It’s Richard Gasquet’s birthday today. The 35-year-old Frenchman is a former top-ten player and was a semifinalist at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2015, as well as at the U.S. Open in 2013. As a fifteen-year-old, Gasquet took part in the main draw of Roland-Garros in 2002, and won a set against Albert Costa, who would eventually win the tournament. But a decade in the future, when Gasquet is retired, I don’t think these facts will often be raised when his career is discussed. I think he will be remembered mainly for the elegance of his one-handed backhand.
This doesn’t sit right with me. Make no mistake, I understand the appeal of a one-handed backhand. The racket is held with both hands in the backswing, then the one hand comes off the racket right before contact, and the swing’s follow-through is often a smooth whiplike motion. This follow-through is easy to see as elegant; to invoke some hyperbole, the pose is saturated with both the grace of a dancer and the violence of a swordsman. And of the one-handed backhands out there, Gasquet’s is one of the sleekest.
But while the aesthetics of a one-handed backhand are popular, their charm is subjective. For some, the generally more reliable two-handed motion from that wing might be more attractive to watch. Unlike visual appeal, results and efficacy are objective, and it’s because of this that the frequency of fawning over elegance in tennis vexes me sometimes.
Richard Gasquet is not an artist, or a dancer. He is a tennis player. Yet his enduring legacy may well be what people consider to be the most graceful part of his game. Gasquet’s backhand can be a very effective shot, but it’s far from being one of the best on tour. It’s the main shot in his repertoire that prevented him from getting a single win against Rafael Nadal in 17 tries. It’s difficult to imagine that Gasquet himself would be happy with his backhand motion being the centerpiece of his legacy.
My point here isn’t that it’s wrong to appreciate a smooth motion, it’s that said smooth motion shouldn’t so often precede the actual success of a shot in the line of what’s praised. Roger Federer’s backhand disproportionately soaks up praise despite his forehand being the one-in-a-billion stroke that could hit through anyone. Yet it’s the follow-through on Federer’s backhand that’s become the classic screenshot of the great Swiss playing, often captioned “poetry in motion.”
Excessive emphasis on the style of a one-handed backhand, without regard for its functionality, detracts from appreciation of both better backhands and the other shots of those who use one-handed backhands. Since Wimbledon switched to a higher-quality grass seed (this reduced the number of bad bounces, putting less of a premium on getting to net. Rallies lengthened as a result) and racket technology started to allow for more powerful, precise shots, the necessity for consistent backhands began to grow. The greater steadiness of a two-handed backhand started to outweigh the slight extra reach provided by a one-hander. As such, one-handers have become less widely used than they were in the late 20th century.
When someone with a one-handed backhand takes the court, a commentator will sometimes remark on how nice it is to see. From a commentator’s view, this is curious and often a projection of visual preference. This is because one-handed backhands are simply not as effective, on the whole, as their two-handed counterparts. When the ball bounces high, say above the shoulder, it is difficult to get any semblance of pace or weight on a one-handed backhand. The extra hand on the racket helps its bearer handle and redirect raw pace and get precision on passing shots. This isn’t to say that there aren’t certain one-handed backhands that are better than certain two-handers, or that some one-handers are not precise with their passes or proficient at repelling pace, but these tend to be fairly isolated examples. One-handed backhands are fading from the professional tour for good reason.
I have no desire to come off as a hater of one-handed backhands. Though I’m not as big a fan of watching them as many seem to be, I think they can pose a nice contrast with a two-hander. And people are obviously more than free to comment on a stroke they find pretty or graceful. But when this appreciation starts to obscure more objective parts of the game, I think tennis suffers a net loss.
So today, as Richard Gasquet completes his 35th trip around the sun, we would do well to take a moment to analyze some of his finest matches and moments rather than simply celebrate one of his shots. One-handed backhands may be pretty (or may not, depending on your view), but Gasquet and all its other users — as well as tennis — offer much substance beyond just the one stroke.