Has Stan shown a glimpse of what's coming?

First topic message reminder :

It was a smart tactic that Magnus Nornan developed; knowing it was impossible for Stan to outlast the wall that is Djokovic they decided to use every ounce of Wawrinkas power to push through, in particular, he hardly ever passed by an opportunity to take a dead ball on, crunching it into corners so not even the incredible elastic man could get there.

Earlier in the week Jack Sock had applied the same tactic against Rafa. He overlooked the bit about putting it regularly into the court, but still took a set and essentially put the match onto his racquet.

Kyrgios had, for a while, looked similarly strong against Murray, though injury cut short the question of whether it would have brought a win.

We've been into an era of long baseline rallies for so long now that it seems like that's how tennis always is, but I'm hoping that the formula to beating this game is in front of us; not because I want to watch people hit the cover off the ball from the back - fun as that is for a while - but because the way to then beat that game is to go to the net, a lot. Against someone like Wawrinka, a skilful net game can be very effective, taking away the time and putting pressure on returns. Tactics such as mid-paced, angled serves to bring a defensive return which a guy at the net can put away neutralise power as well as being fairly easy on the stamina, so if it goes longer the net player can survive.

For the net game to return, first the walls have to be pushed over. Hopefully the young big lads will find inspiration in what Stans done and roll the game forward.

MMT1 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

MMT1 wrote:With his victory at Roland Garros, Stan delivered us all from three myths about tennis that I find very irritating and limiting:

1. the insurmountable head to head record
2. the one-handed backhand handicap
3. the older players can't win multiple majors

We should all thank him for that.

I disagree the one handed backhand being a big disability on tour is not a myth it is true. As great as Stan's backhand is and it is I wouldn't trade Djoko, Murray, or Nishikori's backhand for his. And that principally is a result of the weakness of the one hand backhand in the return. Djokovic lost his form in the second set of that final on his serve and Stan's return was flattered quite a bit. I think if you take a good two handed backhand and put it on Federer that Fed probably wins another 3-4 majors. It is the principal reason that outside of wimbeldon and maybe the US I don't favor Dimitrov's chances and I don't think Thiem will be anything more than a good pro. You very rarely see a great returner with a one handed backhand even in the days of the wooden racquet the best returners had two hands on the racquet. It is just a huge part of the game and maybe even more important now than it has ever been.

The one-handed backhand has diminished in tennis, not because it is technically problematic, but because it requires better technique to execute when young and still developing physically.  Because of the money in the game, young players want to do better sooner, and unless they are exceptionally talented AND have the patience to develop the necessary technique, most will take the easy way out and keep the second hand on the backhand.  But by your logic, the natural evolution would before both forehands and backhands to be two-handed, which you don't see, and that is because very few players are incapable of hitting an effective forehand at a young age to the extent that their best option for being competitive is to put a second hand on the stroke.  Physically it's easier to use the torque of your core on a forehand than a backhand, which requires a better sequencing in the transfer of power from the feet to the hips to the core and then to the arm.  Without this, a kid hitting a one-handed backhand cannot maintain racquet head stability which is required to play at high levels.

But there is nothing deblitating about one-handed backhands anywhere.  You just have to have better technique, which most players will not committ to at a young age, and as adults they stick with what they know.  You know how many French Open champions have had 2-handed backhands in the last 20 years? Four of them (Kafelnikov, Agassi, Ferrero and Nadal), and if you eliminate Nadal the number of titles is 3.  But there have been 6 French open champions in the last 20 years with a one-handed backhand (Muster, Kuerten, Costa, Gaudio, Federer, Wawrinka), and if you eliminate Kuerten, the number of titles is 5.

That's 6 to 4 and 5 to 3.  The titles have less to do with the two-handed backhand than the guy hitting it - Stan's win should be ample evidence of that.

