Federer's backhand. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer's backhand.

Liverpool4ever
04-24-2006, 01:32 AM
There is a lot of talk about how Federer has one of the best one handed backhands in the game, but in my opinion his top spin backhand barely makes the top 10 out of the one handers and if we add two handed backhands his would not even be in the top 20. Federer may have great variation on his backhand, but when he goes backhand to backhand with someone he nearly always comes out second best. I remember him saying that he mixes his one hander up, because one handers are not as consistent as the double handers. Though, this is true none of the other players have backhands that break down as frequently. His numbers of unforced errors compared to winners are never positive and it is really nothing more than a safety shot untill a forehand comes along. If he wants to dominate on clay he will need to improve this shot, because Nadal knows one shot to the backhand and he is back in the point (Federer knows this too). Also if the young guns live up to expectations they all have potentially great backhands ie Berdych, Baghdatis, Gasquet and Murray.

In my opinion Gasquet, Ljubicic, Haas, Gaudio and Calleri all have superior top spin shots not to mention the many two handers. Federer obviously can dominate the tour with the current state of his backhand, but if he wants to dominate clay and move his play on to an even higher level this is the shot he needs to improve. The question is he capable of improving this shot or is this the best we are going to see his backhand? Does he have to stand further back to time the swing better like Ljubicic and Gasquet or is it a question of improving the strength in the arm like Blake did?

flyguydsl
04-24-2006, 06:53 AM
It does seem that he catches is late quite often

prima donna
04-24-2006, 06:56 AM
Amazing what losing 2 matches in 1 year after 2 consecutive MS events and 1 GS will do.

Asar
04-24-2006, 07:36 AM
So nobody is speak when he is make a nice backhand down the line, is no easy when he is defensive always there in the corner after opponent make pressure, many do this now aginst Roger they think it's tactic to beat him but is not always they can make this shot to his backhand everytime. I am see alos many nice bakhand shot from him is look beautiful too.

Natasha2005
04-24-2006, 07:51 AM
Liverpool makes a good point. Obviously this is not a time to panic as Roger is still dominating but how long is this gonna last? When the other players stop fearing him and grow some cujones or when the youngsters gain more experience things will get tough. No one can dominate their sport forever without making adjustments to their game. Look at hom many time tiger tweaked his golf swing. He basically did this so he can continue his domination. Fed does need to work on his backhand and for all its variety its an inconsistent shot but of course nowhere near as weak or a liability as Roddicks as Fed can and does make winners off the BH side. Yet there is significant room for improvement. Still not convinced?? Despite Gaudio losing his match against Nadal he was better able to handle the Nadal forehand topsin shot into his backhand than Fed.

jacobhiggins
04-24-2006, 07:57 AM
Federer is still the king of mens tennis. His talent is far above everybody elses and I know some people think it's a confidence thing with other players facing him, it's not, he's just better then them phsycially, talent wise, and mentally.

Federer I think might be the second best clay courter in the world, and defaintely the best player. I don't think he has anything to worry about and this is what he needs to win all the grandslams. He wants to win them all and by the sound of his interview he sound angry about losing to Nadal again.

Jairus
04-24-2006, 09:27 AM
There is a lot of talk about how Federer has one of the best one handed backhands in the game, but in my opinion his top spin backhand barely makes the top 10 out of the one handers and if we add two handed backhands his would not even be in the top 20. Federer may have great variation on his backhand, but when he goes backhand to backhand with someone he nearly always comes out second best. I remember him saying that he mixes his one hander up, because one handers are not as consistent as the double handers. Though, this is true none of the other players have backhands that break down as frequently. His numbers of unforced errors compared to winners are never positive and it is really nothing more than a safety shot untill a forehand comes along. If he wants to dominate on clay he will need to improve this shot, because Nadal knows one shot to the backhand and he is back in the point (Federer knows this too). Also if the young guns live up to expectations they all have potentially great backhands ie Berdych, Baghdatis, Gasquet and Murray.

