight shot which he goes for more or less just when he is out of position, it isn't shot which makes difference for him and with which he takes initiative in the points, he can't hit winners with it from every part of the court and they look so spectacular exactly because of above mentioned reason, he unleashes it just because he isn't comfortable for staying in exchange anymore. On other side Wawa's regular BH is more pacy, and he uses it more offensively to get on the front leg in exchanges. That's why i would put his BH above Gasquet's

Henry Chinaski
04-03-2013, 10:02 PM
I disagree with that and I don't see how it could be reasonable and sensible. I've never looked at tennis like that, and I don't see what the purpose of speaking of strengths and weaknesses would be if it was not to explain tennis results :shrug:

Imo this kind of argument is there to hide some other things, especially the fact that some people in this forum, quite numerous, are 90% focused on the ability to make powerful shots and winners, and don't consider at all the ability to avoid errors or bring errors from the opponent.



This is really over the top : I really was very serious and tried to lead a reasoning, and you and a few others have only had one reaction : try to insult me personally from the beginning. "Kindergarten argument" ? Why ? Am I really the sensitive person here ? Or don't you have any other argument to oppose ?

I'm also "really surprised" like you, that you, a poster who's usually calm and distant, and whom I've respected for long, would have such "over the top" reactions to my posts (which had nothing special here imo, sometimes I made some posts which could lead to strong reactions, but I really can't see the problem here), and insult me personally like that.

I said your argument was kindergarten. "I think that MTF thinks Wawrinka has a better fh, fitness and mentality therefore Gasquet's bh must be better." That's weak stuff.

That is not a personal insult so please don't take it that way. Saying I was surprised by it was actually a backhanded compliment.

You keep complicating what should be a simple debate by brining your perception of the "rest of MTF" into the discussion.

Three times so far. I can't really keep up.

(Fwiw, when it comes to Ferrer and attacking players some of what you say is true but you misinterpreted my reference to Pics therefore it was irrelevant, and like I already say these points about MTF biases needlessly overcomplicate the discussion at hand)

In my opinion Wawrinka has the heavier average rally ball. Other pros would rather rally cc with Gasquet so I'd give the edge to Stan.

But there's not much in it and Gasquet has a better slice, passing shot and ability to improvise (meaning those moments of genius like his half-volley against Murray in Miami).

I don't have much more to say on the subject.

leng jai
04-03-2013, 10:28 PM
I don't know why people always say Gasquet has the most beautiful backhand. It's far from being the most aesthetically pleasing one handers I've seen. Again it might be because he spends most of the time 2 metres behind the baseline brushing up the back of the ball.

rocketassist
04-03-2013, 10:31 PM
I don't know why people always say Gasquet has the most beautiful backhand. It's far from being the most aesthetically pleasing one handers I've seen. Again it might be because he spends most of the time 2 metres behind the baseline brushing up the back of the ball.

Yup, it looks brilliant on the run but in terms of it as a rally shot it doesn't grab me like Wawrinka's.

Slice Winner
04-03-2013, 10:39 PM
I don't know why people always say Gasquet has the most beautiful backhand. It's far from being the most aesthetically pleasing one handers I've seen. Again it might be because he spends most of the time 2 metres behind the baseline brushing up the back of the ball.

for me, his grip and prep are too extreme to be beautiful

Puschkin
04-04-2013, 05:29 AM
I don't know why people always say Gasquet has the most beautiful backhand.
Open your eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQxb4ZtR-4

Pratik
04-04-2013, 07:57 AM
Open your eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQxb4ZtR-4

Perfection.

You must have seen this. Best BHs from the Murray-Gasquet RG match:

hGWkwaMWaDk

leng jai
04-04-2013, 08:04 AM
Open your eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQxb4ZtR-4

About time the Gasquet tards showed up here. Let's see the video of his other 80% where he's brushing up the ass of the ball from 2 metres behind the baseline. The slow-mo of a Tommy Haas or Gustavo Kuerten front foot backhand look superior IMO. Gasquet looks like he's going to break his back half the time.

tribalfusion
04-04-2013, 08:14 AM
About time the Gasquet tards showed up here. Let's see the video of his other 80% where he's brushing up the ass of the ball from 2 metres behind the baseline. The slow-mo of a Tommy Haas or Gustavo Kuerten front foot backhand look superior IMO. Gasquet looks like he's going to break his back half the time.

I'm no Gasquet "tard" but what's this about him breaking his back? He looks comfortable to me.

Almagro should be in this conversation as well and probably is a more apposite choice than Gasquet given most people's parameters here.

