Federer v Nadal (The Philosophical Battle Between Backhand And Forehand)

Both Federer and Nadal are complete players in that they have no big holes in their game and are good at playing all the shots. Both players have a great backhand and a great dictating forehand. No matter how good a players backhand is I don't think I've ever seen a player (including Federer and Nadal) who have the sort of control required to dictate with it. But how and when they both choose to play backhands and forehands highlights a different philosophical approach to the game.

The traditional way is to hit a forehand when the ball falls on the forehand side and a backhand when the ball falls on the backhand side. Running round a backhand and hitting a forehand wasn't encouraged. In practice this would be to strengthen the backhand but practice creates habits. Running round a backhand also involves more running and can put a player way out of position. Running round a backhand may also be used to disguise a weak backhand... and who wants to tell an opponent about their weak backhand? These are just a few of the sound reasons for dividing forehands and backhands evenly and using them in a way that is determined by where the ball falls. Running round a backhand is an admission of weakness. Federer believes in this and he won't back down!

Nadal looks at things completely differently. He want's to hit forehands. A backhand is just there for the times when he can't get to his forehand. It is worth giving up position, running more, leaving a huge space for an opponent to hit into and broadcasting to the world that your backhand is weaker than your forehand to gain the advantage of hitting with a dominant shot. Nadal believes in this and he won't back down.

Watching both it's obvious that they would be technically capable of adopting the others approach. It's also obvious that they could both gain from perhaps being a little less stubborn. Ha ha! But hey they are arguably two of the best players ever and perhaps particularly when they face each other across the net they are not going to back down in this philosophical battle.

Isn't it great that we get to watch two players capable and willing to argue in this way. What philosophy do you adopt?

I don't think Federer is a good example he runs around a lot of backhands to turn them into forehands Hawkeye. Nadal because of his deeper court positioning can more effectively run around more forehands he has that split second extra time. Nadal is the most aggressive player I can remember in running around the backhand but players like Sampras, Courier, etc. have used that technique for a long time. It is just that Nadal is more extreme in his application.

A better example would be Djoko and Nadal. Djokovic as well runs around the backhand but less often, and his positioning closer to the line doesn't give him the time to do it. Djokovic runs around his forehand less often than fed or Nadal, probably because he has a better backhand than both as well and his forehand as great as it is (bar the odd Haas type performance) is a shade worse than either of those two guys.

If Federer would run around his backhand against Nadal, he would end up in the stands.

Chydremion wrote:If Federer would run around his backhand against Nadal, he would end up in the stands.

Perhaps Murray can join him and Nadal can play Canadian doubles with Federer/Murray.

I think if you have a choice to use your "bigger" weapon, it doesn't show a sign of weakness at all. Federer's backhand traditionally has been more than capable of responding to his opponents, with Nadal being the main exception.

Nadal's backhand? Well anyone who's watched him has seen what a weapon it is, the angles, pace when he's in position - I mean, it's breath-taking at times, and reliable at the least.

Remember when they talked about Edberg's forehand - well, compared to his backhand or volleys, sure - "relative" weakness, but how many of the Top 100 throughout his career, would have traded their's for his? Most of them. Sure exceptions, but....

Surely one of Federer's great shots is the inside-out forehand. The fact that Nadal is a leftie and employs lots of topspin obviously means that the shot is neutralized in their meetings but that's merely an outcome of Nadal's tactics rather than any philosophical decision on Federer's part.

FMKK... welcome.

socal1976. I'm not sure I agree. Federer is very reluctant to run round his backhand particuarly against Nadal. For example Nadal serves to his backhand what feels like 99% of the time. He knows whats coming (and even if he doesn't I shout at the TV and tell him). Ha ha! But still he doesn't do it.

Novak is far too sensible (on court at least) to get involved in a philosophical battle. IMO he hit's forehands and backhands as required and runs round his backhand when it's sensible to do so.

yloponom68 (It's tricky typing your name). IMO both Nadal and Federer have great backhands and forehands. I bet lot's of players would like to trade. But it's interesting when and how they use them.

Federer's backhand like you say is more than capable of standing up to other opponents so perhaps he want's to prove that it can stand up to Nadal? He want's to prove his point? Nadal's backhand like you say can be breath taking at times but he is reluctant sometimes to give it a chance. He wants to hit forehands. That is his "philosophy"?

FMKK. Hi! Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding your point. But I was talking about the choice between hitting with a backhand or a forehand not the direction either was hit into.

I don't think it has anything to do with philosophy - players run around the backhand if they feel it's worth the risk to have a chance to either take control of the point or kill it off. It's really a question of technical symmetry (whether a player has as good a forehand as his backhand) or the lack thereof (and how far away they are from the equilibrium).

