The BIGGEST Problem with Ambidextrous Tennis Players 

Thanks for the comment! Very good points you make about having more time (when you're offensive), volleys, and having more time as well playing on clay. Perhaps if you're more of a net player or serve & volleyer, ambidexterity can be a serious advantage.

I agree almost completely. It took me 3 years after I switched to ambidextrous but found it well worth it. As for return of serve, I disagree. I play against a guy that regularly generates first serves around 115 and have no problem handling them. In fact... the extra reach helps. I can easily imagine handling faster. Mastering the grip change is by far the most important part. Did you do any customizing to your racket handle?

@@MrEasybreezey Hi, sorry for my late reply. No, I haven't customized my racket handle. I stay away from the stickiest grip tapes though. I might have changed my opinion on the return of serve since I wrote the above because I switch hands faster now. Given that I can reasonably return the fastests serves in my club standing on the baseline, a pro ambi player could probably return a pro player's serve two meters behind the baseline.

That would be a game changer. Ambidextrous tennis players would have all the advantages in the world

The dual lightsaber tennis players

not sure u are as fast running with 2 rackets

It’s based on simple logic and reasoning. There’s nothing “natural” about hitting forehands or playing tennis in general. It’s a learned skill.

​@@CoachAdriana passive skill which requires no active thinking

@@CoachAdrian and why wouldn't an ambidextrous be unable to develop the same learned skill to move towards a predetermined side when under pressure against a body ball. He could even complicate it even further by learning to move towards a given side depending on where he is on the court, or where's his opponent, or any other information that's present before his opponent's swing, and it would still be a nearly instant decision like a one handed player would

@@lautaromonsalvo8808 In my view, it's not an instant decision (actually very delayed) because the ambidextrous player will always have to decide which side needs to be dominant or non-dominant on every stroke. A conventional player has no such decision. Now, if the ambidextrous player were allowed to play with TWO racquets (one for each hand), then yes, there would be no decision. The ambidextrous player would have all the advantages in the world, but unfortunately, playing with two racquets is illegal.

@@CoachAdrian he doesn't need to decide in the same way that the one handed player doesn't need to decide wheter to hit a backhand or forehand. He has a predetermined side that he considers dominant and he moves towards it when he needs to react fast, just like a 1h moves to his forehand when under pressure

Thanks for the comment! As I mentioned, the decision-making process is harder because you have to switch hands. This is the added decision-making process that does not exist for a traditional player with a backhand... For example, say you're ambidextrous. Yes, you do have two forehands. Does that mean the two forehands are the same? NO! It's a lefty OR righty forehand which are TWO different strokes. It's the same decision as having to perform either a traditional backhand or forehand. Now, that the ambidextrous player has decided to play a "lefty" forehand, he now has to decide to use the left hand (obviously) as the dominant hand on the racquet handle. Check out Teodor Davidov here in this very video where he switches left and right hand on the bottom of his racquet handle grip. This decision does NOT exist with a traditional player because the dominant hand rests on the bottom of the grip handle at all times. This added decision by the ambidextrous player becomes a split-second hinderance... The whole point of being ambidextrous is that both sides are dominant (there is no non-dominant). Both sides are equal. Yes, having two forehands seems like an advantage, but tennis is not just about having awesome tennis technique, but also having good split-second decision-making skills.

@@CoachAdrian Teodor has zero decision to make and he does not have to change the grip because both hands are ready in a semi western grip. He does NOT have to switch them on the bottom of the handle. He does not have to go around any ball but rather play the most direct tennis, kind of a "wing chun" style tennis. You are absolutely right though that both lefty and righty forehands need to be high quality shots, otherwise this style makes no sense. However, if you achieve it, it is like owning a Ferrari! You have to swallow the more frequent crashes initially until you learn to drive it properly.

@@davidovkalin Hi Kalin, so doesn't Teodor switch his hands (from left to right) on the bottom handle? That is what I call a decision or switching of the hands. A conventional player doesn't have this issue as their dominant hand will always be on the bottom of the grip handle at all times. An ambidextrous player basically decides which has to be their dominant hand on each stroke. Now if Teodor was allowed to play with two racquets (one on each hand), then there would be no decision... I don't know much about Wing Chun, but I do like the Ip Man movies! Yes, having two forehands, you don't have to run around the ball. That is a big advantage. Teodor is a super-talented player and he can play on my team anytime! Wish him all the best!

