Why has the one-handed backhand died?

This morning, many tennis fans were asking themselves this question: Why is the one-handed backhand dying? With the confirmation that, since 1877, this 2026 will be the first year where no tennis player with a one-handed backhand has reached the semifinals of a Grand Slam, we can announce the end of a cycle, in which the one-handed backhand will eventually become extinct.

For 149 years, there was always at least one survivor. From the times when playing with one hand was practically mandatory to the generations of Roger Federer, Stan Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, Grigor Dimitrov, Stefanos Tsitsipas, or Lorenzo Musetti. In 2026, no one has managed to reach a Grand Slam semifinal. Tsitsipas's loss to Ben Shelton at the US Open ended a streak that began two centuries ago.

And, surely, the question people are asking today is not so much when we will see another player with a one-handed backhand, but why it has been disappearing to reach the current point we find ourselves in.  

It all starts when they are children

The first reason lies much earlier than reaching the professional circuit. It is in tennis schools. Teaching a two-handed backhand to a child is considerably easier. The second hand adds stability, allows better control of the racket head, and requires less strength in the arm, shoulder, and wrist. The player can start competing earlier without the high ball or lack of physical power turning that side into a permanent weakness.

Roger Federer pointed precisely to that during this US Open. Current coaches mostly grew up playing with two hands, and besides, the shot is much easier to convey to young players. Changing later requires time, patience, and possibly accepting a few months of worse results, something hard to accept within a training increasingly focused on immediate performance.

It is a perfect circle. The fewer players using one hand, the fewer coaches teach it. And the fewer coaches teach it, the fewer players appear. Power has changed the rules, but reducing it solely to teaching would be unfair. The main problem arises when that child eventually becomes a professional.

Modern tennis is extremely violent

Rackets, strings, physical training, and the ability to generate spins have caused the ball to arrive with extraordinary speed and weight. And this is where a fundamental difference appears: to hit a good one-handed backhand you need more space, more precise preparation, and an earlier point of impact.

With two hands, you can resolve many of those situations with less movement. A deep ball that traps you behind the line, a return against a first serve over 210 km/h, or a topspin forehand that bounces above your shoulder are particularly uncomfortable situations for a one-handed player. The second hand functions almost like a stabilizer and allows better absorption of the opponent's power and returning it without needing perfect execution.

Let’s say that the one-handed backhand generates disadvantages in the current circuit. The two-handed keeps you in the fight.

Diane Parry offered this same diagnosis when explaining why she started using two hands, especially on the return. Against big serves, she found it difficult to prepare her one-handed backhand in time; with two hands, she could block the ball better and enter the exchange earlier.

There lies probably one of the most important keys of all. The two-handed backhand allows you to do more things when you are out of position. And modern professional tennis often consists precisely of that, being able to survive when the opponent does not allow you to hit comfortably.

Nadal and Djokovic showed the way

For years, there was the idea that using two hands limited reach and certain defensive situations. Modern tennis has dismantled that theory.

Players like Novak Djokovic have demonstrated that you can defend practically from any position while maintaining two hands on the racket. You could slide, open your legs wide, hit from extreme positions, and transform a defensive ball into a deep ball.

Federer has also pointed out this evolution. The change in materials, surfaces, and training has turned tennis into a sport increasingly built from the baseline, precisely the ecosystem where the two-handed backhand has the most advantages.

It does not mean that technically it is impossible to succeed with one hand. Wawrinka won three Grand Slams demolishing balls from that side. Federer won twenty. Thiem reached number 3 in the world. It means that you need to be more extraordinary to achieve it. With two hands, you have margin. With one, you practically need excellence.

Why is the one-handed backhand dying?

Tsitsipas recently calculated that in the 1950s around 97%-98% of players hit their backhand with one hand, while currently, the figure is around 2%-3%. The change is practically total. That is why what happened in 2026 should not be interpreted as an accident. It is the final consequence of decades of evolution.

If you have two kids with similar talent and one can learn a more stable shot, defend high balls better, return more securely, and compete earlier, it is logical to understand which option most coaches will choose. Tennis has undergone a sort of natural selection, and it has chosen the two hands.

The funny thing is that Tsitsipas actually isn't a great representative of the single hander. He has always had all of its weaknesses and few of its traditional strengths (natural slice, block return feel, backhand drop shot feel, options on lower balls et al). The single hander… https://t.co/qLya6WUTji pic.twitter.com/ALw5SyRys2

— Matthew Willis (@mattracquet) September 7, 2026

Undoubtedly, the one-handed backhand may be less efficient for the tennis we are building, but it also provided something that no statistic can fully measure: variety.

Those who learn to hit that way naturally develop a different relationship with the racket. The change to slice is more intuitive, the transition to the volley is easier, and there is a special sensitivity for using different heights, rhythms, and spins.

Musetti probably represents one of the last examples. He can accelerate, slice, change heights, throw a defensive slice, hide a drop shot, or use the same preparation to produce completely different balls. The ATP has defined his repertoire as something increasingly exceptional within the circuit. It does not mean that a player with two hands cannot have touch. Carlos Alcaraz is the evident demonstration of the contrary.

For decades, technique also conditioned the tennis personality. There were more ways to construct a point because there were more ways to hit the ball.

Tsitsipas summarized it after losing in New York. He feels that tennis is losing variety and that more and more players are built around similar patterns. Perhaps the one-handed backhand may not be dead yet. Musetti, Shapovalov, or Tsitsipas will continue trying to keep it alive, but 2026 leaves a sign difficult to ignore.

The stroke that for over a century was one of the great symbols of tennis has become a kind of endangered species. This is understandable given the path that tennis is currently taking and which will exacerbate further over the years, as players hit harder and harder.

So, we can only begin to say goodbye to this stroke that has given us such good times. We will always have YouTube.
 

This is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, ¿Por qué ha muerto el revés a una mano?