The thing is, the advantage of technical symmetry is that you don't HAVE to run around the backhand to still have a good chance to kill off points, but if your forehand is GOOD enough to kill off the points (particularly with one shot), there's not THAT much risk in running around the backhand to use it. But this depends on your opponent and (1) how well the ball is struck into the backhand, and (2) how well they're able to cover the inside out forehand.

That's the reason this doesn't work against Nadal (for most right-handed players, not just Federer). The distance you have to cover, and the speed with which you have to cover it, is far too great to be worth the risk of getting that forehand up the line, so you're trapped hitting backhands. And unless your backhand is REALLY strong (like Djokovic or Murray) you're not in a position to dictate as readily with that stroke - which makes sense because if your backhand was really strong, you probably wouldn't be running around it anyway. Furthermore, if you do say, "To hell with it!" and run around the backhand, knowing the risk, you'll often take such a huge cut on the forehand (to try to finish off the point with one shot) that very often you'll make unforced errors anyway.

But at the end of the day, the issue isn't philosophy, it's the relatively quality of one's backhand.

Good points MMT1, but Nadal does have a very good backhand, and the level he runs around that shot to hit forehands I think is unique to him. I have never seen a person position themselves so aggressively to hit forehands like Nadal, and I don't think anyone rates his backhand as anything but a very good shot.

MMT1 wrote:I don't think it has anything to do with philosophy - players run around the backhand if they feel it's worth the risk to have a chance to either take control of the point or kill it off. It's really a question of technical symmetry (whether a player has as good a forehand as his backhand) or the lack thereof (and how far away they are from the equilibrium).

The thing is, the advantage of technical symmetry is that you don't HAVE to run around the backhand to still have a good chance to kill off points, but if your forehand is GOOD enough to kill off the points (particularly with one shot), there's not THAT much risk in running around the backhand to use it. But this depends on your opponent and (1) how well the ball is struck into the backhand, and (2) how well they're able to cover the inside out forehand.

That's the reason this doesn't work against Nadal (for most right-handed players, not just Federer). The distance you have to cover, and the speed with which you have to cover it, is far too great to be worth the risk of getting that forehand up the line, so you're trapped hitting backhands. And unless your backhand is REALLY strong (like Djokovic or Murray) you're not in a position to dictate as readily with that stroke - which makes sense because if your backhand was really strong, you probably wouldn't be running around it anyway. Furthermore, if you do say, "To hell with it!" and run around the backhand, knowing the risk, you'll often take such a huge cut on the forehand (to try to finish off the point with one shot) that very often you'll make unforced errors anyway.

But at the end of the day, the issue isn't philosophy, it's the relatively quality of one's backhand.

MMT1. IMO both Federer and Nadal have "technical symmetry" in that they don't have a weak side. That's a great way to describe this ability BTW. They both have world class backhands and forehands. However I don't think even the best backhand can be used in quite the same way as a controlling forehand. That's why most players choose to sometimes run round their backhand. I don't think Murray or Djokovic (who has an exceptional backhand) use this stroke to take control in the same way that a forehand can be used. In fact I can't think of any player that does this.

But what Federer does is choose to stick to "technical symmetry" almost as a way of making a point. I'm not saying he never runs around a backhand but from his play it looks like he's decided it's not the correct thing to do. Same with Nadal. He doesn't always run round his backhand but it's plain to see hitting as many balls as possible with a forehand is the correct thing to do. In contrast Djokovic who again has a great forehand and backhand will play with more technical symmetry but will also run round his backhand... but he does both when it's the obvious way to play. He's not entering into any philosophical argument. Maybe I should alter my 3rd option in the Poll and mention Djokovic as an example?

But... But... Nadal and Federer have the greatest forehands of all time.

Maybe a Murray-Djokovic thread on the back hand philosophy?

kinggraf. I don't think you understand tennis philosophy. Nadal and Federer of course have arguably the best forehands and backhands of all time. But if you watch them play they are also having a sometimes heated argument about how they should be used.

But, the fact is, their forehands are their best shots, which trickles down to how they play the game. Even Federer with his stubborn approach, will almost always run around the backhand (he does have the best inside-out).

kingraf. Yes both their forehands are their best shots because they can take control with them in a way that isn't possible with a backhand. You've identified Federer's "stubborn approach". I'm talking about the reasoning behind it. Don't understand why you've gone on to say that Federer will "almost always" run round his backhand though... because clearly he doesn't if he's got a stubborn approach.

