SNAP! SNAP! The player who hits a one-handed backhand could just as easily be cracking a leather whip in the air. High above the head comes the follow-through and finish. It is impressive and inspiring, eye-catching and sublime.
There is no doubt that the one-handed backhand possesses an unassailable dignity. Like a graceful ballerina executing a pirouette, the hitter is upright after contact, with arms extended like the wings of a graceful bird. (Envision Henin’s or Mauresmo’s surreal brand of artistry here.)
Like a beautiful orchid in bloom, it is inspiring to witness. Its form and finish are so exquisite that its shortcomings are often overshadowed by its artistry. When properly struck the shot is effortless, flowing, and by many accounts, museum-worthy.
YES, it’s beautiful – on that most of us can agree. But there are other things to consider. Tennis isn’t all about beauty – any scoreboard will tell you that. The one-hander may indeed be museum-worthy, but sadly, it appears as though the museum might be the only place women’s tennis fans will get to see the shot in the near future.
Over the last 20 years, the one-hander has all but disappeared from the women’s game. At year-end 1989, six top-10 women hit the one-hander. Today, of the top-50 players on the WTA tour, there are only three who currently hit the shot.
Very sad, but also very true. In two decades a whole species of backhand has been nearly wiped off the tennis map.
The numbers don’t lie. But what exactly are they telling us? Is the one-hander really no longer a viable stroke to counter the power strokes that the modern game features? Does it lack an element of disguise, or involve too many working parts to be as consistent or stable as the two-hander? Or, is its disappearance the fault of developmental tennis programs – ones that opt for simplicity in order to get their junior players to a competitive level at younger ages?
The answer is all of the above.
We all can see the women’s game evolving – with it the strokes that the players hit must evolve accordingly. The harsh truth is that in today’s game, the form and function of the two-hander are simply better suited to handle the vicious topspin and ping-pong-like pace that modern players are generating.
Like so many of us, Antonio Van Grichen – known for coaching Victoria Azarenka and Vera Zvonareva – believes that the one-hander is the more artistic of the two backhands. He feels that the one-hander is prettier to watch because it is “Smoother, more fluid, and less constricting than a two-hander.” (I strongly agree – how about you?)
But Van Grichen also knows the reality of the situation. “The two-handed backhand is great to return serve because you can shorten the swing and better neutralize your opponent’s power, thanks to the help of the non-dominant arm,” he says. “With the one hander you will only have your dominant arm, and that requires more strength.”
“It’s just pure math,” says Justin Gimelstob, former ATP player and current WTA commentator and pundit. “You get a lot more stability, balance, and ability to offset incoming speed with the two-hander.”
Much to purists chagrin, the one-hander is a dying breed among the WTA’s elite today. And while Van Grichen and Gimelstob believe that the shot has its strengths (enables a player to seamlessly transition to the net and also make up for a speed deficiency with the extra reach) they both believe that we’ll see less and less of it in the future. “Because of the added strength and stability that the non-dominant hand provides, and the leverage that it gives you against the high ball,” says Gimelstob, “the two-hand backhand has become a staple at the higher levels of the game.”
Staple, indeed. The numbers are truly alarming. These days when I see a one-hander I can’t help think I’m seeing a polar bear floating around on a melting icecap.
As breathtakingly beautiful as it is to watch, the one-hander is believed to be inferior to the two-hander when it comes to handling the other staples of today’s modern tennis: wicked spin and mind-boggling pace. The nasty stuff that WTA players are hitting in the age of western grips, luxilon strings, and feather-light racquets requires a very short concise stroke in order to make early contact.
It seems that we have a clear case of math trumping artistry here. And it makes me wonder: Will tennis be as entertaining to watch in the future as it becomes more robotic in order to adapt to a smash-mouth brand of baseline bashing? Isn’t there something to be said for diversity, for beauty?
“There is definitely an artistic value that would be lost if the one-handed backhand completely went away,” says Gimelstob, who hit the one-hander himself. “But I don’t think that will ever be the case.” Music to my ears, tell me more, I think. He continues. “A great one-hander is still an excellent shot.”
I have to agree. And if the one-hander is such a dinosaur, how is it that Justine Henin, one of the most artful players of all-time (who just happens to have seven Grand Slams on her resume), has had such unparalleled success with it? Clearly Justine didn’t miss the added strength and stability that the non-dominant arm provides as she ran ragged over her peers for big chunks of the last decade.
But something here doesn’t make sense. If Henin is one of the two greatest female players of the last decade, then why wouldn’t more kids want to imitate their hero and hit the backhand like her? You’ve heard of “I wanna be like Mike,” then why not “I wanna be a queen like Justine?”
The fact of the matter is that young girls probably do want to imitate their heroes – if only their parents would let them. But developmentally, it just isn’t prudent to ask a young child to take on a project as demanding as the one-hander. The difficulty level, and risk to injury, make the decision a no-brainer for parents and coaches of young players. “The one-hander puts more strain on the dominant arm, and overall it is more difficult to learn for most,” says Van Grichen.
This brings us closer to the crux of this debate. The issues of strength and stability are magnified when it comes to children. Predictably, they are also magnified more for females than their male counterparts. As many young players have taken up the racquet as toddlers, the two-hander’s obvious advantages have proven hard to ignore for parents and coaches of aspiring junior tennis players. It is, after all, a competitive world we live in, and that competition starts at a younger and younger age these days.
As our young prodigies gain experience in match play, they naturally become attached to the shot they are already familiar with, and that doesn’t bode well for the plight of the one-hander. “The two-hand backhand, at a young stage, generally is used because the kids need the extra stability,“ adds Gimelstob. “Most of the kids get so efficient at it that they don’t want to change.”
