The demise of the single-handed backhand is a watershed moment for tennis

Every year since the first Wimbledon Championship in 1877, a male player with a one-handed backhand has featured in the singles semi-finals of a grand slam. That 149 year streak ended at this year’s US Open when Stefanos Tsitsipas, the last remaining single-hander in the draw, exited the tournament in the round of 16.

This is a watershed moment for tennis, as it marks a break with the origins of the sport and the culmination of a five decades-long trend towards hitting the backhand with two hands on the racket. The popularity of the two-handed backhand has surpassed the single-hander to such an extent that the latter is now on the verge of extinction in elite tennis.

But does this matter? After all, sports evolve and athletes, coaches and sports scientists continually refine technique to achieve superior outcomes. Dick Fosbury revolutionised the high jump with the Fosbury flop in 1968. This development in high jump biomechanics unlocked new athletic feats and the straddle technique, previously dominant, became redundant. Perhaps the single-hander has, similarly, fallen victim to a superior technique.

Why the one-handed backhand matters

The one-handed backhand is arguably the most elegant shot in tennis. To execute it, the non-dominant hand pulls the racket back to coil the player’s hips and shoulders. As the ball enters the player’s hitting zone, the non-dominant hand releases and the racket whips through the ball while the other arm provides a counterbalance by extending in the opposite direction.

Its most skilled exponents, such as Roger Federer, Justine Henin and Stan Wawrinka, can produce explosive power in a balletic feat of flow, balance and timing.

The beauty of the one-hander is, in part, due to its superfluity. In tennis, aesthetics is incidental – shots are struck to win a point, not to beautify it. The pleasing aesthetics of the one-handed backhand is a delightful coincidence in which efficiency meets beauty.

However, one-handed backhands will soon be absent from the biggest tennis arenas. Why is this shot on the verge of extinction?

For a time in the early 2000’s, Roger Federer enjoyed exclusive dominance over men’s tennis. However, Rafael Nadal, a left-hander who was capable of generating more topspin than any player the game had ever seen, found a hole in Federer’s game – the shoulder-high backhand.

Nadal pioneered a heavy topspin forehand that would bounce above Federer’s shoulder, forcing him either to retreat behind the baseline or to hit the ball in the weak shoulder-high position. Nadal would pound Federer’s backhand until this elicited an error or a short ball that could be attacked. Shoulder-high backhands are not only technically difficult for a one-hander, but also energy sapping.

The development of the two-handed backhand on the run, best exemplified by Novak Djokovic, also meant that the advantage which single-handers had hitting wide balls no longer obtained. Two-handers could hit with an open stance when stretched, and this enabled them to generate more power on the run and to recover for the next shot more quickly.

The inherent limitations of the one-handed backhand were more easily exploited as strings, rackets and courts allowed players to follow Nadal’s template.

The development of polyester strings allowed players to generate unprecedented amounts of topspin. Racket heads grew larger and were designed to facilitate vertical swing-paths for the creation of topspin. Court surfaces were slowed, allowing topspin to have an even higher-bouncing effect.

As well as arguably the most elegant shot, the single handed backhand is one of the most difficult shots in tennis. Typically, the absence of the second hand on the racket requires the player to demonstrate more strength and better timing. So, the two-hander provides quicker rewards for young players and coaches as backhand competency can be gained more readily.

The rise of the two-hander might be thought the natural evolution of the sport. However, there is nothing inevitable about the demise of the single-hander – the development of the sport is in the hands of tennis authorities. Players respond to the conditions in which they are required to compete.

Tennis has been allowed to develop in a direction hostile to the single-handed backhand, much as it has been allowed to develop in a direction that is hostile to serve and volleying. The strategic contrast has been lost between the serve-and-volleyer, who rushes the net to take the ball before the bounce, and the baseliner, who stays at the baseline to play after the bounce. This contrast lay at the heart of many of the most compelling tennis rivalries – Björn Borg and John McEnroe, Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras. By contrast, leading players now are simply different shades of baseliner.

These two developments are not unrelated, as the single-handed backhand was the shot of choice for the best serve and volleyers such as Rod Laver, Sampras and Pat Rafter. The single-hander allowed for greater variety of spin and angles, and it was conducive to hitting while moving forward towards the net.

Federer has expressed hope that this is not the end for the single-hander. But we can do more than hope – the conditions of elite tennis can be reshaped in ways that are more amenable to the one-handed backhand. Here are my suggestions:

1. Polyester strings should be prohibited;
2. The maximum racket head size should be limited to 95 square inches to encourage slower vertical racket head speeds thereby limiting the production of topspin; and
3. Greater variety in court surfaces should be introduced, with an emphasis on the introduction of faster, lower bouncing surfaces.

Tennis authorities guide the evolution of the sport. The recent trend has been towards technical and tactical homogeneity. The sport is losing the contrasts that underpinned its compelling rivalries and stunning spectacles. Tennis needs to embrace again the beauty in diversity. With the demise of the single-hander, something skilful and beautiful is being lost.