Federer's new racquet experiment!

First topic message reminder :

Rumours, just a new paint job, of fan talk? You decide.

http://www.rogerfedererfans.com/forum/topic/1511-pics-from-roger-federers-practise-sessions-and-press-conference-at-hamburg/

Surely, such a switch of equipment will take time to get used to will it not? The question is how long will Roger want to give it before he reaps the benifits?

It will take time and Brands is a dangerous flat hitter, if he's on he gives anyone problems. Remember him vs Nadal at RG?

Elsewhere, Federer was asked whether there might come a point when he would retire because his ranking dropped so low.

“No. In terms of rankings at least. Lleyton Hewitt is a great example in my mind. Whether he’s 170th, 20th or fifth, his ranking isn’t important to him. He just takes a lot of pleasure in playing. I don’t think my ego would suffer if one day I was no longer in the top 10. There’s a moment when the rankings aren’t that important anymore. Honestly, I don’t even know what my current ranking is. Fourth? Fifth? Third? Today, my ranking isn’t that important to me anymore.”

That sounds like a man who has accepted his reality check and will likely focus on peaking purely at slams now, not 250s. Today's match was probably a case of playing with a tweaked setup as they seek to optimise the weight balance, strings, tension of the new racquet. They'll have it right by USO when he'll turn up with a new shiny, painted racquet he's comfortable with after this period of testing. The proper challenge will be when he faces the big guns with his own new armoury.

He is in a tricky position just now in my opinion. I mean that talk was, at this start of this season, he'd be much more selective about the tournaments he'd enter and cut back on his schedule in an effort to remain fresh for the bigger tournaments but it isn't panning out that way. Now if he took on these couple of 250 tournaments purely to try out his new racquet then it isn't helping to keep him fresh and can't help his confidence losing to Delbonis and Brands about a week apart.

Would it have been possible for him to try out a new racquet on practice courts?

Now would be the time for Roger to have a cow.

The question that's getting me is why he chose to play clay tournaments? Is it because they were closer to home than the hard court tournaments that were taking place elsewhere? There's a hard court tournament in Croatia this week that he could have gone to. It's not like Roger is awful on clay of course but with a hard court swing coming up until next spring, would it not make more sense to play on hard courts?

I like the cut of Roger's jib, when he says he's not bothered about the rankings, but for the life in me cannot see the point of experimenting on the tour

All's he is doing is giving all his lower ranked opponents the impression he's fair game. At the very least to win another slam he needs 4 'easy' rounds up to the quarters - he doesn't want everyone thinking that he's now easy pray

I'd wager he could have done this on a hard court somewhere in Europe against a good opponent in, at the very most, an exhibition

To me he's like a grand old killer shark, that thinks once it gets to it's former home it will be safe - problem is, as we've seen in all the wildlife programs, other prey is willing to take advantage

I agree banbrotam.

Now we know when Roger was at his pomp he was imperious and he had this aura of invincibility. That aura helps a great deal before both players step onto court and just made beating him that bit more difficult. However, now he is not in his pomp that much is obvious but he has also lost that aura of invincibility. In the last month he has lost three times against players ranked 50+ in the world and worryingly those came on his favourite surface with a racquet familiar to him and with a new racquet more recently. Not an ideal way to put him in the right frame of mind to set himself up for a good crack at another slam win.

lydian, it will be interesting to see if your confident-sounding expectation that "they'll have it right by the USO" is proven correct. I do hope so, because the tennis scene will be poorer without him, even though we know all too well that he is already into the twilight of his playing career.

For me, even more significant than this run of bad results is the fact that he should feel the need to compare himself to Hewitt........ 

Hewitt will always deserve huge respect and full credit not just for his two Slam titles and 'youngest Number One' status, but also his never-say-die fighting qualities. But the reality is that his last tour title of true note came over ten years ago, and he has not made the quarters of any Slam since 2009. This almost journeyman type of performance cannot surely be the sort of level that would keep Federer sufficiently motivated to stay on tour ...? It might be okay for Lleyton, but ....... Roger ..... ???

Personally I don't see Federer hanging around to make up the numbers at Slams and if he somehow gets into a sequence of failing to make the business end of the Slams on a regular basis then I suspect we will hear less talk of Rio 2016.

Perhaps these last few months have been a blip and that we will indeed see yet another renaissance at the USO, but there is no doubt that the decline since a hugely impressive 2012 has been pretty dramatic.

