BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Then how can you say he's not as good as before? It's impossible to separate him from his racquet when looking at stats as they are both playing at the same time.
All in all, has the new racket been good for Federer?
- Thread starter Nadalgaenger
- Start date
- Status
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
he was7 in the world with the 90 at the end and he is 2 with the 97 now, well 3. but because of a short schedule really.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
All Fed needs to do is watch the videos of himself playing back when he used the PS 6.0 85 to see how good his backhand was. The commentators would gush endlessly about how good his backhand was but would hardly ever mention his forehand.
Sander001
Hall of Fame
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
He was #1 in the world with the 90 at the end without a back injury. He's now #3 in the world with the 97 without a back injury.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
he was 2 in the world and over 1000 points ahead of murray at a time.
he lost because he isn't the smartest player, just the most talented.
talent and his body arent the best anymore and his competition is the smartest player ever to play(djokovic) thats the one guy who won't conced any matches to stupidity. while federer makes awful decisions and mistakes.
and he was 1 in the world when djokovic was a lesser player, look at the stats to prove it.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
He was also #1 when Nadal was a a much better player.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
The topic was about rankings, not who beat whom. But since you brought it up, Federer now often receives "severe beatings" by Djokovic and he's #3. So I'd rather get "severe beatings" and be #1 than get "severe beatings" and be #3.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
How does one gauge "how smart" a tennis player is?
By how well they can get coaching during the match? Is that it? Or how well they can execute a game plan?
Novak's high up in that regard.
Or maybe it's overall mind game prowess.
Then Nadal is definitely the winner with his infinite bathroom breaks, and odd injury time outs (after losing sets etc). With his pretty clever game style, and patterns.
By how well they can get coaching during the match? Is that it? Or how well they can execute a game plan?
Novak's high up in that regard.
Or maybe it's overall mind game prowess.
Then Nadal is definitely the winner with his infinite bathroom breaks, and odd injury time outs (after losing sets etc). With his pretty clever game style, and patterns.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
Picking the right shots in the right moment
Being disciplined enough to hit the lob instead of trying to hit the winner
The point where you have to make a decision and you use your head instead of instincts
Federer is a godly tennis player and his instincts and talent allowed him to be so dominant, but he always played brash tennis
Djokovic plays the odds and puts himself in favored positions whereas federer always hits or goes for the 10% chance of going in shot
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
I would agree Djokovic plays tennis very efficiently.
But saying Federer plays brash tennis I think is really a bit much. He's always played percentage tennis. He plays pattern tennis, drawing his opponents in to feed into his court positioning/strengths, or going for the lower percentage shot. Against novak and nadal, he's had to change that, because both guys have more options in their game, from physicality to backhand superiority, to return game strength.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
Federer actually commented on this once though I can't find the interview
He would find himself playing robotic not exciting tennis and would force himself to play like a child and go for shots
He said it himself that he makes an effort to play exciting
That's why he lost the close French opens and last year to seppi
He didn't slice his backhand like his coach told him to and he tried to outhit Nadal instead of playing crafty and countering him. Last year he tried to blast through a player when he just needed to use angles and finesse to win.
RanchDressing
Hall of Fame
Fair enough.
But I still think it's not accurate to call it brash tennis, if you understand what I mean.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
Stubborn might be better
Federer will always do what he wants, well until more recently when he started listening more to his coach and played smarter
If he had the tennis iq to hold off on some shots and hit more slices he would have won 2 French finals over Nadal. He wanted to hit his backhand though and that cost him where it mattered
Sander001
Hall of Fame
And just to solidify the proof that Federer is using the new racquet completely by his own free will and not being strong armed by Wilson to use it for financial/marketing purposes[or whatever conspiracy theory], here he is literally tossing the RF97 away and trying something else
After this, he went back to the RF97 because it's the best racquet for him, bar none.