I think you are partly right but with inside out forehand you can produce more sidespin. However you give up more of the court. Federer when he used to hit an inside out forehand would often be in the tram lines. However, given the sidespin and placement of his shot, he would push his opponent out wide given him time to recover what would often turn out to be an easy volley at the net. Also, sometimes you won't have time to switch hands. This is a particular problem in points at the net. I play ambidextrous tennis but the main problem I have is you end up with twice as many shots to practice. It would be easier developing a small number of shots than a lot. Federer used to say he sometimes wished he had less shots as he wouldn't have to think too much. Then again, he did win twenty majors so thinking can't have been that much of a problem. Bottom line is you develop a system.

@@maddoxmortenson8009 Thanks for the insights! I mentioned in my other video that the inside-out forehand does produce a unique sidespin (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7b1txhBoWtk.html). It could be more advantageous than a typical forehand crosscourt. Being ambidextrous does produce more shots and variety, but yes, the downside to that is all the selection and decision-making issues that can cause a brain to freeze.

It would be amazing to have a Del Potro forehand on both wings. Thanks for the comment!

Sorry, but this is circular logic. It’s like saying because I don’t have a backhand slice, it’s easier to decide to perform a backhand topspin. Or like you say, I don’t have a backhand in itself, so I can simply use my lefty forehand. Here’s the big problem with this - you’re only deciding on a STROKE to use, not the dominant hand in which to use them. You’re still deciding whether to use your left hand or right hand as your main hand. This is a decision that no “normal” player has to deal with... This becomes very evident in performing volleys. When the ball is hit hard at you, you really have no time to decide hands or switch hands. Now, I mentioned this in another comment that if you were playing with TWO racquets (one in each hand), then the decision to switch hands is removed. Unfortunately for the ambidextrous, you’re not allowed to use two racquets at a time.

@@CoachAdrian I see. You don't fully understand how choice works which is why you believe what I'm saying is circular. Fair enough, this tends to happen with misunderstandings so let me try another way. You said "you’re only deciding on a STROKE to use, not the dominant hand in which to use them. You’re still deciding whether to use your left hand or right hand as your main hand." You've proved my point, it's STILL a choice, the word DECISION means CHOICE, you cannot get away from that no matter how hard you try. As I stated before, the only difference between an ambi-player and a 1H player is the options available to them based on their personal skill, a choice itself STILL remains for both players and there is nothing you can do to change that reality. What you said earlier proves my point even further: "It’s like saying because I don’t have a backhand slice, it’s easier to decide to perform a backhand topspin. Or like you say, I don’t have a backhand in itself, so I can simply use my lefty forehand." Yes, you are correct, both are CHOICES that a player must make whether 1H or ambi dependent upon that players skill. Now, these choices are made very, very quickly, so quickly in fact that it's almost second nature, but they are still choices. Again, you cannot escape the responsibility of making a choice whether 1H or ambi. You also said "This is a decision that no “normal” player has to deal with..." Again, proving my point. It's true that a 1H player does not have to deal with the choice of deciding "which hand will be dominate", however, what you fail to see is that with an ambi player, that same decision can be just as natural as choosing whether to hit a backhand or forehand based on player skill, running speed, the angle of the ball, etc. Anything can be made second nature if you practice enough and this is no exception. Finally, you said "When the ball is hit hard at you, you really have no time to decide hands or switch hands." This is just conjecture on your part. In other words, you're assuming. YOU may not be fast enough to switch hands, but that does not carry over to ME or anyone else, so speak for yourself. I hope you understand a bit more about how choice (decision, option, volition) works and I hope this has been beneficial to you in understanding that whether a 1H or ambi player, a choice still needs to be made based on that players skill and the options available to said player. Now, you are left with a choice: Do you accept reality or reject it?