Yeah. And I hope Fed fans don't think we're rubbing our hands in glee

The other day, I watched the Aus SF between him and Murray and it was easily their best match as Andy played well all the time (apart from the latter part of the 4th set) and Roger played some of his best stuff as often as he could - baring in mind his age

There was a zillion times more skills on offer in that match than virtually any other involving the Fab 4, this year

My point is - I want more of it. I'm not longer than bothered by how many slams Andy wins - the argument has been won, but I love their matches and fear there may not be too many more

while I completely hope Federer plays until HE (as in himself, not HawkEye) feels like he is done, it would be stupid of me not to start betting Against Federer more often..

As an aside (haven't watched any of his matches with the me racquet), is.his serve getting anymore pop? Id imagine Wilson has done everything it feel like the old one, from the weight distribution onwards.

For me, his serve is the problem. He wins fewer easy points and for a front runner type player like him it's vital

Most of his defeats to his three main rivals, stem from his inability to dominate from the start with his serve

Wimbledon 2012, against Murray, was a very significant exception

So Fed got the appearance money and went home in first match?

Oh come on Jahu, I don't think you truly believe Federer wants (much less needs) appearance money. You CANNOT be serious  

It's true that he picked up lottery jackpot amounts of cash on his winter tour of South America - no doubt more than most pros earn throughout their playing career. But I would wager that the adulatory reception he was given in all the cities he visited meant far, far more to him.

banbrotam wrote:Yeah. And I hope Fed fans don't think we're rubbing our hands in glee

The other day, I watched the Aus SF between him and Murray and it was easily their best match as Andy played well all the time (apart from the latter part of the 4th set) and Roger played some of his best stuff as often as he could - baring in mind his age

There was a zillion times more skills on offer in that match than virtually any other involving the Fab 4, this year

My point is - I want more of it. I'm not longer than bothered by how many slams Andy wins - the argument has been won, but I love their matches and fear there may not be too many more

Are you serious? Federer was terrible in that match and was well dominated by a careless Murray who failed to finish him off in 3 sets. Against a less streaky player like Nadal, Roger would have been out in straights. He didn't come within a country mile of playing his best stuff and the man wasn't remotely close to his prime form. He's a shadow of the player without doubt.

I don't know how much the racquet change will help him seeing as his footwork and movement have deteriorated a tad.

I'm just wondering when the transition will happen on the BBC sport website from 'Federer suffers shock loss' to merely 'Federer suffers loss'.

Chazfazzer wrote:I'm just wondering when the transition will happen on the BBC sport website from 'Federer suffers shock loss' to merely 'Federer suffers loss'.

and maybe later 'Federer's shocking win'.

Fed's summer clay court swing did not last very long.  It will be interesting to watch how he reacts.  I hope he sticks with the new racquet - even at the cost of suffering a few months of bad results, and even at the risk of never again finding his form again.  It is still a risk worth taking in my view.

I like Fed's quote about Hewitt.  My view is that Fed simply enjoys tennis, and he is willing to play (or at least he currently thinks he will be willing to play) even when the results are no longer there.  I hope he will do just that.

I find it puzzling why people think that a player should retire before their game declines significantly (and even more puzzling when some suggest that staying too long would somehow harm a player's legacy).

I like golf's take on the same issue.  Golf is happy to see aging superstars playing with little hope of a victory.  They are just there, part of the game they love.  What is wrong with that?  Why cannot Fed similarly stay on and play even when he is way past his prime.

I often wonder if it's fans of a particular player more concerned that it's hampering their argument in "Greatest" debates.

Federer can't be the greatest, he was right rotten in July 2013!!

ryan86 wrote:I often wonder if it's fans of a particular player more concerned that it's hampering their argument in "Greatest" debates.

Federer can't be the greatest, he was right rotten in July 2013!!

Hehe maybe.  But even forgetting the silliness of such an "argument", it would be odd to want a player to retire just to help with a debate.  As much as the "greatest ever" debates are fun, presumably we enjoy those debates because we enjoy tennis first, not the other way around.  It is like tail wagging the dog to want a player to retire just so that it helps with debates.

Well, if he starts getting regular spankings from the likes of Nadal, Nole and Murray and even Tsonga, then I'm sure it'd play on his mind a lot. There's no way a player of his calibre hangs around just to make up the numbers if his rivals are far ahead of him.

mthierry wrote:There's no way a player of his calibre hangs around just to make up the numbers if his rivals are far ahead of him.

Why not?

ryan86 wrote:I often wonder if it's fans of a particular player more concerned that it's hampering their argument in "Greatest" debates.

Federer can't be the greatest, he was right rotten in July 2013!!

I am not sure what you mean? There is no debate that Roger is the greatest player of all-time and whenever he retires that is what he will be. In the here and now of tennis though he is quite a way from being the greatest player around.