After this, he went back to the RF97 because it's the best racquet for him, bar none.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Nah...since everyone here seems to think that a bigger racquet is better for Federer, he would have been much better off sticking with that new massive racquet. He'll never, ever shank again and nobody will ever be able to get the ball past him even with his diminished movement with age, right?
moon shot
Hall of Fame
"Sometimes you're just happy playing. Some people, some media, unfortunately, don't understand that it's okay just to play tennis and enjoy it. They always think you have to win everything, it always needs to be a success story, and if it's not, obviously, what is the point? Maybe you have to go back and think, Why have I started playing tennis? Because I just like it. It's actually sort of a dream hobby that became somewhat of a job. Some people just don't get that, ever." - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...he-same-media-establishment-that-built-him-up
Yeah, he also said this in that BBC interview you linked:
"Asked if he would be happy to add another three to his record total of 16 major wins, he told Radio 5 live: "No, I wouldn't, I would want to win more."
"No, I wouldn't, I would want to win more. Having won three Grand Slams per season three times, and two per year a couple of times, it's something that I think is very do-able for me." ... "At times I was one or two sets away from winning the calendar-year Grand Slam so obviously I feel that I have a great potential in Grand Slam play. But then again Grand Slams are not everything," ... "obviously if I can win Grand Slams that's fantastic, but they are not the only motivation over the next few years" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8908993.stm
Wanting to do something, saying it is do-able, does not make it a goal. Even then you wrote that it was his main goal for the purpose of distancing himself from Nadal and Djokovic.
I still haven't seen that anywhere.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um...you previously stated that this quote was "from 2012, a bit after winning Wimbledon", when in fact it was actually from March 25, 2014 after he lost IW to Djokovic, and hasn't won much of anything for nearly two years.
Sorry, but you're no longer credible.
Yes, it does. When you state that you wouldn't be satisfied with just 19 Slams but want to win more and think you can win more, then YES, THAT IS A GOAL. When Hillary Clinton states that she wants to be and can be the President of the United States, then that is her goal. When an Olympian says that he wants to win the gold medal and that it's do-able, then that is his goal.
And, yes, the reason that Federer wants to win at least 20 Slams is to set the record and have it last for a very long time. He personally knows all too well how short Sampras's record of 14 Slams lasted when almost everyone thought it would last for many decades. To make sure his Slam record lasts as long as possible, of course he'll need to distance himself as much as possible from the likes of Djokovic and Nadal. Don't be fooled for a minute that Federer's not concerned that Djokovic (or Nadal) will exceed him in Slams.
moon shot
Hall of Fame
I'm replying to you here as we are talking about Federer's goals, and how his new racquet has affected those goals.
The article is from 2014, the quote is cited as following Shanghai in 2012.
Lets simplify:
Would you like three scoops of ice cream? No, I wouldn't, I would want more.
Have I a set a goal of four scoops of ice cream?
Still waiting for that quote from Federer.
Here is a goal I've found:
"The idea was always (about) trying to be around the game for a long time," world number two Federer told reporters after cruising into the third round of the BNP Paribas Open with a commanding 6-4 6-2 victory over Argentina's Diego Schwartzman.
"And for that in 2004, when I became world No. 1, I took a decision with my fitness coach at the time that we're going to plan long-term. Whatever we will do, we will plan long-term. Sure, we can chase money or more tournament victories. We can play more frequently, train harder, whatever we will do. But we decided we will try to stay around 20 tournaments during the year, which is a lower number.
If you look back, Kafelnikov used to play 30 or 32 events back in the day, I said that's not something I really want to do. If I play, I want to play good. I want to play injury-free if possible, but of course all the top guys, we also play hurt.
But the goal was to stay around for a long time. I did get inspired by seeing 32-year-olds, 35-year-olds, and actually I felt they almost did me a favour that I could play against them.
My best memories are playing against the guys I used to see on TV, It's not like I'm doing the young guys now a favour to still be around, but I think down the stretch it might be appreciated (by them). For me, it was important trying to stay around for as long as possible because I do love the game. I'm happy the plan worked, that at 33 I'm still being super competitive and healthy and happy to be on tour.