In my opinion Gasquet, Ljubicic, Haas, Gaudio and Calleri all have superior top spin shots not to mention the many two handers. Federer obviously can dominate the tour with the current state of his backhand, but if he wants to dominate clay and move his play on to an even higher level this is the shot he needs to improve. The question is he capable of improving this shot or is this the best we are going to see his backhand? Does he have to stand further back to time the swing better like Ljubicic and Gasquet or is it a question of improving the strength in the arm like Blake did?

You are probably right, but come on now, lets not get carried away...no one's backhand breaks down? When any of those players above have a bad day (often against Fed) the groundies often fall apart.

wimbledonfan
04-24-2006, 12:32 PM
This is exactly what happened to Pete . In his prime he had what is considered one of the best backhands in the game , and towards the end of his career it wasn't a weapon anymore and he relied more heavily on his serve and volley game .

prima donna
04-24-2006, 03:03 PM
This is exactly what happened to Pete . In his prime he had what is considered one of the best backhands in the game , and towards the end of his career it wasn't a weapon anymore and he relied more heavily on his serve and volley game .

Sampras had the unkeen ability to hit some masterful shots off that backhand wing, but let's not get carried away. It was by far always the weakest point of his game, mostly because of the fact that at age 12 he switched from a 2 hander to a 1 hander. Seems as though it wasn't a natural shot.

Pete was also borderline 1 dimensional. A serve and forehand, he was merely that of an Andy Roddick clone with mental strength.

Natasha2005
04-24-2006, 04:33 PM
Are you kidding me PrimaDonna??? Pete one dimensional?? Get your head out of your ass!! Whats roger without his forehand hmm?? You repeatedly reveal your dearth of tennis knowledge with your stupid and clearly biased comments. Most of you Fed fans are newcomers to tennis and have not seen sampras play in his heyday. Most of you saw him play when he was past his prime.

Federer overall game and movement on the court is certainly more stylish and "pretty" than Sampras's but to even suggest that Pete had a one dimensional game just to feed into your idea that Fed is the best there ever was is for lack of a better word STUPID. When Fed wins 14 grandslams you can brag all you want but please keep things in perspective.

FYI: Throughout the history of tennis there have been players who had as stylish a game as Feds and most would agree that Mcenroe was as talented even though MAC himeself regularly says that Fed is more talented than he was but who really knows. ITs hard to compare players in different eras considering the advances in the game. One can even argue that Richard Gasquet has an even more stylish (& Flamboyant) game than Feds and before you dismiss him as mentally fragile remember that Fed ONLY came into his own 3 years ago.

Lets break it down

Serve: First and Second Sampras definitely has the edge

Effectiveness of Forehands Equal

Backhand Slight edge to Fed

Movement Edge to Fed

Volleys Sampras was a great volleyer while Fed is a GOOD one

Mental About Equal

Stop and think before you post garbage. I know you are entitled to your opinion but please u dont have to disparage one of the greats to make Fed look good. He is great all on his own!!

prima donna
04-24-2006, 05:16 PM
Are you kidding me PrimaDonna??? Pete one dimensional?? Get your head out of your ass!! Whats roger without his forehand hmm?? You repeatedly reveal your dearth of tennis knowledge with your stupid and clearly biased comments. Most of you Fed fans are newcomers to tennis and have not seen sampras play in his heyday. Most of you saw him play when he was past his prime.

Federer overall game and movement on the court is certainly more stylish and "pretty" than Sampras's but to even suggest that Pete had a one dimensional game just to feed into your idea that Fed is the best there ever was is for lack of a better word STUPID. When Fed wins 14 grandslams you can brag all you want but please keep things in perspective.

FYI: Throughout the history of tennis there have been players who had as stylish a game as Feds and most would agree that Mcenroe was as talented even though MAC himeself regularly says that Fed is more talented than he was but who really knows. ITs hard to compare players in different eras considering the advances in the game. One can even argue that Richard Gasquet has an even more stylish (& Flamboyant) game than Feds and before you dismiss him as mentally fragile remember that Fed ONLY came into his own 3 years ago.

Lets break it down

Serve: First and Second Sampras definitely has the edge

Effectiveness of Forehands Equal

Backhand Slight edge to Fed

Movement Edge to Fed

Volleys Sampras was a great volleyer while Fed is a GOOD one

Mental About Equal

Stop and think before you post garbage. I know you are entitled to your opinion but please u dont have to disparage one of the greats to make Fed look good. He is great all on his own!!