Ziggy B
04-04-2013, 08:38 AM
Prefer Wawa's by far, but when Richard lets one rip it's a thing of beauty, ala the 103mph one against Murray last week, redonkulous.

However to me because of his positioning etc, it's a fluid but not particularly aggressive looking stroke in general, Stan and even Almagro seem to look to do more damage with their BH continuously as opposed to a keeping a rally going.

Think Richard could make it even more of a weapon by working on his positioning cause on the run etc it's a monster.

Nixer
04-04-2013, 10:15 AM
I'm no Gasquet "tard" but what's this about him breaking his back? He looks comfortable to me.

Almagro should be in this conversation as well and probably is a more apposite choice than Gasquet given most people's parameters here.

Almagro may compete with them in offensive BH, but his defensive BH is just pathetic, so overall not on the same level IMO.

DJ Soup
04-04-2013, 10:51 AM
I think Stan has a more DOMINANT backhand, whereas Gasquet has a more VIRTUOSO backhand.

Puschkin
04-04-2013, 11:37 AM
The slow-mo of a Tommy Haas or Gustavo Kuerten front foot backhand look superior IMO.
The thread is neither about Keurten nor about Haas, it is about Gasquet and Wawrinka.

Mark Lenders
04-04-2013, 02:41 PM
I don't see how it's weak stuff, I think the "intangible" argument is "weak stuff" personally :shrug:

The goal in tennis is winning matches : I try to judge shots in referrence to this goal, and only this one. It's quite clear imo that most people here don't make their judgment this way.



Saying I was surprised by you is also a backhanded compliment as you know. I accept that the insult was not directed to me but to my argument, but I still don't understand why you reacted so violently. It could have happened that you lost your calm, it happens to me quite often, but apparently you were not the only person who asked me to "calm down" or saw my post as "sensitive", which it was not at all :shrug: The opinions I displayed in this initial post, I fully believe them, and very calmly :shrug: I understand that I may receive those reactions in several other occasions, but here why ? I still don't understand the problem in that initial post :confused:



I think what's unnecessarily complicated, and also self-serving, is the "intangible" argument.



Ok I fully respect your desire to stop the argument, that's respectable :worship:



I think you misinterpreted my interpretation of your referrence to Ferrer, which I haven't made explicitly :

here was your post :



Here was my answer which targetted specifically that point :



Saying it another way : you seemed to judge Gasquet's backhand on the basis of his performance against Ferrer in backhand-to-backhand rallies, and it's perfectly true that Ferrer perfectly faces the comparison in those rallies. But I just don't agree it's a fair basis to judge and I don't agree with the "average backhand like Ferrer's". And my last sentence was clearly ironic : my opinion is that Murray didn't outplay Ferrer at all in backhand-to-backhand rallies" on sunday, and Murray is considered as having one of the very best backhands of the game. And I don't remember Wawrinka outplaying Ferrer this way either when they met last years.

I mean :

1. it's unfair to judge any player on the basis of his matches against Ferrer ;

2. Ferrer's shots are very overrated. Which I explicited in the rest of my post, notably in comparison with Berdych's shots.



I respect that opinion, but I would just like people to reflect on their own biases to reach a more interesting argument.



Imo Wawrinka has a very good backhand, he also has a good slice actually, but I disagree that his ball is overall heavier (Gasquet puts more spin especially), and I think he makes many more errors than Gasquet, whose main quality has actually become to make an incredibly low number of unforced errors in the last year.



Ok, I respect that desire :)

Good that you finally saw the light.

Henry Chinaski
04-04-2013, 03:44 PM
Saying I was surprised by you is also a backhanded compliment as you know. I accept that the insult was not directed to me but to my argument, but I still don't understand why you reacted so violently. It could have happened that you lost your calm, it happens to me quite often, but apparently you were not the only person who asked me to "calm down" or saw my post as "sensitive", which it was not at all



)

that's just how I argue. I'm a bit of a wanker. can't help it. society made me this way.

Ichiban1920
04-04-2013, 04:17 PM
Gasguet's backhand is the most overrated shot in the history of tennis.

95 percent of the time it's a pusher/mug shot during rallies and everyone once in awhile out of nowhere he pulls of an all-or-nothing winner.

Overrated as fuck.

leng jai
04-04-2013, 08:14 PM
The thread is neither about Keurten nor about Haas, it is about Gasquet and Wawrinka.

I answered the original question and was clearly going OT.

MWW
07-09-2015, 07:47 AM
BUMP.

After their dynamic contest yesterday, I've realised just how good Gasquet's is. Nothing against Wawrinka but I find Gasquet deals with different spins and and angles better than Wawrinka. Wawrinka also committed about 4 times as many BH UEs than Gasquet. Perhaps Wawrinka has more raw power, but I can't fault Richard's control with his BH. Yet it seems Wawrinka is more potent against the top players than Gasquet (or is it just his overall offensive minded game with heavy serve?)

