The Slice Backhand:
Formidable Weapon or Situational Stroke?

by Dave Smith

As an instructor for nearly 30 years of both beginners and high-caliber champions, I take exception, in particular, with his statement that champions of the past, (Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, et. al.) would “easily dominate the one-dimensional players of the modern game.” This is based on the assumption that current players would not be able to handle the slice approach shots or serves that were prevalent in the “old days” of tennis.

If you watch pro tennis you’ll see this is highly questionable because of the vast increases in the firepower of the modern game. In fact, many of the players from the “Golden Era” are quick to admit themselves that the increase in power is the biggest and most dramatic change in the history of the game. Today, there is so much respect for this weaponry that even when a player has an opportunity to attack the net, oftentimes many players simply won’t.

So how would the slice backhand of past champions hold up today? It would be no more effective than the modern slice. If there is one shot that has remained un-compromised and essentially unchanged in terms of power, effectiveness, and control, over the history of tennis, it would have to be the slice. It doesn’t take the mind of a genius to recognize that the weaponry of players from the baseline today has evolved far beyond the minimal, (if any), evolutionary changes of the slice.

Primary among these changes is the evolution of more powerful, intimidating, and effective passing shots possessed by today's power-crunching baseline players. Watch how often a player is passed with the traditional slice approach shots. You see far fewer of them in the modern game because it is far more difficult to use them effectively. The Golden Champions would face the same problems (or worse) going in behind the slice as do modern attacking players.

The logic is simple. The slice shot hasn’t changed much historically. But the effectiveness of passing shots—and/or the power of players hitting them--has increased substantially. Why then should we believe players of the past would have more success than players today, when trying a similar strategy?

Remember all these players want to win. If it was as easy as “chip and charge” you would see them do it and do it repeatedly. The fact is players have to be much more careful than that. Even Sampras played mainly from the backcourt on Agassi’s serve in their famous Open quarterfinal last year.

Pete knew to win that match he’d have to stand Agassi off from the baseline. If Pete couldn’t chip and charge, how effective would that strategy have been for anyone else?

I seriously doubt the players of yesterday would want to venture to the net as often as they did, against such formidable offensive weapons. (I don’t mean to disparage the past champions whom, in their day—and even in today’s day—were tremendous athletes who earned and deserve our complete respect.)

It's not that modern players can not slice. I don’t know of a single top pro player, male or female, who doesn’t possess a slice stroke, especially on the backhand side. Mr. Atkinson’s generalization and subsequent admonition of current players, (who he claims are lacking the slice shot), is an over-simplification of a falsehood.

He appears to ignore the fact that even though most players possess the stroke, their respect for the armaments of their opponents has altered the usage of the shot over time. Subsequently, the strategy of the game has changed from the days of old ‘serve and volley’ preference to a more resolute game of cat and mouse between players who possess weapons of mass destruction! That said, many players today still use the serve and volley, but usually this is mixed with a solid game from the back court. Why? Because a one-dimensional attacking game is a recipe for defeat.

I do agree with Ed’s assessment that there is a real value to the slice, even if it is far more situational in the modern game. However, I must disagree with his explanation of how the two-handed stroke has evolved. He also fails to recognize the teaching value of the two-handed stroke for all ages of beginning students. In addition, his assertion that the two-handed backhand is “the greatest disservice to men’s tennis in history,” is so off the mark that it brings the credibility of his entire article into question.

The issue of lack of reach can actually be a positive and makes the two-handed backhand a terrific learning tool. Why? Because it puts a premium on proper footwork and balance in each attempt of the two-hander.

One of the biggest problems for juniors and adults alike when learning a one-handed backhand is the freedom to hit this backhand from a variety of footwork calamities…most of which are detrimental to developing needed proper footwork. From reaching out for the ball and slapping it like a racquetball swing to opening up the body too early and swinging across the ball with the arm, we see a broad range of players executing backhands with questionable form and minimal success.

The two-handed stroke does not in any way prevent a player from developing a proper slice backhand. The only things that prevents a player from developing a slice backhand is if the player: a) is NOT introduced to it, b) does NOT practice it, and c) ultimately does NOT apply it in competition.

