THERE IS A QUESTION AT THE END SO IT’S LEGIT!
A certain supposed analyst named "Damir Popadic" has shown a while ago an article about the advantages of either top spin backhands. However, for the record, he has no left a single good word for hitting a one handed backhand – it is so one-sided, you start asking yourself if Federer and Gasquet, for that sake, aren’t super humans…

THE ANALYSIS
I will do the tennis community a wonderful gift and analyze – SOUNDLY AND OBJECTIVELY – the two strokes so players can have a better idea of their real intrinsic bio-mechanical relative value. And, for a change, I will JUSTIFY every statement made with facts that are verifiable and which actually prove Popadic wrong.

Now, what differentiate both strokes is the manner in which they achieve the acceleration: the two handed stroke achieves its speed through a bi-phased rotational acceleration whereas the one handed backhand is further segmented. In very broad and common terms, a two handed backhand is struck like a forehand: hip and shoulder rotation accounts for power income. We can denote this by the fact the hitting does, like on a forehand, reach its established position before the forward swing is begun. On a one handed backhand, the rotation is slightly lesser before impact and definitely way less important after the impact; the difference in the violence of this movement is compensated by the arm segmented acceleration (the hitting arm reaches its position through unfolding at the elbow while it is already moving forward) and by a different weight transfer which occurs more linearly when the player steps his back foot forward. Also, from facts, I can tell the potential energy production is so similar that it can be outdone by the psychological tendencies of the player: the distinction comes more in quality of the execution than in the stroke itself. Gasquet hits 100mph winners, Federer hits 95mph winners and so does Murray, Nadal or Djokovic. So, it’s technically plausible to hit the same shot.

DIFFERENCES (PROS AND CONS)
Now, this is tricky: it all has to do with how the acceleration is achieved. At the baseline, in-short movements that aren’t all too dynamic, the clear advantage is to a two handed backhand. You can rotate well, you can get into your shot wonderfully, no problem. It’s not a huge advantage, but in a long rally, it’s a considerable edge. Furthermore, due to the lesser segmentation of the shot in the acceleration phase, it is easier to replicate: lesser hitches, lesser move, easier to coordinate (I would though had a side note to this fact that I will cover lower). Also, on higher balls, given that you accelerate more easily using the anterior part of your shoulder-trunk area (deltoids, chest), hitting any forehand-like movement will be easier, not to mention that the second hand will provide more stability making the shot easier to perform consistently.

On the other hand, the one handed stroke have certain peculiarities. On low balls – and I damn highlight this point as we clearly saw this in the French Open when Federer sliced to Nole’s backhand – even the best two handed backhands will have a harder time accelerating. Why? Because it implies a greater degree of rotation. Federer can take a foot high ball and crank it 90mph down the line (he actually did that against Djokovic), but Djokovic, whose backhand is incredible, cannot do so… The one handed stroke, given that it uses naturally a closed stance, will still give you a full swing on low balls while it’s not true on the other side – and we’re speaking of Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, not of little Joe from the corner court!

Moving forward, I would tend to even out the odds of making a good shot. It will come down to the quality of your footwork and both shots make for a nice hit. On the run, it again comes down to the quality of your footwork; the two handed hitters while use an outside hopping pattern while the one handed players will run passed the shot.

Popadic speaks of one handed backhands to be predictable (more than two handed backhands)… however, it’s the shot which draws the racket the furthest behind the back. I dare ask you to predict Gasquet’s target – good luck!

SO, WHICH TO CHOOSE?
Very simply, I think that both strokes make for a match up that will favor a kind of play and not playing altogether… on grass and for going out wide (for your body and target), it’s probably easier to play with a one handed backhand, but if you’re playing more linear tennis, a two handed stroke will be more reliable. The distinction will lie in how the player relates to the shot, more than how the shot is played: there are ways to be effective with both, but there will also be psychological tendencies a player has which will be hard to change and I have studied psychology enough to tell you following these to define a playing style will out-weight the mechanical dist
*the mechanical distinction between the two strokes.

BQ: Which backhand do you play and why?

I was reading an article about the Strokes and the direct quote from spin.com was
"I hate them all, I hate myself for hating." (song lyrics) Maybe he’s talking about the Killers;
The Killers and the Strokes are my two favorite bands and I can’t find anything on the internet saying they don’t like each other or anything. please help!!