Some highlights from yesterday's match

rxbPyMAyNnM

Houstonko
07-09-2015, 07:54 AM
The match yesterday is no indication. Waw is carrying a shoulder strain and backhand is still better.

Gasquet won as he is the fitter player.

zjtennis
07-09-2015, 08:01 AM
First of all Stan's greatest BH weapon is quite neutralized on Grass for some reason, and his timing is awful and full of errors. Gasquet is more of a defensive player (most of the time), hence why his game is to try and absorb pace. However in grass it seems to shine well and his approaches that match was really good. Gasquet's more solid BH on this surface + nice aggression gave him the good win, although he was also close to losing it if not for Stan's returns on important points (although you could say he failed to get momentum when he got broken in the 2nd Set).

Neoflash
07-09-2015, 08:05 AM
No Contest!

The guy with two Grandslams to his name and who in the process, derailed 2 legends of the game who had sick Double Handed Backhands with his OHB from Hell, obviously ought to have the most devastating Single Handed Backhand ever!

Gasquet's BH is more versatile though...

Houstonko
07-09-2015, 08:10 AM
First of all Stan's greatest BH weapon is quite neutralized on Grass for some reason, and his timing is awful and full of errors. Gasquet is more of a defensive player (most of the time), hence why his game is to try and absorb pace. However in grass it seems to shine well and his approaches that match was really good. Gasquet's more solid BH on this surface + nice aggression gave him the good win, although he was also close to losing it if not for Stan's returns on important points (although you could say he failed to get momentum when he got broken in the 2nd Set).

I dont think Waw was 100% too..he made UEs on the simple shots.
Its tiring for a big player like him to play RG final and come to Wimbledon trying to repeat the process.

leng jai
07-09-2015, 08:12 AM
On grass it's Gasquet by far regardless of how fit Wawrinka is. On a technical level Gasquet has one of the best backhands of all time - it's simply held back by his tactics court positioning. It's frustrating to see him stuck at the back of court looping his backhand deep but with his physique and forehand you can't exactly expect him to be on the baseline bossing points constantly. Wawrinka's is better if you're talking about offensive drives in conditions that let him take huge cuts at the ball.

Direwolf
07-09-2015, 08:14 AM
The won that won 2 GS.

AnnaK_4ever
07-09-2015, 08:45 AM
On grass? Gasquet BY FAR. He can hit it so much earlier and so much flatter.

FlameOn
07-09-2015, 08:50 AM
Still Stan. Gasquet's looks brilliant because nothing else in his game stands out.

leng jai
07-09-2015, 08:53 AM
Still Stan. Gasquet's looks brilliant because nothing else in his game stands out.

So if nothing else in his game is great how is he consistently ranked so high?

Silverbullet96
07-09-2015, 09:02 AM
I get why this is a discussion but it's not really. Stan's is better. I'm not sure about 2005 but in recent years, Gaske's is for the majority, pretty loopy with a defensive court position. It hits a flashy winner once in 2-3 games and people overhype it like they're the British media.

Halba
07-09-2015, 09:07 AM
on grass there is a massive difference . stan sucks on grass

shmeeko69
07-09-2015, 09:09 AM
This question has been battered and asked to death. Gasquet hits with more precision and angle and Stan has more flatness and power.

Beautifully put and sums up their superb backhands in a nutshell :)

FlameOn
07-09-2015, 09:32 AM
So if nothing else in his game is great how is he consistently ranked so high?
Because you don't necessarily need a great physical game to be ranked high. An all-round 'good' one is often sufficient. Look at Ferrer for instance.

leng jai
07-09-2015, 09:40 AM
Because you don't necessarily need a great physical game to be ranked high. An all-round 'good' one is often sufficient. Look at Ferrer for instance.

Ferrer has far superior fitness, defence, ROS and forehand. Not to mention he's mentally much stronger player. The only reliable weapon Gasquet has to win points is with his backhand. Saying his backhand only looks great because the rest of his game is mediocre doesn't make much sense.

