Check for "Perfect backhand, Gabriel Backhand" and you will see what a perfectly balanced backhand looks like. Including arm pronation and angle of the racket. Too bad it isn´t in slow motion.
Exactly! The problem here is in the terminology. What I mean by wrist snap is in no way related to the type of motion you have in a serve or over head. That kind of pronating motion on a backhand will probably break your wrist. The wrist does adjust slightly forward at the begining and slightly back at end of the stroke, but it is purely incidental and is not part of the stroke technique. And yes, the snap I mean is the wrist snapping around as it is following the rapid forearm rotation.
@TennisAnnalyst FALSE. . Through the racket take back the wrist is cocked back (or up when the racket is at it's highest point.) Releasing into the stroke, the wrist moves slightly down adjusting the racket head into contact. At the end of the follow through, the wrist naturally snaps back again due to rackets momentum. thats what I mean by the wrist snap. Gugas' "snap" was much more exagerated (when he wanted to generate a lot of top spin) he would whip and windmill the follow through.
Incredible flexability while keeping head very still. 0:11. Even more then Guga used to have. Though Guga had a much liver arm on his backhand. More racket speed and wrist snap.
love fed, love his backhand....................but novak is really pounding on his backhand, fed needs to step up his backhand or do something more with it, coz novak is starting to beat fed more and more and making his backhand look like his weakess shot again................
I cannot believe that people call Rafael elegant and classy, there is nothing classy about Rafael, he sprints hard and just gets it back, federer actually has composure and style to his game, woo federer :D
If you want to become a GREAT MATCH PLAYER go to my channel ( 2knowfun2 ) and watch two videos: World class tennis (part1/2) and (part2/2) . My two videos will teach you how to become a great match player... my two tennis videos have covered pretty much everything that is important in tennis...from "how to hit high quality groundstrokes" to "match play"... Everything important about tennis is compressed in my two tennis videos... Watch and become a Great match player
Good example how one position can be taken out of context. His racquet definitely is behind him from shoulder turn and hips turning in. Not sticking the racquet behind your body. So much bad information in this game.
his backhand is amazing, but guys there is a difference between his forehand and backhand...obviously...
he can generate more power, accuracy and spin on his forehand...and thats the reason he hits alot of forehand winners...federer even tries to move his body around the backhand, so he can get into position to hit a forehand...
todays game is forehand dominated for obvious reasons...
Compare his slow-mo forehand to his slo-mo backhand and you'll see just how similar they are in terms of power generation.
In both his forehand and his backhand, his trunk twists first leaving his hind leg flailing, then he suddenly stops his chest and transfers the energy to the hitting arm, holding his body absolutely still.
In both strokes, his trunk and his hitting arm are move at 2 distinctly separate times. This requires lots of timing, flexibility and coordination, something he has.
lol you fool...you dont need to watch any slomotion anything to know federer's forehands are stronger than than his backhands...you just need to watch tennis.
while its technically possible to hit a forehand and backhand exactly the same, in real practice you're forehands will always allow produce more power and spin and crucially be more accurate.
federer's forehand winner is more famous than his back hand winner for a reason...because its more effective...
If you were to say anything more obvious, perhaps you'd have to point out that his forehand and backhand are different because his forehand is a forehand while his backhand is a backhand.
If you comprehended what wrote, you'd realise I was writing about HOW he generates power on both sides - not HOW MUCH power.
if federer's backhands and forehands were the same, then he would not use his backhand in the way he uses it.
i dont want to insult your inteligence, im sure you watch real tennis, in realtime (instead of slow motion)...but federer will mix up his slices and backhands to approach a forehand winner.
think about it, how popular is the term backhand winner? not very....how popular is a forehand winner?...very popular, for obvious reasons...
Yes, yes we all know one is a forehand and the other is a backhand, hence they are different.
But how are they similar? For education's sake haven't you ever heard of "compare and contrast" before? I was talking about the similarities. Are you saying there are ABSOLUTELY no similarities between how Federer generates power on both sides?
BOTH load weight on to the toe, rotate hip and chest before the arm, trunk stops transferring a lot of energy to arm, and have loose wrist.
I think you're confusing western FOREHAND grip. It's the same position as the eastern one handed BACKHAND. There's extreme eastern ohbh which is used by Gasquet, and henin when she played.
What's ugly about her tennis game?? She has the most beautiful serve, one of the most accurate backhands & forehands- she can hit any shot from anywhere on the court. Henin only has a beautiful backhand, that's it.
Really? Maybe I was watching a different game. Second tournament back, she was better in nearly every aspect. Her serve misfired at key moments. She will become dominant again.
Why he had. Because Nadal was a clay player and was therefore used t oa very big loop resulting in heavy spining ball which happenned t ocome out of his forehand landing naturally on Federer's backhand.
Very high bounce on your backhand is the hardest thign to handle.
But now Nadal has lower his guard and hasa more compact swing; it makes him more consistant all around but his ball doesn't have the same bite on clay and it will affect his play against Federer.