If Pete possessed so many dimensions, then why is it that he failed in his mutiple attempts to capture Roland Garros ? He even gave up, as for referring to someone that is the epitome of "old school" on this board as a newbie, well done. I must commend you. Your genius is masterful.

Anyway, I don't need to really comment on issues that have been addressed by players whom faced Sampras in his prime.

Agassi has said even as much, maybe not in so many words. However, I do believe that my point is understood loud and clear. You've given no indication of otherwise.

Though it is always an option to take someone's words and twist them around to benefit your argument.

Natasha2005
04-24-2006, 05:38 PM
BULL!!!

So John Mac, Ivan Lendly, Boris Becker but to name a few....are I suppose one dimensional as all of them failed to capture Roland Garros?? Before you get your panties in a twist consider this: Last year was the one and only time Fed made it past the 4th round?? If he is so great and multi dimensional why is it that he has not won it already or had better results there?? Oh yeah FYI Sampras has been as far as the Semis at RG. How do you explain this with his one dimensional game?? I guess his opponents let him win or the courts were fast that year???

AND if you are THE epitome of old school as you proclaim how do u explain your repeated offenses of spouting nonsensical statements that ONLY a person who knows little about tennis would state??????

YOU ARE FOOLING NO ONE.........

Rogiman
04-24-2006, 05:44 PM
Last year was the one and only time Fed made it past the 4th round??
He did make it to the QF back in 2001 but I agree on the rest ;)

Natasha2005
04-24-2006, 05:49 PM
Yes sorry about that. I forgot his QF run that year. I do admire a Fed Fan who can be OBJECTIVE. HE is GREAT. This fact is undeniable but there is no need to disparage past or current players while defending Fed or conveying his greatness. There can be more than one great player at a time. Fed is a great player but so is Nadal to name a few. Pete was and will always remain a great tennis player.

Besides can you imagine how many Grandslams_particularly Wimbeldon_ Bjorg would have won but for his premature retirement. This guy was consuming grandslams at a ridiculous pace and could have had more that 14 for sure but woulda coulda shoulda....none of this detracts from his greatness though

Blue Orange
04-24-2006, 05:52 PM
BULL!!!

So John Mac, Ivan Lendly, Boris Becker but to name a few....are I suppose one dimensional as all of them failed to capture Roland Garros?? Before you get your panties in a twist consider this: Last year was the one and only time Fed made it past the 4th round?? If he is so great and multi dimensional why is it that he has not won it already or had better results there?? Oh yeah FYI Sampras has been as far as the Semis at RG. How do you explain this with his one dimensional game?? I guess his opponents let him win or the courts were fast that year???

AND if you are THE epitome of old school as you proclaim how do u explain your repeated offenses of spouting nonsensical statements that ONLY a person who knows little about tennis would state??????

YOU ARE FOOLING NO ONE.........

Can we please have one discussion about Federer without someone deciding to start a Sampras was better argument?

Back on topic, Nadal seems to be able to exploit a slight weakness in Fed's backhand but as far as the rest of the tour goes it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue - hence only two losses so far this year. Of course there will be those with better backhands than Federer but his overall game is far better than most others.

However i would like to see your list of those ten one handed backhands which are better than Federer's. Thanks!

prima donna
04-24-2006, 06:12 PM
BULL!!!

So John Mac, Ivan Lendly, Boris Becker but to name a few....are I suppose one dimensional as all of them failed to capture Roland Garros?? Before you get your panties in a twist consider this: Last year was the one and only time Fed made it past the 4th round?? If he is so great and multi dimensional why is it that he has not won it already or had better results there?? Oh yeah FYI Sampras has been as far as the Semis at RG. How do you explain this with his one dimensional game?? I guess his opponents let him win or the courts were fast that year???

AND if you are THE epitome of old school as you proclaim how do u explain your repeated offenses of spouting nonsensical statements that ONLY a person who knows little about tennis would state??????

YOU ARE FOOLING NO ONE.........

Lendl won Roland Garros 3 times.

After spouting information like that, the rest of your message is disregarded.