Your post I am sorry to say has some basic assumptions that are just wrong. First off, the last twenty year thing about there being only 3 FO champions without a one hander is a little deceiving. Because 20 years ago the one handed backhand was much more prevalent. If you go back to the late 70s it was a two handed backhand that was a rarity on tour. Also in the last twenty years Nadal has won approximately half of those titles. 3 of the remaining titles is not a bad ratio at all. Plus conditions have changed dramatically in the last decade and so has technology. First, you have the new poly strings which their principal feature is that they generate massive amounts of spin. The one handed backhand by its very nature doesn't handle the high and heavy ball nearly as well. Not just off the ground but more importantly off the kick serve. Therefore, the last decade is dramatically a different time frame than 11-20 years ago. The one hander is better for faster conditions and for low balls and it handles slice and flat shots better. Well today's tennis has been moving towards massive spin. Unless we get a change in tech, or conditions the one hander is up against it.

Secondly, you make a rather in due respect non-germane point about how my logic could also apply to the forehand. You can't compare a one handed forehand to two handed forehand similarly like a one handed backhand and two handed backhand. For a forehand you are hitting with a stronger and completely different muscle group then a backhand. You don't require more stability because the muscle group you are is strong enough. Again it is like a fighter a forehand is like a punch, a backhand would be like backhanding someone. You can obviously generate more power with the same swing arc from a normal punch. That is why when you see a fight typically they punch either and don't backhand each other.

Even a backhand as huge as Wawrinka's has cost Stan. Stan is a top 4 level player but he is breaking other players at a rate that places somewhere in the twenties. Why because most one handers typically have to chip back most returns and have difficulty handling a big kick serve. Not only is the one hander more difficult to master it also is a shot that requires you to always hit the ball in front of you. With a two hander you can be a little bit later on the ball and still drive through with power. With a one hander if the ball gets into your body you are basically dead. That is why when pulled wide and required to pull off a great passing shot from full stretch the two hander is infinitely better. I think the one hander will continue to lose steam until very few if any pros use it. Unless we get a reverse to much, much faster conditions and technology that doesn't favor huge spin.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sportsmen are moving on, the game will change. Weren't you the guy who talked about people getting massive and powerful?

Oh I think we will see tall, athletes with big power that can move. But I don't think that will result in the return of S and V. The points I was making is simply to say it is a trade off between size and power and mobility and durability.

S&V will become the only way to beat such a guy.

Well you could be right BB as those types of players typically don't hit on the run and retrieve well. But I think we are just going to see a continued evolution to generalist type players who can do a little of everything. Good all courters who can succeed week in and out on all surfaces.

We'll just have to agree to disagree - I think it's the player, not the stroke, and because children are smaller and weaker, and changing their stroke when they become strong enough would put players at a (temporary) disadvantage (at least until the stroke is mastered) most will always take the easy way out of the juniors. But in my opinion, as many of the best backhands in the game are one-handed as two because at the top of the game, talent and technique are king, so for me it's not limiting. In fact, all these one-handed players in the top 100 suggest that while the stroke is rare, success with it is not.

There are a lot of pretenders out there with two-handed backhands that are no closer to winning tournaments and majors titles than the very talented minority of one-handed backhand players. I'm sure that if the most talented two-handed backhanders had committed to the switch early on in their career, they'd be just as successful today.

One problem with this concept is the Federer myopia - that because he struggles with certain players on that stroke, and because he has an aura of technical omnipotence, it is assumed that it can't be done. But Federer is not technically omnipotent - he does a hell of a lot of things well, and many better than Wawrinka, but Wawrinka's backhand is far superior to his, and can do against some players, what his cannot - that is a commentary on Federer, more than the stroke conceptually.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sportsmen are moving on, the game will change. Weren't you the guy who talked about people getting massive and powerful?

Oh I think we will see tall, athletes with big power that can move. But I don't think that will result in the return of S and V. The points I was making is simply to say it is a trade off between size and power and mobility and durability.

S&V will become the only way to beat such a guy.

No it won't. The way to beat such a player is to move exceptionally well and counter-punch with variety. Ironically, SVing is theoretically the way to beat Novak - there is just no-one good enough.