Something I've felt strongly about over the years; I'm going to use this video to express my opinion. I've always felt that tennis made a big mistake taking the wooden racquet out of the game. It offered romance and finesse, get the dvd of the '79 US Open Evert vs Austin to see what I mean. Even a rule like "grass courts you must use wood" would have kept them in manufacture. I use my Davis or Jack Kramer against players I know I can beat. Otherwise my Wilson Triad is used. Thank you, Ken
That's why we see the the one-hand backhand legends like Sampras and Federer use really heavy raquets a la wood raquets, because they require expert timing and provide excellent control and feel just like wood raquets do.
Yes exactly, here's something interesting to share with you: I use a wooden racquet when ever I'm playing someone I know I can beat easily. After a few one handed backhands, it's very hard to get back into the 2-handed backhand for some reason. Here's another interesting fact, and "If I'm lyin I'm dyin" I'm 55 and most guys in their 30's I see at the tennis court or in the neighborhood, refuse to play me. I was actually told by one, "I can't risk loosing to someone 20 years older than me".
that depends. I play at pretty high level. My backhand is my best shot. I can do one handed well and two handed well. I find agaisnt average players though one handed is best.. i dont know why i just seem to concetrate more on short balls. But with better players two handed has its advantages. The reason i can do both is because i started off with a one handed and went to a two handed. Both have the advantages and disadvatages though.
damn u think having such a spectacular forehand is good enough, but no.... he also has to have a wicked backhanded. there better be someone who can replace federer once he retires or im gonna be bumed
That's how I felt when Sampras retired. But luckily for the world Federer took the baton.
I'd also like to see US tennis flourish again. Roddick and Blake are not dominating for the US as Sampras, Agassi, Courrier, McEnroe, and more I forgot did.
Just looking at the American players, it's hard to argue agaist how Blake and Roddick are simply not the same level of players as their American predecessors.
You can't seriously think that Roddick and Blake are on par with Sampras and Agassi? I mean, Sampras (at age 31 or so) played against Roddick (age 21 I think) in the 2002 US Open and gave it to him up the but in three sets. Agassi up until his retirement had a winning record against Andy (not sure about James). Having said that, I think that Andy would have had about 4 or 5 grand slams in his career if not for Roger.
no....only the two wimbledon finals MAYBE.....Roddick has slipped behind a lot more people than just Fed....NADAL, DJOKOVIC, MURRAY, TSONGA, DAVYDENKO AND OTHER GREATS LIKE CORIA. Roddick isn't on the same level as Federer and neither is agassi or sampras ! ! !
Both Agassi and Sampras are comparable to Roger. Pete is equal to Roger (in my opinion) on any surface, except clay, and maybe slightly better on grass.
As for Roddick...yeah no need to mention any more.
Although grass is the best surface of both legends, I do think Sampras isn't at the same level as Roger.. Roger's game is so diverse and allround, both offence and defence.. especially his transition game. Ok, they both have 14 grandslams now, but remember that Roger is only 27 and Pete won his last at age 31..
Nah. As an athlete, its hard to argue against the fact that Pete was greater than Roger. Look at how fast Pete could run on some points! Have you seen his explosive slam dunk overhead? How about how quickly he managed to get into the net behind his giant serve, when Roddick couldn't even hope to do the same? Roger has better footwork and covers the court more efficiently...at the baseline, but at net, Pete was the man.
Well, I meant as the professionnal man, not necessarly on the field. I was optimistic to the point of saying better player, so I stopped to "his career is greater".
But, yeah Sampras was quite powerful... Serve and volley. Not very long, but how effective it has been.
No harm done. Roger is AMAZING as well, more beautiful and graceful than Pete (in my opinion) but Pete was better at net and on the serve. It would have been great to see these two giants duke it out in their primes.
Yeh, and Sampras had a tough road to get his 14 slams beating 'consistant' players compared to Federers easy run to his 15 playing non consistant players such as Djoko, Murray, Roddick etc. which is why Federer reaches finals so often, cause there's no competiton for him apart from Nadal who is his greatest threat atm. It's not about the numbers, its who he beats to get there!
You know, an opponent playing a bad game can be either pushed to play it or play it on his own. I can flip the numbers and tell Federer was simply too good for them and Sampras was just slightly better.
This is more logically valuable if we consider Sampras wasn't any near to as complete all aroudn the court as Federer is. Like Agassi said:
"Just the amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the match where maybe something's out of sync is—seems to be endless."
What makes hi mgreater than Pete as a Champion is how he managed to be unbeatable because he was too complete.
Pete was good overall, but relied on some shots to win, like his serve. Like Agassi mentionned it so often, there's always a way to play a champio nsafely and take out his best shots. But you can't do it with Federer because each shot is his best shot, is his weapon.
This makes him unbeatable, immortal. This is why he is the greatest champion; he pushed his opponent to commit errors.