You could also say that Nadal has a "stubborn approach" when he tries to hit everything on his forehand. Again why. What is he saying by doing so.

Who is correct with their opposite "stubborn approaches" (or who wins the philosophical battle?). Personally I just like to see them argue.

Well I would argue the reasoning behind is
1) Thats how he was taught
2) He stands to close to efficiently run around a la Nadal
3) He probably has enough confidence in his back hand to keep doing it

Only a couple of months or so ago Federer credited the constant targetting of his backhand by opponents over the years for the improvement in that area of his game.

Mind you, he did also add that he would most probably teach his two girls daughters to play with a DHBH - "if they decide to take up the sport"

(personally I would hope that if they do take up tennis, they will seek guidance from someone who has actually achieved something in the sport.... )

http://tennis.si.com/2013/02/13/roger-federer-backhand/

lags72. Sadly Federer's dreams of teaching his girls tennis philosophy may have come to an abrupt end. I remember an interview were he was asked about it and he just looked wistfully into the distance before saying that his girls "didn't like tennis"...

No doubt the twins are very bright, but even so I wouldn't take their comments too literally if I were you hawkeye. The tender age of three might be just a tad early to be making long-term decisions on careers, or even future leisure activity.

Either way, I don't think we'll ever see them flipping burgers at McDonalds .......

lags72 wrote:Only a couple of months or so ago Federer credited the constant targetting of his backhand by opponents over the years for the improvement in that area of his game.

Mind you, he did also add that he would most probably teach his two girls daughters to play with a DHBH - "if they decide to take up the sport"

(personally I would hope that if they do take up tennis, they will seek guidance from someone who has actually achieved something in the sport.... )

http://tennis.si.com/2013/02/13/roger-federer-backhand/

I have said the same thing that the single hander is not a good shot to teach young kids apparently even federer agrees with me. At most a single hand backhand should be used in conjunction with a two hander. I am still waiting for some astute coach to teach a player how to hit both shots with topspin situationally. On low balls or moving up in the court use the topspin one hander, on return and on high balls use the two hander. It isn't that hard to learn the technique of both shots and would exponentially add to the versatility of the player in question.

HE, they both have their strengths and weakness, its the ability to minimize your weakness and maximize your strengths win you the game, and both Nadal and Fed are good at it.

Glad we don't have monotonous style of play like the playing surface of ATP tour and there is some variety here.

lags72 wrote:No doubt the twins are very bright, but even so I wouldn't take their comments too literally if I were you hawkeye. The tender age of three might be just a tad early to be making long-term decisions on careers, or even future leisure activity.

Either way, I don't think we'll ever see them flipping burgers at McDonalds .......

They could perhaps get the condition known as "affluneza". McEnroe once said that his children had developed it. It could therefore be something that the children of multi slam winning tennis players are prone to. Mirka appears a sensible woman though so she should be able to deal with it.

I can only imagine you must mean affluenza.

"Affluneza" on the other hand really does sound a rather unpleasant condition .......

I just want to clarify that when I referred to the "relative" quality of Federer and Nadal's backhands, it was relative to THEIR OWN forehands and not the backhands of other players.

Regardless of how good my backhand is, if my forehand is much better, I'd be foolish not to run around it if I can mitigate the risk of doing so. And good as they are in the abstract (although I think Federer's is slightly better than Nadal's) both players REALLY run around their backhands a lot more than Djokovic and Murray, for example, who, in my opinion are technically more symmetrical.

This is also one of the reasons that rallies beween Djokovic and Murray can really drag on and appear to be monotonous, even when they consist of very high quality ball striking - it's because there are really very few imbalances for either of them to exploit or to have to compensate for, unlike rallies between Federer and Nadal who, because of their technical asymmetry are often all over the court in these extravant combinations of being way out of position and perfect footwork.

But I digress - the quality of the backhands I refer to, for the purposes of this discussion, is relative to the quality of the player's forehand - it's not a bad thing in the abstract to be technically asymmetrical - just look at the numbers for Federer and Nadal - it's just that running around the backhand is a risk that has to be mitigated, and if the risk isn't worth the reward, even a player who's MO is to run around the backhand will get "stuck" hitting backhands, not by his own choice, but because of his opponent. I think this is why Federer gets "stuck" hitting backhands against Nadal's forehand - obviously a losing proposition for him.

BTW - I think there's no inherent reason why a young player should go with a 2-handed backhand - it's just a question of technique and it depends on the player and their footwork and hand/eye coordination. Kids with naturally good footwork will more easily take to a 1-handed backhand, but that's not a hard and fast rule once they reach the pro's.