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Yeah. And I hope Fed fans don't think we're rubbing our hands in glee

The other day, I watched the Aus SF between him and Murray and it was easily their best match as Andy played well all the time (apart from the latter part of the 4th set) and Roger played some of his best stuff as often as he could - baring in mind his age

There was a zillion times more skills on offer in that match than virtually any other involving the Fab 4, this year

My point is - I want more of it. I'm not longer than bothered by how many slams Andy wins - the argument has been won, but I love their matches and fear there may not be too many more

Are you serious? Federer was terrible in that match and was well dominated by a careless Murray who failed to finish him off in 3 sets. Against a less streaky player like Nadal, Roger would have been out in straights. He didn't come within a country mile of playing his best stuff and the man wasn't remotely close to his prime form. He's a shadow of the player without doubt.

I don't know how much the racquet change will help him seeing as his footwork and movement have deteriorated a tad.

mthierry.

It is against 606v2 rules to suggest that Murray beat anything less than a peak Federer in that match. What would that say about Murray? This is clearly an attempt to make Murray's sensitive fans cry and I'm surprised that the moderators have been lenient with you and not banned you for this deliberately provocative post. Don't you know Murray recently won Wimbledon? Why don't you write something positive about that instead? Negative opinions are detrimental to the happy place that 606v2 has now become.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ryan86 wrote:I often wonder if it's fans of a particular player more concerned that it's hampering their argument in "Greatest" debates.

Federer can't be the greatest, he was right rotten in July 2013!!

I am not sure what you mean? There is no debate that Roger is the greatest player of all-time and whenever he retires that is what he will be. In the here and now of tennis though he is quite a way from being the greatest player around.

It was an argument used by Eddie Jordan, admittedly a bit of a fool, as regards Schumacher's performances last year vs. Rosberg.

That was slightly different though was it not? I mean Schumacher retired for two or was it three years and came back out of touch and into a non-competitive team.

mthierry wrote:Well, if he starts getting regular spankings from the likes of Nadal, Nole and Murray and even Tsonga, then I'm sure it'd play on his mind a lot. There's no way a player of his calibre hangs around just to make up the numbers if his rivals are far ahead of him.

But he did before he won his first slam? Who knows his regular spankings of his rivals in his earlier years might have coincided with them not been the players they are now - perish the thought!!

banbrotam wrote:

mthierry wrote:Well, if he starts getting regular spankings from the likes of Nadal, Nole and Murray and even Tsonga, then I'm sure it'd play on his mind a lot. There's no way a player of his calibre hangs around just to make up the numbers if his rivals are far ahead of him.

Who knows his regular spankings of his rivals in his earlier years might have coincided with them not been the players they are now  - perish the thought!!

How dare you suggest such a thing??   That is heiracy heresy.  



 

An aging champion under the microscope, his legacy being questioned, because he has been unable to deliver 3+ slams a year. What a travesty!

He has the cojones to try a new racquet, at age 31+, while Djokovic tried a new racquet, at what, 4 years ago, and had a stellar year in 2011.

The first time that the Serbian used the new Head racket was when he was beaten in the first round of last week's Brisbane tournament by Latvia's Ernests Gulbis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/4247801/Novak-Djokovics-racket-switch-a-big-risk-says-Tim-HenmanTennis.html

Federer played a close match with Brands in Hamburg, and then lost in Gstaad, a week later.

As CoolPixel says, what counts is a cold hard win, nothing else. Murray won, no excuses from Federer, as did Brands. There is no one (except Alice Marble circa 1938-39) of a no-loss season.

As Vitalstatistix would say, the sky is falling tomorrow, but then tomorrow never comes.

I want to see some else (other than Federer) try a racquet change when they are aged 31+ and see what happens. Did someone ask Nadal to change his racquet after winning RG 2013, and losing to Darcis at W 2013, someone who has W-RG double.

Perhaps Lord Federer should try experimenting with a wooden racquet or a allluminium metal racquet as used by Jimmy Connors!

It's a nice thought ; not sure it would bring any reward...... !!  

When Connors won the last of his Slams, he was the very same age as Fed was (give or take a couple of weeks) when he claimed no. 17 at Wimbledon 2012.

Jimbo did of course play on for many years after his USO win, and added to his collection of tour titles  - although few, if any, of them were of real significance.

Been a bit out of touch for the last week or two but just heard that Federer may not play Rogers Cup due to a back injury?? Any news on this?

I've seen a rumour but nothing more. He has to play, it's his cup(!) Failing that, Roger Taylor will come out of retirement.

Fed was carrying a back injury in Hamburg and Gstaad so not surprised by this at all.

Sadly, I think this is now the future, with ever present chronic back issues causing hampered performances or withdrawals.

 

emancipator

Not sure if this has been posted but here is a very good article about the "big 4"s , not ferrer , rackets!
http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-racquet-technology-how-the-big-4-differ/