Seems you're the newbie when it comes to this sport.

prima donna
04-24-2006, 06:12 PM
He did make it to the QF back in 2001 but I agree on the rest ;)

Nice to see people agreeing with information that's all out of sorts, the blind leading the blind. Well done.

Rogiman
04-24-2006, 06:25 PM
Nice to see people agreeing with information that's all out of sorts, the blind leading the blind. Well done.
Yeah yeah yeah.... go do your nails, little man.

prima donna
04-24-2006, 07:00 PM
Yeah yeah yeah.... go do your nails, little man.
Bravo.

At this pace, you'll be constructing meaningful thoughts in no time. Give it a quarter of a century or so.

Natasha2005
04-24-2006, 07:14 PM
LOL Prima Donna you got me on that one. At least I can admit when I am wrong but it was a technical mistake. BUT MY POINTS ARE STILL VALID

Lets Consider TRUE greatness HERE

Borg played 8 years as a professional and racked up 11 Grandslams....Pete 8 slams in 8 years and Fed who turned pro in 1998 (almost seven years on tour has 7 and counting which is pretty good but lets take a wait and see approach shall we.....

prima donna
04-24-2006, 07:20 PM
LOL Prima Donna you got me on that one. At least I can admit when I am wrong but it was a technical mistake. BUT MY POINTS ARE STILL VALID

Lets Consider TRUE greatness HERE

Borg played 8 years as a professional and racked up 11 Grandslams....Pete 8 slams in 8 years and Fed who turned pro in 1998 (almost seven years on tour has 7 and counting which is pretty good but lets take a wait and see approach shall we.....

Sure, but you've still managed to misunderstand the significance of my initial point.

If you took away Pete's Serve (returned it) and worked his backhand an entire match, well ? The result please ?

Take away Federer's serve and work his backhand an entire match, the result please ?

Pete was so overpowering that often times it was impossible to expose his many weaknesses, but a lot of his game was one dimensional because it based solely upon power.

Not to mention the fact that even the serve and volley game which he chose to employ was almost purely implicated and based upon power, coming in behind 130 MPH serves. How brave.

Not taking anything away from him, merely stating facts here.

Natasha2005
04-24-2006, 07:42 PM
If you make this argument prima donna then you have to say the same for Fed. Take away his awesome forehand and serve then you also have also have a "one dimensional player" or lets say average. The reason that Fed is not affected by many players on the BH is because many dont play with spin so Fed slices it back or keeps it deep until opponent hits to his forehand. This is not saying that he cant make winners with his BH but so too could sampras. I understand where you are coming from as Pete did indeed largely dominate with his serve but remember he had to return his opponents serves as well so there were times he was forced to rally until he chipped and charged. Besides Petes games is a traditional tennis game: serve and volley...He was fantastic at it. Cant take away from him just because he is not a baseline like FED and he is a Baseliner-for now as he plays mostly from the baseline. Yes he cana volley and play from anywhere on the court..............Anyways it was good sparring with you. The ONLY point I was making was that in praising Fed or conveying his greatness or in defending him there is no need to compare his achievemnents or lack thereof with other players as his achievements stand on their own. I just took umbrage at how you seemed to dismiss Sampras's game and compare him with Roddick of all people. I just thought you could have been a bit more respectful.

jenanun
04-24-2006, 07:57 PM
Are you kidding me PrimaDonna??? Pete one dimensional??


people from a one dimensional world :secret: PrimaDonna
has no sense of /never understand what multidimensional is.... poor thing....
you should forgive him/her

wimbledonfan
04-24-2006, 10:57 PM
Natasha , I couldn't agree more with you . Good posts .

RonE
04-25-2006, 03:24 AM
From what I saw Roger's backhand is as good as it has ever been.

Even against Nadal on the clay, while it is certainly something that was exploited, there were quite a few points in which Roger managed to hit deep with pace off that wing keeping him in the rally, or hit an angled crosscourt to drag Nadal out of court and even a few backhand winners down the line.