But there are exceptions. Spain’s 2nd highest-ranked woman, Carla Suarez Navarro, has long been praised for her one-hander. “When I finish a match,” she said in a 2009 article by Christopher Clarey of The New York Times, “people always come up to me and talk to me about my backhand and even thank me for my backhand.”
This anecdote is further proof of the attraction that people feel for the shot. Simply put, people are in love with the one-hander. But had it not been for the proclivities of her first coach, Suarez Navarro may have never been taught the shot. “My first coach, Alfonso Perez, had a one-hander, and so did his sister,” she said. “And they taught me that way, and since I had the strength to do it, I guess they never tried to change it.”
So maybe there is hope after all. Gimelstob believes that the one-hander will be less of a common entity in the future, but he also feels that nationality can play a role in saving the stroke. “I don’t think that the one-hand backhand will ever completely go away,” he said. “Certain regions embrace the shot. A lot of the Italians have great one-handers… the Spaniards, the Swiss. It’s not going extinct, but it will be minimized.”
Martina Navratilova feels similarly, as relayed by Clarey. “I think for a serve and volleyer, it’s better to have a one-handed backhand. There’s more sameness there. But really, if I were teaching someone to play today, I would teach the two-handed backhand and one-handed slice and one-handed volley. The two-hander is just a more secure ball.”
Strength, stability, leverage, security – everything seems to be favoring the two-hander today. As the pace of the game quickens, the reality is that the one-hander is looking at a future in which it is more of an anomaly than a viable alternative.
While it isn’t extinct yet, women’s tennis fans might be wise to enjoy it while they can.
Chris Oddo is a freelance tennis writer and blogger who is based in San Francisco, California. He is a regular commenter at OTB under the moniker The Fan Child. You can follow his blog at http://thefanchild.blogspot.com.
I have been watching tennis since 1992, and I’ve always thought of the one-handed backhand as an ugly stroke.
It’s acceptable to take one hand off the backhand when stretched wide, or when hitting a backhand dropshot, a sliced backhand AS AN APPROACH, or a punch-volley, but I could never be a fan of a player who didn’t have a two-handed backhand.
Jana Novotná is the only woman who made the exclusive use of the one-handed backhand look flairsome to me, because she had a beautiful net-game.
Interesting take, Andrew. I’ve always believed that the one-hander was the shot with artistic flair, and the two-hander was the efficient and practial alternative.
Chris, this topic made me think, analyze, and reflect.
I began playing tennis in the early seventies with a two-handed backhand. I went the other way in that my one-handed backhand became my more dominant stroke on the backhand side. I use the two-handed backhand on service returns and some shots that are not quite high enough to require an overhead to be used.
I always give all of my students an equal opportunity to learn the one-hand backhand. It seems to me that fewer students are feeling comfortable executing their backhand strokes with just one hand; more of my students are just naturally using two hands on the backhand side.
Picture this action: You push a person backwards into a swimming pool using only one hand and then do the same exact push with both hands. Using two hands enables you to create a greater force using the same amount of effort. This is because both shoulders have been used to create the force.
Using a two-handed backhand allows both shoulders to rotate with the tennis ball toward the target. The shoulder rotation allows the most important part of tennis, the meeting of the tennis ball and the racquet strings, to stay in front of your body instead of exiting to one side.
A one-handed backhand requires that the ball enter your peripheral vision (toward the net) before you look to see exactly where the ball went. The tennis ball stays in your frontal vision longer during the execution of a two-handed backhand.
The two-handed backhand seems to be the more grounded of the two backhand types. It seems to me that, overall, the two-handed backhand offers a more stable base for most backhand strokes.
A two-handed backhand player transitions out of the backhand more quickly for the next stroke, or hit, than does a one-handed player. This is because their shoulders have already rotated in the direction of the target upon completion of two-handed backhand stroke.
A one-handed player is required to execute a shoulder turn back toward the tennis ball after his, or her, backhand stroke has been executed. The time required to make this additional transitional move could be playing a huge role in tennis, at all levels.
This is an Interesting article in which you site numerous sources to include varying opinions.
I agree with Andrew Broad, that a one-handed backhand is a useful element of one’s game. I use a two-handed backhand,predominantly, but a one-handed is useful if you need to extend the reach of a shot. It should be used as part of a varied arsenal of shots.
Only Justine Henin has the perfect timing and anticipation to play with one-handed backhand against power hitters (the hardwork were about her FH & Serve) … so I don’t know if there will be someone like her in the future… And I agree as long as these young tennis players’ parents or coaches do not realise the natural talent of their kid… tennis will all be just nothing but a power game.
Yes, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Justine Henin, Amelie Mauresemo, Gabriella Sabitini, etc. all have ugly strokes and been relegated to Futures and Challengers because of their one-handed backhand. This debate will continue til’ the end of time and to be useless. It’s NEVER enough for a on-hander: Grand Slams after Grand Slams.
*rolling me eyes laddie*
Lots of one-handers in the late round the 2010 U.S. Open – maybe it’s not dead after all? Youzhny, Wawrinka, Federer, Robredo…but in the final…two two-handers.
What to make of it?
Schiavone certainly made her case for the one-hander in the women’s game at Roland Garros!
Dear readers and coaches – kids today have small racquets, smaller courts and progressive tennis balls now. That means you can get kids to use proper grips (forget Boliterri’s extreme grips which prevents excursions to the net – think A Roddick for example); proper technique in the game earlier on – and, wait for it, wait, wonderful and strong one handed backhands that look like Henin’s or Roger’s backhands. Coaches use your science and use the tools at hand – get the kids to learn proper biomechanics early and you will see them play the game safely for a lifetiime at any level! JE Sleeth of one handed backhand technique thanks to good early coaching