Of course, unbeatable, immortal aren't to be taken on first degree. I meant he is very discouraging to play against because you can't try to play him anyway and hope to have it easy; you always need perfect shots, very well placed on long rallies over and over to win.
It's possible, but so much harder than with any other champion in any sport. I would have prefered to play Pete a thousand time before Federer because I could have this safe place to play on.
It's also normal these player cannot show the statistic to be name good opponents... When you have one pencil to take, if one take it, none is left for the other.
This is being a very bad sport to call his wins FREE games. Sampras was a great champion, but Federer is simply too huge.
The one thing you can't see on TV is how much roger (and every other pro) bends his knees in preparation and pushes up with all the strength in his legs at contact. It's hard to imagine how much of tennis comes from your quads and your thighs.
Also, for god's sake could his shoulder be any more flexible?
Im Biomechanic Ph.D and I will not be critical like some of you so guys:look OCG trajectory-hips trajectory, knees trajectory in correlation with GRF. You will understand how does it works.
I'm a heart surgeon, and in between surgeries I check out videos on youtube. I got my diploma at oxford university. I went 2 years in asia to help the sick and weary. I got a psycology bachelor at harvard. I make over 500000 a year.
Oh my, sorry, I went on to talk about myself too much, we were talking about what? Tennis right.
you're retarded if you think the point of contact is unimportant. By keeping your head down (the heaviest part of your body) you keep your body still and focused, whereas if you looked up (like an idiot) you'd jerk up and hit a horrible back hand. anyone who hits a 1 hander like me knows this. WOW i can't believe your idiocy
Hey emendenh, you can have a friendly discussion by starting off with "I have to disagree and I'll explain why...". This is a tennis video, not Bevis and Butthead
LOL! but davisracquet you're assuming that people who comment on youtube are normal... when in reality they are the world's population of unemployed middle-aged men living in their mum's basement.
Im Biomechanic Ph.D and I will not be critical like some of you so guys:look OCG trajectory-hips trajectory, knees trajectory in correlation with GRF. You will understand how does it works.
The most important thing to remember in all of this is KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL ALL THE WAY THROUGH CONTACT! Everyone can Google images of their favorite player and see whether it's Roddick, Sharapova, or even go back to Ken Rosewall or Chris Evert, you can see in the still photos, they have their eyes on the ball making contact.
Sigh. Although it looks cool, keeping your eyes on the point of contact is possibly the most over-rated action in tennis. These pros have played so much that if they can see where the ball bounces, they can close their eyes and hit the ball. If the ball has an irregular bounce, whether or not you are watching it to the point of contact doesnt matter because it would be too late to successfully change the swing path by then. Just keeping your head still through the stroke is the important part.
I think you're raising a valid point about eying the point of contact, but it really does seem that since 1969, every time the ball hit either the frame or throat, I realized I wasn't watching the the point of contact. It just always helped me to do that and also "open the door" with my left (free) hand, as Chris Evert always advocated.
that is very weird, my coach tells me to keep the racquet face facing the ground when i bring the racquet back 2 hit the shot, but feds face is open wen he brings it back...
right, that's because coaches don't know much about real tennis, they're just trying to make a buck like a preacher in the old days sir. Just look at videos on the net of fed and others and you'll learn a lot more if you wanna put in the time that is.
Well, thats maybe because of the type of balls u recieve, when u get a soft low ball, u have to create the spin with the wrist (thats why he tell u to keep facing the court)but if u recieve a deeper ball, the trayectory will be more lineal and ull have to take the impact point more ahead of you, creating the spin with the spin of the torso and the arm togheter, just take everyone advices, and create your own game style :D
Im Biomechanic Ph.D and I will not be critical like some of you so guys:look OCG trajectory-hips trajectory, knees trajectory in correlation with GRF. You will understand how does it works.
Love you, Roger ! You are the best!
Sekspir89 5 days ago
Your video is popular on Nay Pyi Taw
alenblake38g 1 week ago
This video is a favorite on Havana
mspinney203 1 month ago
I tried this, and I died
KrakenBeats 1 month ago
legs are sooo strong.
AceGuitarR7 3 months ago
which grip is that? I would think about a semi western... but I don't know, so...
iosonodella2i 4 months ago
@iosonodella2i I believe that its an eastern grip. I use the same for my backhand.
shogun522 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i finally get it.