It may not be totally reliable 100% of the time and it is certainly not as strong as his forehand but if it was such a huge weakness and so easy to exploit he would not have been winning as much as he has over the last couple of years during which he made astronomical improvements on that wing.

anserq
04-25-2006, 04:31 AM
You rule :) :wavey:
So nobody is speak when he is make a nice backhand down the line, is no easy when he is defensive always there in the corner after opponent make pressure, many do this now aginst Roger they think it's tactic to beat him but is not always they can make this shot to his backhand everytime. I am see alos many nice bakhand shot from him is look beautiful too.

LoveFifteen
04-25-2006, 06:43 AM
[QUOTE=Natasha2005]So John Mac, Ivan Lendly, Boris Becker but to name a few....aQUOTE]

Um, Lendl won Roland Garros ... more than once.

yomike
04-25-2006, 07:33 AM
Federer's backhand looks great on HC and grass but its absolutely disgusting on clay.

Hank777
04-25-2006, 09:23 AM
Amazing what losing 2 matches in 1 year after 2 consecutive MS events and 1 GS will do.Good Comment; I mean lets think about this huh, BORG won MORE titles as a junior than RAFA has sovar, and he made it to like what 9 SLAMS ?

RAFA is great, I hope he GOES BIGTIME, but this just a spur of the moment remark at this stage I'm afraid.

Sampras had the unkeen ability to hit some masterful shots off that backhand wing, but let's not get carried away. It was by far always the weakest point of his game, mostly because of the fact that at age 12 he switched from a 2 hander to a 1 hander. Seems as though it wasn't a natural shot.

Pete was also borderline 1 dimensional. A serve and forehand, he was merely that of an Andy Roddick clone with mental strength.OH PLEASE, tell me YOU ARE KIDDING me right. Whilst ur 1st comment was alright, this is waaayyy off. Roddick and PETE are TOTALLY different, it's comparing a base-liner to a S&V'er.

Just cuz Roddick can serve does not make PETE a clone, it would have to be thoe other way around IF U WERE to make such a comparison. To call PETE's game 1 dimensional is jut "wrong".

He was considered a very all-court player IF necessary, yes he was S&V, but he could rally many ATP players from the baseline and kick their butts.
Though over the course of a match it was never his winning tactic in the end obviously.

zimzim
04-25-2006, 03:17 PM
Pete was also borderline 1 dimensional. A serve and forehand, he was merely that of an Andy Roddick clone with mental strength.Is this a joke or are you serious? :confused:

Jairus
04-26-2006, 07:49 AM
BULL!!!

So John Mac, Ivan Lendly, Boris Becker but to name a few....are I suppose one dimensional as all of them failed to capture Roland Garros?? Before you get your panties in a twist consider this: Last year was the one and only time Fed made it past the 4th round?? If he is so great and multi dimensional why is it that he has not won it already or had better results there?? Oh yeah FYI Sampras has been as far as the Semis at RG. How do you explain this with his one dimensional game?? I guess his opponents let him win or the courts were fast that year???

AND if you are THE epitome of old school as you proclaim how do u explain your repeated offenses of spouting nonsensical statements that ONLY a person who knows little about tennis would state??????

YOU ARE FOOLING NO ONE.........

Dude, I'm a big Pete fan and I agree with your over all points, but seriously, be quiet...you aren't doing justice to the "Pete was better than people remember" argument.
Aside from the things that people have pointed out, apparently the courts WERE fast that year.
The other semi-finalists were Kafelnikov (ok, so he can play on the slow surfaces) Rossert (indoor/grass specialist) and finalist Stich (wimbly winner).
QF included Edberg and Goran...so yea, the courts were probably a bit fast.

oz_boz
04-26-2006, 10:49 AM
Fed's backhand is maybe not the best in the game, and it's probably his weakest shot, but it's far from average.

And using the word one-dimensional when speaking of a GOAT candidate is just stupid. Every player has his preferred playing style - baseliner like Borg, Agassi and Lendl, or S&V like Mac, Edberg And Sampras - but that doesn't make him one-dimensional. At least I don't think one should use the phrase when referring to a multiple GS winner.

Peoples
04-26-2006, 10:55 AM
It's not right. He's got a backhand that's good enough for most opponents also in top 10 but of course that might not be enough vs Nadal's forehand on clay. It's even natural. But sure he could improve his consistency.