Hypnotize
07-09-2015, 10:03 AM
Gasquet has more versatility on his backhand and he proved yesterday, his is the better shot. He puts so much work on the ball that Wawrinka was constantly being pushed back behind the baseline or chasing them from one side of the court to the other. Some of Gasquet's backhands in that match were simply breathtaking. :worship:

Forehander
07-09-2015, 10:50 AM
I prefer Gasquets, it's the only and first single hander that had me jaw dropped when watching live. The stuff he can pull off at times with it is bloody out of this world and he does it so effortlessly too. I've seen Wawrinkas too in 2013 ao though I was amazed at his power but it didnt stun me as much as Gasquet. I always wondered if Gasquets slopey shoulders and body shape have anything to do with him being able to possess such a backhand technique. It's a shame Gasquet through the years hasnt adjusted his game to be more offensive. Typical Frenchman, they live or die with what they have and I respect that :')

Forehander
07-09-2015, 10:53 AM
Still Stan. Gasquet's looks brilliant because nothing else in his game stands out.

Even with Federers forehand Gasquets backhand will still look brilliant

yuri27
07-09-2015, 11:05 AM
No Contest!

The guy with two Grandslams to his name and who in the process, derailed 2 legends of the game who had sick Double Handed Backhands with his OHB from Hell, obviously ought to have the most devastating Single Handed Backhand ever!

Gasquet's BH is more versatile though...

You don't think that if you give Wawa's serve and FH to Gasquet, Gasquet would have at least 2 Slams?

yuri27
07-09-2015, 11:07 AM
On grass it's Gasquet by far regardless of how fit Wawrinka is. On a technical level Gasquet has one of the best backhands of all time - it's simply held back by his tactics court positioning. It's frustrating to see him stuck at the back of court looping his backhand deep but with his physique and forehand you can't exactly expect him to be on the baseline bossing points constantly. Wawrinka's is better if you're talking about offensive drives in conditions that let him take huge cuts at the ball.

I think it's more held by his FH (except on grass sometimes) and his fitness than by his court positionning.
Those 2 things puts him in defensive position more often than not and then of course, it doesn't help his BH to shine.

MWW
07-09-2015, 11:45 AM
On grass it's Gasquet by far regardless of how fit Wawrinka is. On a technical level Gasquet has one of the best backhands of all time - it's simply held back by his tactics court positioning. It's frustrating to see him stuck at the back of court looping his backhand deep but with his physique and forehand you can't exactly expect him to be on the baseline bossing points constantly. Wawrinka's is better if you're talking about offensive drives in conditions that let him take huge cuts at the ball.

Definitely whenever Gasquet was on top of the baseline, you often didn't know what hit you. Just blasts it away in either direction very fluidly.

Uncle Latso
07-09-2015, 11:53 AM
it still is Stan's

yuri27
07-09-2015, 11:58 AM
Gasquet's BH technique is also better.
Even before he hits a BH with it, you just can't see how he could miss it, even hitting it very hard whereas that's not the case with Wawa.
The only way you can push him to miss on that side is if you hit very high on his BH a la Nadal......but that's a problem to any 1H BH, not only to him.

vladisimo
07-09-2015, 12:21 PM
Stan ...people here forget so quick about how good stan s backhand is just because he lost a match against richard....gasquet never ever hits so hard at consistent levels(wawa ao open 2014 and Rg 2015) and also stan hitted it hard and precise....richard s backhand is more versatile and precise (but that s just because he has another style than stan he waits more while wawa goes always fo the winner which in the end was his downfall) plus that at this wimbledon richard s fh looked way better than usual ..he didn t win because of his backhand...there was a rally where they were hitting they re backhands one against another and wawrinka hitted a winner off gasquets full force backhand with his own backhand..that clearly should answer the question because both were triyng they re best to hit the backhands as well as posible that rally and stan clearly won it ....gasquet s backhand is more relyable but wawrinka s backhand is the one that wins matches against the best players(when stanimal is on) so clearly wawa still has the better backhand

The Fogmeister
07-09-2015, 12:43 PM
People are analising based on a match on grass? Stan's backhand isn't made for grass, it was very respetable he managed to achieve too straight Wimbledon QF's.

Wawrinka's backhand is way more powerful, Gasquet's one is more stable obviously and more versatile. But on slower surfaces with more time to prepare, I'd pick Stan's one all over.

Mr.Black
07-09-2015, 01:50 PM
Richard's is more playful and versatile, yet Stan's has more power and damage.
It's basically a contest between a dancer and a wrestler.

yuri27
07-09-2015, 02:38 PM
Stan ...people here forget so quick about how good stan s backhand is just because he lost a match against richard....gasquet never ever hits so hard at consistent levels(wawa ao open 2014 and Rg 2015) and also stan hitted it hard and precise....richard s backhand is more versatile and precise (but that s just because he has another style than stan he waits more while wawa goes always fo the winner which in the end was his downfall) plus that at this wimbledon richard s fh looked way better than usual ..he didn t win because of his backhand...there was a rally where they were hitting they re backhands one against another and wawrinka hitted a winner off gasquets full force backhand with his own backhand..that clearly should answer the question because both were triyng they re best to hit the backhands as well as posible that rally and stan clearly won it ....gasquet s backhand is more relyable but wawrinka s backhand is the one that wins matches against the best players(when stanimal is on) so clearly wawa still has the better backhand

You're wrong, that's mostly dued to their respective technique.
Wawa's BH looks less fluid and natural.

redshift36188
07-09-2015, 04:30 PM
People are analising based on a match on grass? Stan's backhand isn't made for grass, it was very respetable he managed to achieve too straight Wimbledon QF's.