With2Rs 5 months ago
fenomeno
babauuuuu 5 months ago
when some1 hits a two handed backhand down the line, the commentators keep talking. when roger federe hits a 1 handed backy, they just stare in awe
PhillipsaGenius 7 months ago 3
i will watch this vid 10000 times until i can do this tooo :D
slatz20 7 months ago 3
SEXUAL CHOCOLATE.
jimmymc1234 7 months ago
THIS IS JUST REDICULOUS !!! Go Fed, show the world you're still up there !!!
buschmann69 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Plain beautiful
TheTheSephiroth 8 months ago
Check for "Perfect backhand, Gabriel Backhand" and you will see what a perfectly balanced backhand looks like. Including arm pronation and angle of the racket. Too bad it isn´t in slow motion.
paepinho 8 months ago
Exactly! The problem here is in the terminology. What I mean by wrist snap is in no way related to the type of motion you have in a serve or over head. That kind of pronating motion on a backhand will probably break your wrist. The wrist does adjust slightly forward at the begining and slightly back at end of the stroke, but it is purely incidental and is not part of the stroke technique. And yes, the snap I mean is the wrist snapping around as it is following the rapid forearm rotation.
royeeeee 8 months ago
Comment removed
royeeeee 8 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst check out -Guga Kuerten Stgo
royeeeee 8 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst FALSE. . Through the racket take back the wrist is cocked back (or up when the racket is at it's highest point.) Releasing into the stroke, the wrist moves slightly down adjusting the racket head into contact. At the end of the follow through, the wrist naturally snaps back again due to rackets momentum. thats what I mean by the wrist snap. Gugas' "snap" was much more exagerated (when he wanted to generate a lot of top spin) he would whip and windmill the follow through.
royeeeee 8 months ago
Nadal is very good, but federer is masterclasse...
mmike222 8 months ago
you guys are funny bagging on Federer. Let's see you guys have two children screaming in your ears and maintain the #2 spot in the world.
fendergambit 9 months ago
Incredible flexability while keeping head very still. 0:11. Even more then Guga used to have. Though Guga had a much liver arm on his backhand. More racket speed and wrist snap.
royeeeee 10 months ago
that tennis ball is lucky
minizfan 10 months ago 5
the ball went crosscourt.
krishna7991 11 months ago
love fed, love his backhand....................but novak is really pounding on his backhand, fed needs to step up his backhand or do something more with it, coz novak is starting to beat fed more and more and making his backhand look like his weakess shot again................
cbee69 11 months ago
I cannot believe that people call Rafael elegant and classy, there is nothing classy about Rafael, he sprints hard and just gets it back, federer actually has composure and style to his game, woo federer :D
Ziekemijjer 11 months ago 6
Beautiful, but flawed...as we see him bury the ball into the net all the time during matches...
s900203 11 months ago
@s900203 "bury the ball into the net ALL the time during matches..." ? obviously u know nothing sir/ madame and it does show your stupidity.....
travisdt 10 months ago
Not many tennis play with one backhand these days.........one backhand becoming extinct.
darkness2121 1 year ago 3
@darkness2121 Takes a lot of strength.
LandofKaitland 10 months ago
and people say nadal's backhands are better...lol...stupid hater!
DonxRaul 1 year ago 2
*Joker voice* Now there's a backhand...
jfkpublicservant 1 year ago
FLAWLESS
qwertyriffic 1 year ago
To me it's more like a form martial arts.
kywook1 1 year ago
elegance. classy. love you Roger
federerbestclass 1 year ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@federerbestclass Rafa is classy. Elegant. love you Rafa
federerbestcIass 1 year ago
this should be a shampoo comercial lmao
crenicler 1 year ago
Que H.D.P. como le pega el guacho.
sortcha95 1 year ago
@sortcha95 Cual gaucho?
gigatron4 1 year ago
theres no momentum in the hit just his arm. even then it goes fast as hell
AndresRoddick1 1 year ago
the seven dislikes are blates from Nadal and djocovic ;p
proffesor98 1 year ago
no one can beat federer in backhand
zohaibzafar90 1 year ago
THIS IS NOT SPORT, THIS IS ART.
Celtinet 1 year ago 132
@Celtinet Tho my favourite player is Rafa, I totally agree with you here dude.
ZivaMJ 10 months ago
@Celtinet abso-fucken-lutely!
OBeymydreamz 8 months ago
and his hair flows beautifully like his back hand
whatever22ism 1 year ago
0:06 the best backhand stance i ever since.. i always stare at this stance.. i freaking want this stance badly...
DooDzVongola 1 year ago
So nice to see it at this speed! Thx!
MrPhilippeLeb 1 year ago
if i could do one thing just like him, this would be it.
cobf22 1 year ago
Return to Sender baby !!
FairwayJack 1 year ago
Beautiful.
TennisUSTA 1 year ago
the best backhand ever... nobody plays backhand so perfect
Phoenix07sl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can do this. In my dreams...
rooksaiz 1 year ago
I can do this. In my dreams...
rooksaiz 1 year ago
@rooksaiz i cant even do it in my dreams lol
Kiasko 1 year ago
Poesia.
lazios 1 year ago
absolutely fineee
MrMalesiano 1 year ago
If you want to become a GREAT MATCH PLAYER go to my channel ( 2knowfun2 ) and watch two videos: World class tennis (part1/2) and (part2/2) . My two videos will teach you how to become a great match player... my two tennis videos have covered pretty much everything that is important in tennis...from "how to hit high quality groundstrokes" to "match play"... Everything important about tennis is compressed in my two tennis videos... Watch and become a Great match player
2knowfun2 1 year ago
Comment removed
federerbestclass 1 year ago
god; this is so beautiful
bluemagic212121 1 year ago 3
Roger is amazing
federerbestclass 1 year ago
You said that already...don't need to say it again...