MMT1. You are not alone in your assessment that no matter how good your backhand is it is not as good as your forehand. With a forehand it's possible to really take control. By that I don't mean always hitting fancy winners because of course that can be done with a backhand. But I don't know any player who has the flexibility in a backhand to take control in the same way as is possible with a forehand. Including Nadal and Federer.

I have to disagree with you when you say Federer and Nadal are not "technically symetrical" because I think beyond doubt that they are. Both their backhands are world class and are only relatively weaker than the majority of backhands are in relation to their forehands. Until Djokovic beat him a few times in 2011 Nadal's backhand was often talked about as one of the best in the game (the extra control because he is a little bit right handed) but he runs round it the most. But they both don't choose to play that way. They have their philosophical beliefs and they won't back down.

The argument appears particularly heated when they play each other. As in "I'll show him what does he know about how to use backhands and forehands" and "Can't he see it's ridiculous to use a forehand/backhand from that position it just demonstrates weakness" and "I don't/do think running round the backhand is a risk worth taking" and "my forehands so strong I don't need to hit backhands" and "my backhands so strong I don't need to run round it" etc. Sigh... I could watch them argue for hours...

As I've said Djokovic has no point to make and takes the middle road. Murray is unique as he doesn't possess a dictating forehand so he has no choice but to play symmetrically and can't take part in philosophical debates.

The debate about single and double handed backhands is a different one. Personally I love single handed backhands they are just so beautiful and it is a sign of weakness (cough) if you need two hands to hold a tennis racquet.

Federer and Nadal are not "technically symetrical" because I think beyond doubt that they are.

One has a SHBH and the other DHBH.

So on that basis they are not technical symetrical.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Federer and Nadal are not "technically symetrical" because I think beyond doubt that they are.

One has a SHBH and the other DHBH.

So on that basis they are not technical symetrical.

This philosophical debate is not about SHBH v DHBH. That is merely a "technical" argument and is of little interest to philosophers.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Federer and Nadal are not "technically symetrical" because I think beyond doubt that they are.

One has a SHBH and the other DHBH.

So on that basis they are not technical symetrical.

This philosophical debate is not about SHBH v DHBH. That is merely a "technical" argument and is of little interest to philosophers.

So the fact it is philosophical means that we can chuck anyone else in,as merit based observations count for nothing given these 2 are anything but symetrical.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Federer and Nadal are not "technically symetrical" because I think beyond doubt that they are.

One has a SHBH and the other DHBH.

So on that basis they are not technical symetrical.

This philosophical debate is not about SHBH v DHBH. That is merely a "technical" argument and is of little interest to philosophers.

So the fact it is philosophical means that we can chuck anyone else in,as merit based observations count for nothing given these 2 are anything but symetrical.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here? Because surely your not trying to say that two of the best players to play the game aren't capable of playing in a "technically symmetric" way. They both have great backhands and forehands. Could Federer run round his backhand and use his forehand to dictate a little more. Of course he could. Could Nadal hit a few more backhands. Of course he could. Would they do it? No because it goes against their philosophical belief. It would be an admission that they were wrong... and two highly competitive players like Federer and Nadal wouldn't want to admit defeat in a philosophical debate. It would be the equivalent of losing a slam final in the more usual way of measuring winners and losers in tennis battles.

One more clarification - technical symmetry refers to a single player's technique - that is his own forehand versus his own backhand. When a player has a forehand that is relatively stronger than his backhand, or a backhand relatively stronger than his forehand (like Gasquet or Wawrinka), he is technically asymmetrical.

A couple of comments have mentioned something about Federer and Nadal playing symmetrically, or symetrically to each other, or one having a 1-handed backhand while the other uses 2 - but this is not really the point I'm trying to make. Let's be clear - they both have great backhands, that's not in question. What's in question is why they run around their backhands so much more than say Djokovic and Murray. The reason is that, as good as their backhands are, their forehands are relatively better, so they run around the backhand to hit forehands.

Particularly in the case of Federer, he would run around his forehand more often when playing Nadal if he could sustain the risk, but Nadal hits to Federer's backhand in such a way that the risk is too great from him to freely run around it (like he does against most other players) and as a result he's "stuck" playing more backhands than he wants to against Nadal.

Federer is a great player with huge talent, but this doesn't necessarily mean he play however he wants against everyone, and he simply chooses not to run around his backhand against Nadal - essentially choosing to lose rather than playing "the wrong" way, even though that would give him a better shot to win.

My apologies if I'm beating a dead horse, but I find the premise implausible.