I'm foreseeing players who you can't just retrieve against; they'll be hitting the ball too hard and you have to take the initiative. Novak was under pressure the other day partly because he couldn't get away with just rallying, he had to go for it because he knew anything ordinary was going to be crunched.

It's all about moving the game to a point where a player has to play an assertive shot at every opportunity, be that a heavy ball, or a sharp angle, or a net play. The contrast to the worst of those endless Australian Open matches featuring Djokovic, Murray & Nadal would be massive.

Maybe you're just longing for the past, which is almost longing for your youth. I have already seen a trend back towards volley and serve and volley. I think 2011 was the nadir of almost no serve and volley in any tournament in the whole year and in 2012 volleying seemed to increase a bit.

I think from 2012 on court speeds have also increased as they had gone too far the other way.

However, quite a small change, we still have predominantly slow courts and extremely aggressive tennis is still fairly rare. I am not sure I see the evidence of much change.

Hmm, not so much the past as a future different from now. I give up on the organisers to make the game more exciting and I rely on evolution to produce bigger, stronger players who will take the game away from the retrievers.

Actually we've already seen how the super aggressive players fared vs the likes of Nadal and Djokovic. The AO2009 SF between Verdasco and Nadal; the 2009 FO match between Sod and Nadal; and the FO2011 match, the Cincy 2013 final, between Isner and Nadal. In those matches, the aggressive players won some but Nadal also won some of those matches.

The Djoko/Wawrinka slam matches too, they met thrice at the AO, once at USO and once at FO, from 2013 onwards. Except for the FO final match, the other four matches all went the distance. Djoko won three out of the five matches played, so whether you're aggressive or you're counterpunching, you still would win some of those matches.

Its a matter of how good a player you are; what skills set that you have; and how well you use them to handle your various opponents, ie your tactical skills.

Its not like Nadal and Djoko don't have their own aggrressive skills, and so I think a well balanced player (in terms of good defensive and offensive skills) will always do better than players who have only good offensive but not so good defensive skills.

Well I think that's not a great set of examples as the "attacker" isn't necessarily the best standard, certainly not Isner or Verdasco. I could even argue the other way, that their tactic allowed a much inferior player to close the gap.

I've probably explained myself poorly; I'm looking at guys like Kyrgios who could bring a new level of power and athleticism, not plodders like Isner. Neither am I saying a player wouldn't have balance to his game; I'm saying guys can get big enough and strong enough for their play on the whole to be able to overpower a retriever. The title of the article isn't "Stan is the future of tennis", but that perhaps he points a way for younger players to come in and push Djokovic etc. out of the way rather than trying to emulate them.

And if we're citing one-off examples then teenage Kyrgios v Nadal, W 2014, offers a different perspective.

Nah, Wimbledon 2014 wasnt a good example. Kyrgios didnt push Rafa back but won because of his big serve, serving 39 aces! Yet, Rafa lost by just a slim margin, esp in the TB.

Kygrios for all his aggression and athletism, is injury prone, so, your hope of a big, strong, aggressive, fast top level player to push a player like Novak, may not materialize. Novak is more durable than anyone else, even better than Fed imo. Hes well balanced on both wings, well balanced in terms of defence and offence.

Murray has shown us how to beat Kygrios where it counts. Like I said, a player whos very good at both defence and offence will more often than not beat a player who's very good at offence but no so in defence.

Hitting the way stan did in the final was a freak performance. You can't smack it that hard every match and expect to win.  That's why he's 4th and Novak is first.  The one hander doesn't have the same control by its inherent mechanics. Moreover hitting through players like Novak will only work the way it did maybe one every ten times.

So players and equipment will never evolve? Oh, ok.

Exactly. We've seen some evolution inside the last decade alone. In twenty years, people will wonder why past tennis players weren't trying out strings made of carbon nanotube adamantium

Players will always evolve, and the style of play at the top will always have a target placed firmly to the rear. S&V seemed so dominant not long ago; now it is virtually extinct.