gigatron4 1 year ago
you said that already, no need to say it again, unless you are Fed himself, his wife or a Nike promotor
gigatron4 1 year ago
why do tennis players wear high socks like that?
thugly921 2 years ago
@thugly921 To show off the manufacturer logotype more?
niclassj 2 years ago
Good example how one position can be taken out of context. His racquet definitely is behind him from shoulder turn and hips turning in. Not sticking the racquet behind your body. So much bad information in this game.
coachjeffl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hate this guy.
salaheddine10 2 years ago
you guys are fucking stupid. just enjoy the gift of federer
howtokillaninja 2 years ago
amazing
imavaughanstar 2 years ago
now that's a backhand!
1080portal 2 years ago 21
This is an art.
yeah1004yeah 2 years ago
A beauty...
mostafapajouyan 2 years ago 6
his backhand is amazing, but guys there is a difference between his forehand and backhand...obviously...
he can generate more power, accuracy and spin on his forehand...and thats the reason he hits alot of forehand winners...federer even tries to move his body around the backhand, so he can get into position to hit a forehand...
todays game is forehand dominated for obvious reasons...
konvictz0007 2 years ago
lol, but his backhand winners look more beautiful ^^
animaanimaanima 2 years ago
Compare his slow-mo forehand to his slo-mo backhand and you'll see just how similar they are in terms of power generation.
In both his forehand and his backhand, his trunk twists first leaving his hind leg flailing, then he suddenly stops his chest and transfers the energy to the hitting arm, holding his body absolutely still.
In both strokes, his trunk and his hitting arm are move at 2 distinctly separate times. This requires lots of timing, flexibility and coordination, something he has.
miltyu97 2 years ago
lol you fool...you dont need to watch any slomotion anything to know federer's forehands are stronger than than his backhands...you just need to watch tennis.
while its technically possible to hit a forehand and backhand exactly the same, in real practice you're forehands will always allow produce more power and spin and crucially be more accurate.
federer's forehand winner is more famous than his back hand winner for a reason...because its more effective...
konvictz0007 2 years ago
Thanks for stating the obvious.
If you were to say anything more obvious, perhaps you'd have to point out that his forehand and backhand are different because his forehand is a forehand while his backhand is a backhand.
If you comprehended what wrote, you'd realise I was writing about HOW he generates power on both sides - not HOW MUCH power.
miltyu97 2 years ago
no lol, read your post again...
you said they are similar in terms of power generation.
clearly they are not. again, go and watch a real tennis game instead of slow motion videos, as what you are seeing is not real time.
trust me on this, i think you have been watching too many slow motion videos, youve lost track of time and reality lol...
forehands and backhands are different for a reason, lol, because they are different. your tryna say their similar...genius?!?...
konvictz0007 2 years ago
You must not be able to read if you couldn't figure out I was talking about HOW he generates power - no HOW MUCH power.
Yes "power generation". What about the power generation? For you the only way to talk about it is in terms of how much power.
Trust me on this, you've been having too much fun trolling on too many videos to care about what people actually write before you go on the attack.
If you can't distinguish the difference between "how" and "how much" that's not my fault, genius.
miltyu97 2 years ago
i dont troll, i simply make comments...i watch tennis regularly, i also play tennis.
and i will tell you that there are huge differences between a forehand and a backhand. you use different muscles, different movements etc.
if what you said was true then alot of experts would not describe today's game as 'forehand dominated'...you know what that means right?...
your making your self look stupid here, forehand and backhand are completely different shots...
konvictz0007 2 years ago
if federer's backhands and forehands were the same, then he would not use his backhand in the way he uses it.
i dont want to insult your inteligence, im sure you watch real tennis, in realtime (instead of slow motion)...but federer will mix up his slices and backhands to approach a forehand winner.
think about it, how popular is the term backhand winner? not very....how popular is a forehand winner?...very popular, for obvious reasons...
konvictz0007 2 years ago
Yes, yes we all know one is a forehand and the other is a backhand, hence they are different.
But how are they similar? For education's sake haven't you ever heard of "compare and contrast" before? I was talking about the similarities. Are you saying there are ABSOLUTELY no similarities between how Federer generates power on both sides?
BOTH load weight on to the toe, rotate hip and chest before the arm, trunk stops transferring a lot of energy to arm, and have loose wrist.
miltyu97 2 years ago
racquet speed is his trademark off both sides
novola1972 2 years ago
LOL, you've been had
champion1642 2 years ago
from 9-11 seconds it looks like hes streching because of the slow mo
adi1096 2 years ago
this is more flat than topsin shot, god i jus luv how his backhand set up is quick and powerfull
1080portal 2 years ago
lol completely opposite
utkarsh12 2 years ago
oh no u did'nt
1080portal 2 years ago
what grip is this
1080portal 2 years ago
eastern backhand grip
xstanx 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry dude, his knuckles are on top of the grip, that's a western grip. I don't know anyone who hit's a one handed backhand with an eastern grip.
