PDA

View Full Version : Anyone who knows about TENNIS STROKES on CLAY in here


Sam L
May 6th, 2003, 03:06 AM
This is a quote I came across in the men's tennis forum, and there has been an extensive argument over in that thread (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?threadid=68180&mode=linear&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) already, so I thought I'll ask for other people's opinions here. Those who have played tennis on clay, those who play regularly or those who coach tennis would provide more insightful answers, I'm assuming, so please post if you are one. Here's the comment.

Claycourt perfect player MUST have a single-handed backhand.

I have never ever heard a pro player nor commentator admit to such a theory. If you have or if it is true, please tell me.

Gandalf
May 6th, 2003, 03:11 AM
I don't think it's true. It's just that most of the Spanish clay courters play one-handed that it is believed that.

Actually, I think that one-handed players have an advantage on grass, where the ball bounces so low, but I don't think on clay it's that important.

Leena
May 6th, 2003, 03:35 AM
If anything, I'd think having a 2-handed backhand would be best on clay. The court is slower, so the lack of reach isn't as important... and it's easier to handle high balls with 2 hands.

Anyways... Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Kafelnikov, Agassi... more than half of the past RG champions have had 2-handed backhands... so I don't think it's that important, of even matters at all.

Jane
May 6th, 2003, 01:47 PM
If a player needs a one-handed backhand on clay, how do you explain Chris Evert's record? Her results seem to be the ultimate rebuttel to that theory.

moby
May 6th, 2003, 02:24 PM
i think the reason behind this theory is that one handers can hit through the ball more and thus they can add a lot more topspin and make the ball bounce uncomfortably higher.

Scorch
May 6th, 2003, 02:30 PM
The theory is not correct. It's not just that there are many male and female players who have been successful over the years on clay but the theory about pace given by ys is not correct either - there is more to energy transfer than rotational speed. I don't think there is an advantage in either 1 or 2 handed backhands. But here is my theory...

to be the best on clay you have to have a BIG forehand (which is kind of a cop out I know because 80% of players these days have big forehands, but there you go!)

Sam L
May 6th, 2003, 11:29 PM
The theory is not correct. It's not just that there are many male and female players who have been successful over the years on clay but the theory about pace given by ys is not correct either - there is more to energy transfer than rotational speed. I don't think there is an advantage in either 1 or 2 handed backhands. But here is my theory...

to be the best on clay you have to have a BIG forehand (which is kind of a cop out I know because 80% of players these days have big forehands, but there you go!)

Good point. Also I read an article recently posted by Brian Stewart about the differences between open-stance shots and closed-stance shots. How the closed-stance generates more pace and gives a 'whiplash' effect. Perhaps, the fact that so many two-handed backhand players hit with open-stance these days is the reason why, as it is rare for a one-hander to hit open-stance. Anyway, thanks for your inputs guys! :)