Who Has The Best Backhand?

I suppose we'll have to separate single from double backhand here.

There are a lot of good ones on both sides and it's hard to decide because in some cases like Gasquet, the weak FH makes his BH look less successful within his whole game, whereas Stan's backhand will look better than it actually is to some because he has a better FH, so wins more easily.

Same with double backhand.

Paire, Fognini have superb BHs but are probably considered not as good as Djokovic or Nishikori.

What do you think?

I've not see a lot of tennis pre 1990s. So can't see about older players.

Single Hander BH: Stanislas Wawrinka . Its just forged in steel, can't be broken down. Can hit DTL at will. The angle and pace of the CC shots and accuracy is 2nd to none. Fed's BH is quite fragile in comparison. He can't hit DTL shots with ease. He can't change the direction of play on BH side. Fed is  almost all his matches looks handcuffed against Nadal on the BH. He just can't get out of stranglehold of Nadal's spinny FH-to-BH play. Nadal always wants him to attempt the DTL shot. But that shot is quite risky and difficult for Fed. even if he gets in, most of the time it lacks power to be winner.

 If Fed had Stan's BH, he wouldn't have lost a single match on any surface to Nadal. His h2h would also have been much better against Djokovic who too implies that same Nadal tactic to keep Fed plugging on the BH till it errors out. Murray simply would have had 0 wins on Fed. 

If you look at the stats of the matches when he lost, in almost 95% of them its the BH that has faltered.
 
Who Fed would have lost to with Stan BH? Just NO one comes to my mind.
Why is Stan not winning more? That's a different thing.


Double Hander BH: David Nalbandian. Its the most beautiful DHBH I've seen. Effortless, easy power and the ability to hit change direction and clean winners.
DHBH is always more solid. So I'm not going to count its fragility part.

I'll go with Nishi nowadays. David had the best though.....ever.

For me, when it comes to SBH, it's a no-brainer - Federer, followed by Gasquet.

With DBH, nobody's got it all.

Nole's is the most consistant, Paire's most aggressive, Nishi's "easiest", Fognini's the smoothest.

Another proof DBH is an unnatural, artificial shot.

We have been on this road of SHBH. If picking FEd's BH is no-brainer then maybe every commentator I hear talk about it has no brains.

I can't call it best simply on the fact its just too fragile? Can you deny that its not fragile and not the first to break down? How many of those missed BPs or Fed himself being broken almost always ends up with a error from the BH. Can you deny this fact? 

Don't you see how Fed struggles to get out for the FH2BH play by Nadal? He just can't do a thing about it even after years of playing him and clearly knowing what's coming. Why? Because he just can't. If this was the best SHBH Fed could get out of it more than he has been able to.  There are other single handers who do better in this regard.

Gasquet... with need for such a high backlift.. he will always be needing a lot of time.. and hence has to stay 3-4m behind the BL. Such a high back-lift also mean less accuracy but of course more power. But for a single hander staying 3-4m behind the BH is an object for doom.

Yes he gets some crazy angles on this , but where has it taken him?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:We have been on this road of SHBH. If picking FEd's BH is no-brainer then maybe every commentator I hear talk about it has no brains.

I can't call it best simply on the fact its just too fragile? Can you deny that its not fragile and not the first to break down? How many of those missed BPs or Fed himself being broken almost always ends up with a error from the BH. Can you deny this fact? 

Don't you see how Fed struggles to get out for the FH2BH play by Nadal? He just can't do a thing about it even after years of playing him and clearly knowing what's coming. Why? Because he just can't. If this was the best SHBH Fed could get out of it more than he has been able to.  There are other single handers who do better in this regard.

Well rotla, I know you like Stan, and I like him, too...

But if his BH was really that good and so much better than Fed's how come he only beat Nadal once, and Fed did it ... 10 times?

Stan has a very simple game and not much variety, he goes for his shots and if they go in - great! if not...we have these years of inconsistency.

Fed played with a small racquet head compared to most players for too long, that certainly didn't help towards some of his H2Hs.
Everyone was bombarding his 95" SBH (not because his BH is bad but because his FH was such a deadly weapon...it's a classic, basic tactic in tennis, anyway) with 100" DBHs and still losing to him most of the time.
That says a lot.

The larger frame he is using now has significantly improved stability and consistency on both wings, but especially his BH.

I agree, he hasn't been playing that well in Istanbul, but he has had a long break post IW.
Look at Nadal - king of clay and being knocked out in early rounds of Barcelona...

At the end of the day, he is almost 34 and still  gunning for number one ranking, while Nadal, 5-6 years his junior is struggling.

nitb wrote:But if his BH was really that good and so much better than Fed's how come he only beat Nadal once, and Fed did it ... 10 times?

 I'm not comparing Fed and Stan on their overall play, Fed is far ahead by huge miles. Its only the BH part. Fed having far supiriour overall game will definitely be able to get more wins on Nadal.


I'm saying that Stan may have had only 1 win on Nadal compared to Fed's 10 ( 2 in slams), but Stan loses to Nadal is not due to his BH. But all of Fed's Loses to Nadal are mainly due to Fed's inability to counter Nadal's fh2bh play. Fed just can't change the direction of play off th BH wing with enough authority so that he can dictate play then on wards. This is a big problem for Fed. And other players too learnt from it . e.g. Murray and Djokovic and Nishikori. Nadal was the first player who so successfully showed that Fed's BH can be broken if they remain with the plan and have enough strength in legs and lungs to carry it on.

Fed's frame is large or small, it was his choice and stubbornness to change. He can't get an excuse on that side. 

 Fed for me too will always be GOAT, he has the best overall game ever. but if his BH is good but not against everyone and not against every kind of play-tactic. A large % of his failure are due to BH failing.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:..... A large % of his failure are due to BH failing.

But you can also say Fed's BH is the only SHBH nowadays which can withstand the test of fire. It is very simple, one is as good as his weakest shot, cause this is the shot everybody is going to go at. And with today's game that weakest shot is the BH...for SHBHers. So to me Fed has simply the most consistent one. Yes Stan can hit harder but his BH wing is overall weaker cause not as many balls come back from that side as Federer's. Fed has also more variety, better placement, better depth....though I agree he will hurt less than Stan with it. It will however allow fed to stay in rally longer and therefore has more chance to use his other weapons.

Look at Stan's BH UEs.....there are more of those than you think....though we tend to remember only the winners as they are certainly easier to the eye.

And what about SHBH returns? Clearly again, Fed's much better, and that is a huge part of the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4fZql-_jvw

In this clip it is obvious Stan has at least as much trouble as Fed handling Nadal's high bounce.