JoshReed0 2 years ago
I think you're confusing western FOREHAND grip. It's the same position as the eastern one handed BACKHAND. There's extreme eastern ohbh which is used by Gasquet, and henin when she played.
whatever3222 2 years ago
You know she's comin back? Make the WTA worth watching again.
CleckleysProof 2 years ago
if youre talking abuot henin, she is expected to play the AO2010
aczzz01 2 years ago
Yup yup. Hopefully she'll be as great as ever.
CleckleysProof 2 years ago
Oops, she got her butt kicked in AO2010. WHAT A SURPRISE! LOL
mssheltn1 1 year ago
It's a shame. Ugly tennis continues to prevail on the women's tour. Boo.
CleckleysProof 1 year ago
What's ugly about her tennis game?? She has the most beautiful serve, one of the most accurate backhands & forehands- she can hit any shot from anywhere on the court. Henin only has a beautiful backhand, that's it.
mssheltn1 1 year ago
You are confusing effectiveness with elegance.
CleckleysProof 1 year ago
Really? Maybe I was watching a different game. Second tournament back, she was better in nearly every aspect. Her serve misfired at key moments. She will become dominant again.
qzpmwxonqzpm 1 year ago
if you are righty tho
uberbear999 2 years ago
WHAT? Eastern is the most common backhand grip.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
For a two hander.
JoshReed0 2 years ago
No...for a one handed backhand.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
notice how he doesn't drop the raquet head immediately but keeps it up for about a second, thats key
Yohantheallseeing 2 years ago
FAP FAP FAP
alafter 2 years ago
perfect!!!!!!!
vegeta91287 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
He gives his racquet a little push with his left hand. Interesting.
waxenwings89 2 years ago
shows why he has many problems to play his backhand against nadal fh
dalmatinkaslunce 2 years ago
Why he had. Because Nadal was a clay player and was therefore used t oa very big loop resulting in heavy spining ball which happenned t ocome out of his forehand landing naturally on Federer's backhand.
Very high bounce on your backhand is the hardest thign to handle.
But now Nadal has lower his guard and hasa more compact swing; it makes him more consistant all around but his ball doesn't have the same bite on clay and it will affect his play against Federer.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
this is cool... lol
gojunhogo5 2 years ago
how far back is he? you can't even see the dang court!
theImaginarySolution 2 years ago
es perfecto
legendario87 2 years ago 2
yeah supertrex2 said "not a waist high level ball" but fed managed to hit the ball clean
tolendoi123 2 years ago
To supertrex2 :
Fed didn't hit the ball at waist lvl is obviously because... hes damn behind the baseline.
hongmuofang 3 years ago
perfect...just perfect
Edmangox 3 years ago 2
that is not a waist height level ball.. and he still manage to hit it clean...
supertrex2 3 years ago
Something I've felt strongly about over the years; I'm going to use this video to express my opinion. I've always felt that tennis made a big mistake taking the wooden racquet out of the game. It offered romance and finesse, get the dvd of the '79 US Open Evert vs Austin to see what I mean. Even a rule like "grass courts you must use wood" would have kept them in manufacture. I use my Davis or Jack Kramer against players I know I can beat. Otherwise my Wilson Triad is used. Thank you, Ken
davisracquet 3 years ago
That's why we see the the one-hand backhand legends like Sampras and Federer use really heavy raquets a la wood raquets, because they require expert timing and provide excellent control and feel just like wood raquets do.
miltyu97 3 years ago
Yes exactly, here's something interesting to share with you: I use a wooden racquet when ever I'm playing someone I know I can beat easily. After a few one handed backhands, it's very hard to get back into the 2-handed backhand for some reason. Here's another interesting fact, and "If I'm lyin I'm dyin" I'm 55 and most guys in their 30's I see at the tennis court or in the neighborhood, refuse to play me. I was actually told by one, "I can't risk loosing to someone 20 years older than me".
davisracquet 3 years ago
I love playing with older folks , you learn a lot from them.
venom400 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Great, no one cares
lilhu93 2 years ago
that depends. I play at pretty high level. My backhand is my best shot. I can do one handed well and two handed well. I find agaisnt average players though one handed is best.. i dont know why i just seem to concetrate more on short balls. But with better players two handed has its advantages. The reason i can do both is because i started off with a one handed and went to a two handed. Both have the advantages and disadvatages though.
AceGuitarR7 2 years ago
damn u think having such a spectacular forehand is good enough, but no.... he also has to have a wicked backhanded. there better be someone who can replace federer once he retires or im gonna be bumed
onlytennisforme 3 years ago 2
That's how I felt when Sampras retired. But luckily for the world Federer took the baton.