Good points MMT. Relative is the operable word here as Nadal destroyed Ferrer with his DHBH in Mexico recently. In both cases with Nadal/Federer we're talking about 2 of the likely 3 best ever FHs, so the BH can never be as strong. But considering both have been to 12 RG finals they are enormously solid both sides. Nadal knows to hit Federer on the BH side, and vice versa...particularly with Feds eastern BH grip affected on higher bouncing courts. However, both are raised on clay where its modus operandi to run around the BH - they do it with such aplomb being 2 of the best movers the game has seen. Clay isn't as natural to either Djokovic or particularly Murray so they've grown up not running around the BH the same...as a consequence you might argue that's made their BH their stronger wings.

It's rare to find players equally strong either side...can think of only 2, Djokovic and Agassi...perhaps Kafelnikov.

Is lendl in the top 3 for FH's lydian?

lydian wrote:Good points MMT. Relative is the operable word here as Nadal destroyed Ferrer with his DHBH in Mexico recently. In both cases with Nadal/Federer we're talking about 2 of the likely 3 best ever FHs, so the BH can never be as strong. But considering both have been to 12 RG finals they are enormously solid both sides. Nadal knows to hit Federer on the BH side, and vice versa...particularly with Feds eastern BH grip affected on higher bouncing courts. However, both are raised on clay where its modus operandi to run around the BH - they do it with such aplomb being 2 of the best movers the game has seen. Clay isn't as natural to either Djokovic or particularly Murray so they've grown up not running around the BH the same...as a consequence you might argue that's made their BH their stronger wings.

It's rare to find players equally strong either side...can think of only 2, Djokovic and Agassi...perhaps Kafelnikov.

No! (Well in truth I know less about Agassi and even less about Kafelnikov but I would still risk a no there) But no matter how good a players backhand is and no matter how they choose to use it it can never be a forehand. It just can't do what a good dictating forehand can do. That's not to say Djokovic hasn't got an exceptional backhand because he has. Some of his backhands down the line stick in the mind more than his forehands but his forehand is the more controlling shot.

Murray like I said is an interesting case because he doesn't posses a controlling or dictating forehand so his best option is to stick with a more symmetrical approach. I'm reluctant to talk about Murray even technically because I always seem to upset people. But anyway he doesn't get involved for whatever reason in this philosophical debate.

Interesting about movement being part of the technical requirements required for running round the backhand. But like you say both Federer and Nadal have this ability.



Sorry if that No was a bit blunt...

LuvSports! wrote:Is lendl in the top 3 for FH's lydian?

I would never attempt to judge the quality of Lendl's forehand because I would find it difficult to stay awake long enough to do the research. Zzzzz... But I would make an educated guess that he would never take part in philosophical tennis debates. His approach is far too systematic.

Good shout LS...but it was Sampras, a sledgehammer of a shot and possessor of best running FH ever in my opinion, he could whip it to 3000rpm when needed but most of the time just drilled it.

Selection here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yAFUIsY8Bw

HE, I dont mind blunt. However, technically what you said is not quite true. It depends what you mean by controlling. Djokovic is much better on controlling returns and putting opponents under pressure with his BH, he can also ralley equally either side...infact he's more stable on the BH wing. His FH isn't as good as Fed or Nadals but the composite of his FH+BH is a potent mix making him very hard to attack.

lydian. Players just have more flexibility when they hit with a forehand. They can vary direction, speed and spin easier and generally have more options. It appears easier to dictate play and take control of a rally. I don't mean hitting winners necessarily or the way they can respond under pressure or just keep the ball in play as most players can do this well with their backhands. That's the best way I can describe what I mean by the advantages of a forehand over a backhand. It's the dictating or controlling side. Hope you can understand what I mean?

I wasn't being critical of Djokovic. I just see him as taking a different approach. If you look in the poll. I would say he falls into the 3rd category. Maybe he is the sensible one?

Some good discussion points.

Lydian - good call on Sampras. That running forehand was one of the greatest and most under-rated shots.

MMT: Excellent point about the symmetry (or asymmetry) of the players. I'd put some subjective numbers on to illustrate, which would say that Fed and Nadal have 10/10 forehands and perhaps 8/10 backhands, so of course both benefit from running round to hit the forehand where this is possible (difficult for Federer against Nadal because of the excessive spin on Rafa's shot - it's the side spin and consequent lateral movement at speed away from Fed to his backhand corner that Nadal gets that makes it impossible).
By comparison, I'd say Djoko is 9/10 on both wings (and the most symmetrical player of the current era) and Andy 8/10 on the forehand and 9/10 on the backhand, so benefits least from running round.

Then again, being asymmetrical towards a stronger backhand never really did Jimmy Connors much harm.