Mr. Atkinson’s statement that the two-handed backhand “keeps players from developing a natural slice backhand,” is the equivalent of saying that because a player hits a forehand, it somehow prevents development of a slice backhand as well. They are two different shots. One shot does not preclude a player from learning another. (Having a dominant stroke may preclude a player from wanting to explore other ways to hit a shot, but it in no way does it prevent any player from developing any other shot deemed desirable!)

Children and Tennis

Another assertion I take issue with: that children are introduced to the game at too early of an age. This is truly a misguided assumption. His blanket claim that any player under 10 years of age is too young to be introduced to tennis is absurd. This might be true for some children, yet completely false for others. This assumption is a disservice to children who are ready to be introduced to tennis at a younger age, and enjoy it on their own terms. The appropriate age for introducing children to tennis is a varied as are children themselves!

Imagine saying we shouldn’t introduce throwing a baseball or kicking a soccer ball or shooting a basketball to children until they are at least 10 years of age! We would have a society of video-playing, couch potato vegetables for children! (Not that we don’t already have this as a problem with many of today’s youth!)

The values learned by children who play tennis under the age of 10 are excellent. As long as these children enjoy what they are doing and are not exposed to the misguided attempts of some adults to push these children beyond natural and fundamental expectations (this we see in many sports and pastimes, unfortunately), tennis is a wonderful sport for a great number of children.

Mr. Atkinson further justifies this point when he states that racquet construction forces children to learn with two-hands on the backhand. He states, “when an infant is required to hit a backhand drive with a head heavy racquet, the only alternative is to use two hands.” But the weight of the racquet has very little to do with the use of one or two hands on the backhand. (And I certainly wouldn’t introduce an “infant” to tennis!)

Even a racquet that weighs only ounces would be unstable for most children. Due to the force of the ball against the racquet at contact, kids often times have difficulty maintaining racquet control, no matter what size or weight their racquet is. His rational that racquet construction today makes the racquets too “head heavy” for children, is total nonsense. Racquet construction today is producing far lighter racquets both for adults as well as children than in the “days of old.”

Finally, Ed’s “instruction” on the slice backhand provides questionable advice on two points. First of all, the grip preferred by most top players when hitting slice backhands is the Continental, not the Eastern backhand grip. Even in the pictures presented in his article, all the players are utilizing a Continental grip.

Granted, there are players who have hybrid grips that may not resemble what we teaching professionals would call true Continental grips. But it must be understood that the Eastern backhand grip is a topspin grip. It is designed to give the player the best opportunity to create topspin on the backhand side, usually with the one-handed backhand.

That is not to say a player can’t hit the ball with slice with this grip. However, it does require not just a little, but a major wrist cock, a configuration that is truly unorthodox in all aspects to the proper backhand slice form.

The second questionable point is that “the ball should be struck as far in front of you as is comfortable.” However, the farther out in front of the player’s body the slice is hit, the more the racquet opens up. In addition, players who tend to hit slices out in front of them tend to turn early, facing the net during the contact phase of the shot.

Again, in each of the photographs and videos images presented in his article, the slice backhand is demonstrated to be hit with the arm of each player down at their side, not way out in front of them. (Note the shot of Laver hitting his backhand slice.)

No doubt Ed’s articles are stimulating and entertaining, but it’s time someone questioned his appraisal of modern tennis in terms of what actually is occurring in the game today.

I don’t disagree with everything Ed wrote. In fact I agree with many of his objective observations of the value of the slice as well as his discussion on the “spinning advantage." When I watched Tim Henman play Lleyton Hewitt in the final of the Pacific Life tournament, in one game alone I counted 17 slice backhands, three of which were used as approach shots.

The bottom line is, Ed's article doesn’t conform to the historical realities of the game, and could actually do a disservice to a player trying to develop a good slice backhand.

Your comments are welcome. Let us know what you think about this article by emailing us here at TennisONE.

David W. Smith is the Director of Tennis for the St. George Tennis Academy in St. George Utah. He has been a featured writer in USPTA’s magazine ADDvantage in addition to having over 50 published articles in various publications. David has taught over 3000 players including many top national and world ranked players. He can be reached at ACRpres1@msn.com

Last Updated 4/15/02. To contact us, please email to: webmaster@tennisone.com

TennisONE is a registered trademark of TennisONE and SportsWeb ONE; Copyright 1995. All rights reserved.