I'd also like to see US tennis flourish again. Roddick and Blake are not dominating for the US as Sampras, Agassi, Courrier, McEnroe, and more I forgot did.
miltyu97 3 years ago
they're great players.. but people like federer are just too damn good
jsizzle4o8 2 years ago 2
Just looking at the American players, it's hard to argue agaist how Blake and Roddick are simply not the same level of players as their American predecessors.
miltyu97 2 years ago
You can't seriously think that Roddick and Blake are on par with Sampras and Agassi? I mean, Sampras (at age 31 or so) played against Roddick (age 21 I think) in the 2002 US Open and gave it to him up the but in three sets. Agassi up until his retirement had a winning record against Andy (not sure about James). Having said that, I think that Andy would have had about 4 or 5 grand slams in his career if not for Roger.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
Nonononono I said "NOT the same level" as their American predecessors.
Hell no! Are you kidding me? Not even close!
miltyu97 2 years ago
Damn straight! Sorry I misinterpreted your comment :)
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
lol you two are funny
PROTLxONgame 2 years ago
no....only the two wimbledon finals MAYBE.....Roddick has slipped behind a lot more people than just Fed....NADAL, DJOKOVIC, MURRAY, TSONGA, DAVYDENKO AND OTHER GREATS LIKE CORIA. Roddick isn't on the same level as Federer and neither is agassi or sampras ! ! !
sportsperson92 2 years ago
Both Agassi and Sampras are comparable to Roger. Pete is equal to Roger (in my opinion) on any surface, except clay, and maybe slightly better on grass.
As for Roddick...yeah no need to mention any more.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
Although grass is the best surface of both legends, I do think Sampras isn't at the same level as Roger.. Roger's game is so diverse and allround, both offence and defence.. especially his transition game. Ok, they both have 14 grandslams now, but remember that Roger is only 27 and Pete won his last at age 31..
whatareyoudoinfock 2 years ago
Federer is superior to Sampras; he has the four Slam titles, while Samprass doesn't. He is 4 years younger to achieve a similar goal.
As an athlete he is greater than Sampras.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Nah. As an athlete, its hard to argue against the fact that Pete was greater than Roger. Look at how fast Pete could run on some points! Have you seen his explosive slam dunk overhead? How about how quickly he managed to get into the net behind his giant serve, when Roddick couldn't even hope to do the same? Roger has better footwork and covers the court more efficiently...at the baseline, but at net, Pete was the man.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago 2
Well, I meant as the professionnal man, not necessarly on the field. I was optimistic to the point of saying better player, so I stopped to "his career is greater".
But, yeah Sampras was quite powerful... Serve and volley. Not very long, but how effective it has been.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
No harm done. Roger is AMAZING as well, more beautiful and graceful than Pete (in my opinion) but Pete was better at net and on the serve. It would have been great to see these two giants duke it out in their primes.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago 2
i agree roger is uber bonious
fightme10s 2 years ago
"uber bonioius"...controversial.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
Just like that, what's this expression?
uber bonious
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
This would have been crazy, but we wonT' see the next Roger any soon and I truly doubt we can see both at once.
We can only imgaine the Titan clash.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Yeh, and Sampras had a tough road to get his 14 slams beating 'consistant' players compared to Federers easy run to his 15 playing non consistant players such as Djoko, Murray, Roddick etc. which is why Federer reaches finals so often, cause there's no competiton for him apart from Nadal who is his greatest threat atm. It's not about the numbers, its who he beats to get there!
aniton11 2 years ago
You know, an opponent playing a bad game can be either pushed to play it or play it on his own. I can flip the numbers and tell Federer was simply too good for them and Sampras was just slightly better.
This is more logically valuable if we consider Sampras wasn't any near to as complete all aroudn the court as Federer is. Like Agassi said:
"Just the amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the match where maybe something's out of sync is—seems to be endless."
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
What makes hi mgreater than Pete as a Champion is how he managed to be unbeatable because he was too complete.
Pete was good overall, but relied on some shots to win, like his serve. Like Agassi mentionned it so often, there's always a way to play a champio nsafely and take out his best shots. But you can't do it with Federer because each shot is his best shot, is his weapon.
This makes him unbeatable, immortal. This is why he is the greatest champion; he pushed his opponent to commit errors.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Of course, unbeatable, immortal aren't to be taken on first degree. I meant he is very discouraging to play against because you can't try to play him anyway and hope to have it easy; you always need perfect shots, very well placed on long rallies over and over to win.
It's possible, but so much harder than with any other champion in any sport. I would have prefered to play Pete a thousand time before Federer because I could have this safe place to play on.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
It's also normal these player cannot show the statistic to be name good opponents... When you have one pencil to take, if one take it, none is left for the other.
This is being a very bad sport to call his wins FREE games. Sampras was a great champion, but Federer is simply too huge.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
thats what it seems like...but he just makes it look easy....
tomassocannavaro 2 years ago
have you actually examined how he plays? during the '05 year his style kicks pete's butt
warhawkpro 2 years ago
The one thing you can't see on TV is how much roger (and every other pro) bends his knees in preparation and pushes up with all the strength in his legs at contact. It's hard to imagine how much of tennis comes from your quads and your thighs.
