Tennis has seen numerous rivalries and debates, but a recent statement has placed the spotlight on a sometimes-underrated aspect of the game – the backhand stroke. In what can only be described as a surprising snub, a former tennis star boldly declared that when it comes to the best backhand in Swiss tennis history, the crown does not belong to Roger Federer, but rather to Stan Wawrinka.

The assertion sent ripples through the tennis community, sparking discussions and prompting fans to reevaluate their stance on what constitutes the “best” backhand. Although Federer is often celebrated for his graceful one-handed backhand, with its fluid motion and technical precision, the former star’s assertion forces us to look beyond style and consider the raw effectiveness of Wawrinka’s powerful double-hand strike.

Federer’s backhand has always been admired for its elegance and versatility; it’s been a key component in his arsenal, allowing him to slice, dice and dispatch winners with a flick of his wrist. However, this former great argues that while Federer’s backhand may be one of the most aesthetically pleasing on tour, it does not necessarily translate to being the most effective or dominant.

Enter Stan Wawrinka – often overshadowed by his more illustrious compatriot – whose backhand has packed enough punch over the years to earn him career-defining victories. Wawrinka’s stroke is fueled by formidable strength and aggressive play, known for its ability to generate devastating winners from positions that would leave most players defensive. His performance on clay especially has highlighted how destructive his backhand can be when executed well.

This sentiment echoes within the statistics too; many would argue that Wawrinka has proven more often his ability to change a match with his signature shot. While Federer leveraged all aspects of his game to ascend to greatness, there’s an argument to be made that Wawrinka’s backhand alone can dominate play.

As controversial as this statement might be among Federer fans who have watched ‘the maestro’ orchestrate wins throughout two decades of excellence, it brings forth an invigorating debate about how we measure greatness in sport. Is it through trophies and grand slams won? Or is it by looking at individual skills and assessing their impact during high-pressure moments?

While opinions may differ widely depending on personal biases or tennis philosophies, this unexpected snub is a testimony to tennis’s dynamic nature where every stroke counts in legacy-building. Perhaps more importantly, it’s also a recognition of Stan Wawrinka’s immense talent; an acknowledgment that despite fewer accolades than Federer, in at least one area of his game he stands unparalleled – even among Swiss legends.