Wawrinka's backhand is way more powerful, Gasquet's one is more stable obviously and more versatile. But on slower surfaces with more time to prepare, I'd pick Stan's one all over.
Pretty much this.

zjtennis
07-09-2015, 04:44 PM
People are analising based on a match on grass? Stan's backhand isn't made for grass, it was very respetable he managed to achieve too straight Wimbledon QF's.

Wawrinka's backhand is way more powerful, Gasquet's one is more stable obviously and more versatile. But on slower surfaces with more time to prepare, I'd pick Stan's one all over.

What is your opinion about Thiem's BH this grass season, which seems to be more stable than Stan's on grass?

Nole Rules
07-09-2015, 04:55 PM
Gasquet's

BodyServe
07-09-2015, 04:59 PM
Thiem backhand seems to be fine and he has a solid slice, my guess is he would have given Wawrinka much more trouble than Verdasco but his fitness let him down in the 5th.

What worries me about Thiem is when the ball is coming to him at pace on his forehand side, he doesn't have yet the ability to absorb pace and shorten his swing which results in a lot of UE and misshits but he is learning very quick which is encouraging.

Alex999
07-09-2015, 05:06 PM
Stan's BH is the most powerful OH BH on the tour. It's not even close.

Pratik
07-09-2015, 05:18 PM
People are analising based on a match on grass?

No. The first 5 pages are over two years old.

YodaKnowsBest
07-09-2015, 05:23 PM
These type of threads should have a poll. I feel like Wawrinka's backhand is more consistent, sadly many people will judge on yesterdays performance. We shouldnt really judge Wawrinka on grass since his movement got exposed again.

Nole Rules
07-09-2015, 06:22 PM
Thiem's BH is one of the ugliest. Don't want to watch that shit. Not every one hander is automatically beautiful.

homogenius
07-09-2015, 07:22 PM
Richie's one

phase3
07-09-2015, 07:25 PM
Two of the best one handed backhands on tour: Gasquet and Wawrinka.

Both can blast winners of that wing and look pretty at the same time.

Who do you think has the better backhand?? :)Wawrinka has more power. Gasquet is more flowing and precise. It was actually wayward backhands by Wawrinka that cost him the match. He forgot what you can get away with on clay or hard. You can't on grass. And that's why he is out.

BodyServe
07-09-2015, 07:42 PM
Thiem's BH is one of the ugliest. Don't want to watch that shit. Not every one hander is automatically beautiful.

Yet it has one of the cleanest strike from one hander. Go figure.

ApproachShot
07-09-2015, 07:46 PM
Gasquet´s big backswing requires time, that´s one (if not the only) reason he likes to play so far back. Wawrinka´s bh is more compact, so it´s easier for him to step in and be offensive with the shot. If we are talking just about winners, then there´s not much difference because Gasquet can blast those from practically any position, but Wawrinka is better at taking the ball earlier and taking time off from his opponent. In other words, it´s offensively a bit more versatile.

You hit the nail on the head there. I was about to post the same, but you summarised it well.

I think this thread is not complete without some more visual evidence to judge for yourselves:

HlhNRPyovzA

Dyj1Id6HDJ0

baldybaldybaldy
07-10-2015, 01:50 AM
Gasquet's is nice. Good, if not slightly wind-ey, technique but proficient and accurate. It's impressive how he can create angles with it and he's shown the ability to hit winners from unlikely positions. However, the more flat and aggressive nature of Stan's backhand makes it the one for me, purely from the view-point of hitting an opponent off the court. I love how he's not afraid to crush balls early with it.

GasquetGulbis
07-10-2015, 05:02 AM
I would say that Technically-speaking Gasquet has a better backhand, BUT Wawrinka has enough confidence to go 100% with his more often than Gasquet.

Gasquet has more variety on his backhand than Wawrinka, he can loop it or slap it, Wawrinka's doesn't have as much variety but he uses the one that he has vey effectively.

Jamvol
07-10-2015, 05:28 AM
Wawrinka's is better, but Gasquet's is more aesthetically pleasing imo.