Also, for god's sake could his shoulder be any more flexible?
HBNplague 3 years ago
It does look like that arm is just going to fly off...
dmugger 2 years ago
SMACK!
eliasfriedman 3 years ago
Il più bel rovescio della storia del tennis
wyetfdsyuftosf 3 years ago
he´s far from the baseline.Beautiful!!!!
lgncostapaz 3 years ago
Im Biomechanic Ph.D and I will not be critical like some of you so guys:look OCG trajectory-hips trajectory, knees trajectory in correlation with GRF. You will understand how does it works.
bezimeni10 3 years ago
aren't you special, did you get laid off of work or something to spend time on youtube acting like a know-it-all?
chili90 3 years ago
LOL!!!!
I'm a heart surgeon, and in between surgeries I check out videos on youtube. I got my diploma at oxford university. I went 2 years in asia to help the sick and weary. I got a psycology bachelor at harvard. I make over 500000 a year.
Oh my, sorry, I went on to talk about myself too much, we were talking about what? Tennis right.
xgfyn98 3 years ago
You're good at all those things, but you're obviously not good at lying.
miltyu97 3 years ago
Text-book perfect.
evilmunki54 3 years ago
you're retarded if you think the point of contact is unimportant. By keeping your head down (the heaviest part of your body) you keep your body still and focused, whereas if you looked up (like an idiot) you'd jerk up and hit a horrible back hand. anyone who hits a 1 hander like me knows this. WOW i can't believe your idiocy
emendenh 3 years ago
Hey emendenh, you can have a friendly discussion by starting off with "I have to disagree and I'll explain why...". This is a tennis video, not Bevis and Butthead
davisracquet 3 years ago
LOL! but davisracquet you're assuming that people who comment on youtube are normal... when in reality they are the world's population of unemployed middle-aged men living in their mum's basement.
davoho 3 years ago 2
Davoho, now you have be beginning to wonder...lol So many of the comments are made with a gun in each hand over the smallest issues.
davisracquet 3 years ago
soooo true. why do I even bother commenting?
davisracquet you're all right.
davoho 3 years ago
Im Biomechanic Ph.D and I will not be critical like some of you so guys:look OCG trajectory-hips trajectory, knees trajectory in correlation with GRF. You will understand how does it works.
bezimeni10 3 years ago
The most important thing to remember in all of this is KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL ALL THE WAY THROUGH CONTACT! Everyone can Google images of their favorite player and see whether it's Roddick, Sharapova, or even go back to Ken Rosewall or Chris Evert, you can see in the still photos, they have their eyes on the ball making contact.
davisracquet 3 years ago
Sigh. Although it looks cool, keeping your eyes on the point of contact is possibly the most over-rated action in tennis. These pros have played so much that if they can see where the ball bounces, they can close their eyes and hit the ball. If the ball has an irregular bounce, whether or not you are watching it to the point of contact doesnt matter because it would be too late to successfully change the swing path by then. Just keeping your head still through the stroke is the important part.
jasoncho92 3 years ago
I think you're raising a valid point about eying the point of contact, but it really does seem that since 1969, every time the ball hit either the frame or throat, I realized I wasn't watching the the point of contact. It just always helped me to do that and also "open the door" with my left (free) hand, as Chris Evert always advocated.
davisracquet 3 years ago
im not let any of my pupils see this...... crazy shit will happen, you have to be close to god to take a cut like that!
theycallmesheff 3 years ago
I wanna hit a backhand like that! :(
I can, sometimes, but not always!
daniel4049 3 years ago
crazy to see the Federer forehand in the new 2.0 prostrokes slow motion :D:D:D
nver 3 years ago
that is very weird, my coach tells me to keep the racquet face facing the ground when i bring the racquet back 2 hit the shot, but feds face is open wen he brings it back...
utkarsh12 3 years ago
right, that's because coaches don't know much about real tennis, they're just trying to make a buck like a preacher in the old days sir. Just look at videos on the net of fed and others and you'll learn a lot more if you wanna put in the time that is.
oodaboodara 3 years ago 3
Well, thats maybe because of the type of balls u recieve, when u get a soft low ball, u have to create the spin with the wrist (thats why he tell u to keep facing the court)but if u recieve a deeper ball, the trayectory will be more lineal and ull have to take the impact point more ahead of you, creating the spin with the spin of the torso and the arm togheter, just take everyone advices, and create your own game style :D
GregH0use 3 years ago
don't listen to your coach :D
RogerFedererTennis93 3 years ago
Im Biomechanic Ph.D and I will not be critical like some of you so guys:look OCG trajectory-hips trajectory, knees trajectory in correlation with GRF. You will understand how does it works.
bezimeni10 3 years ago
you have not to speak, you just have to play tennis
mic270469 3 years ago
thank you very MUCH
nver 3 years ago
fap fap fap
purostaff 3 years ago