@@anyany2021 Sorry if I offended you with my comment before. It's just that I've seen this argument many times. Again, the whole premise of your argument is the nullification of a stroke choice and using that to say decisions are the same between normal and ambidextrous players. This doesn't address the switching of the hands or choosing left or right hand. No matter how fast you switch hands, it's still a choice/decision and extra time and thought process involved. I'm not sure why this concept is too complicated. You also don't address that tennis players MUST use only one racquet or device. If you see Brian Battistone (an ambidextrous former pro), he had to develop a racquet with TWO handles to alleviate the extra decision-making process. Despite this, he still has to choose one hand or the other. I want to note, Brian Battistone did have a backhand. I think a lot of proponents of ambidexterity in tennis are clouded by the notion that ambidextrous players have superior advantages and therefore think decision-making is either the same or even easier/faster. It is clearly not.

@CoachAdrian No offence taken. I'm simply trying to get you to understand how choice works, it doesn't matter if it's a 1H player or an ambidextrous player and it doesn't matter if it's top spin, back spin, backhand, forehand, left hand or right hand, each player still has a choice to make. What you're trying to say is a 1H tennis player doesn't need to make the same types of choices as an ambidextrous player which is incorrect. Both players make the same choices, the only difference is the skill level of each player and the options available to each player based on their skill level. You can always make something second nature if you practice enough. As for the double racquet argument, it's irrelevant, that's why I didn't address it. Practice, skill and choice are the only things that matter here. Whether or not an ambi-player has an advantage over a 1H player can only be determined case-by-case in an actual pro match. Anything else is just a guess.

Just because you are "trained" in hitting a left/right forehand doesn't negate the decision-making process. It's like saying any regular player who hits forehands/backhands doesn't make decisions. We're all making decisions of what to do and use out there.

Sure, I think you do need full commitment to being ambidextrous in order to succeed at it.

Thanks for the comment. You make a good point that there's just not enough people attempting to play ambidextrous. I would add ambidextrous people in general make up 1% of the population and true ambidexterity is rare.

@@CoachAdrian I'm actually left handed and not ambidextrous in general like I'm sure most ambidextrous tennis players have a dominant hand as well. So it could be taught just like Nadal uses his opposite hand to play. For me personally being a lefty I ended up doing things like throwing and shooting right handed I'm assuming by unknowingly observing others at a very young age. I still did swinging sports like golf and batting left handed though. In theory I should have a decent 2 handed backhand but in practice it feels like I don't have enough reach and my power feels "congested" for lack of a better term. Rooting for that Teodor kid but judging from his dad he might end up on the small side which probably won't give an accurate idea of ambidextrous tennis potential.

Interesting point! It’ll definitely alleviate decision-making, although the clear advantages of being ambidextrous may be negated (reach, defense, contact point, etc).

Nice to have that option!

Sorry, I have trust issues! 😅 Switching grips and switching HANDS are a much different thing and that extra decision and time will always be a big factor.

Well, you're basically asking if it's better to do a good non-dominant forehand vs. a bad backhand. I would say yes, but how realistic is this? How bad does your backhand have to be so that you need to opt for a non-dominant forehand? It would have to be really bad to the point of desperation.

I think I mentioned this before, but the switching of the hands will always be an added decision because you are deciding to use either your left hand or right hand on the bottom of the grip. A conventional player doesn't need to decide which hand because their dominant hand will always be on the bottom of the grip on both forehand/backhand. This decision takes too long. Imagine volleying fast balls at the net while using lefty and righty forehand volleys. It would almost be impossible.

​@@CoachAdrian yes, you need time to swap grips I said that, but it's not what you are discussing in your video. Your video is about decision making. All you need to know, is that an ambidextrous can have a preferred side that he defaults switching to if he's under timed pressure, making his decision making as fast as a 1h player in that situation

@@lautaromonsalvo8808 It doesn't make a difference whether an ambidextrous player has a preference or "predetermines" their shot. They will always need to choose to use either their left or right hand, just like any person chooses to pick up a bottle on their desk with either their left or right hand. The removal of choice or this decision can only happen if a player is playing with two racquets (one for each hand).