I still believe I can improve my game ... I think you have to try to reinvent yourself. Tennis is actually one of those sports where I feel like you can always do better."
- Roger Federer, March 15th 2015 http://uk.reuters.com/article/tennis-indian-federer-idUKL2N0WI08D20150316
The article is from 2014, the quote is cited as following Shanghai in 2012.
Lets simplify:
Would you like three scoops of ice cream? No, I wouldn't, I would want more.
Have I a set a goal of four scoops of ice cream?
Still waiting for that quote from Federer.
Here is a goal I've found:
"The idea was always (about) trying to be around the game for a long time," world number two Federer told reporters after cruising into the third round of the BNP Paribas Open with a commanding 6-4 6-2 victory over Argentina's Diego Schwartzman.
"And for that in 2004, when I became world No. 1, I took a decision with my fitness coach at the time that we're going to plan long-term. Whatever we will do, we will plan long-term. Sure, we can chase money or more tournament victories. We can play more frequently, train harder, whatever we will do. But we decided we will try to stay around 20 tournaments during the year, which is a lower number.
If you look back, Kafelnikov used to play 30 or 32 events back in the day, I said that's not something I really want to do. If I play, I want to play good. I want to play injury-free if possible, but of course all the top guys, we also play hurt.
But the goal was to stay around for a long time. I did get inspired by seeing 32-year-olds, 35-year-olds, and actually I felt they almost did me a favour that I could play against them.
My best memories are playing against the guys I used to see on TV, It's not like I'm doing the young guys now a favour to still be around, but I think down the stretch it might be appreciated (by them). For me, it was important trying to stay around for as long as possible because I do love the game. I'm happy the plan worked, that at 33 I'm still being super competitive and healthy and happy to be on tour.
I still believe I can improve my game ... I think you have to try to reinvent yourself. Tennis is actually one of those sports where I feel like you can always do better."
- Roger Federer, March 15th 2015 http://uk.reuters.com/article/tennis-indian-federer-idUKL2N0WI08D20150316
Last edited:
Username_
Hall of Fame
Frost5541
Professional
EPIC!!!
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I'm glad to see you agree with me.
Al Czervik
Hall of Fame
My take on this is Fed definitely got improvement on the backhand. I know people will say the serve seemed much better. Maybe the stats bear that out. But, Fed also hit 12 million aces to beat Roddick with the old frame. And I know deep down that as much as I generally like larger frames for most shots, you have better pinpoint control on serve with a smaller frame. I think Roger sprayed the forehand a bit more with the larger frame. At best, I think it was a wash. But, I understand why people think it helped his game the last two years. That could have just been a healthy back and a weak field other than Novak, though.
Totally agree. Not only lacks pace, but also a lot less control with this racket (even I love playing with it) compared to the PS90.
moon shot
Hall of Fame
Lets look at his W/L record.
2016 18:6
2015 63:11
2014 73:12 (best since 2006)
97: 154:29 or 84.153% (start of 2016 this was 85.534%)
2013 47:17
2012 71:12
2011 64:12
2010 65:13
2009 61:12
2008 66:15
2007 68:9
2006 92:5
2005 81:4
2004 74:6
2003 78:17
2002 58:22
90: 755:128 or 85.503%
2001 49:21
2000 36:30
1999 29:23
1998 54:13
85: 168:87 or 52.459%
So before this year Federer won a fraction of a percent more matches on average than over his entire career with the 90, and in 2014 the first year of the switch his ratio was better than the previous 8 years with the 90.
With 2016 factored in he won 1.35% more matches with the 90. I really didn't think it would come out that close.
2016 18:6
2015 63:11
2014 73:12 (best since 2006)
97: 154:29 or 84.153% (start of 2016 this was 85.534%)
2013 47:17
2012 71:12
2011 64:12
2010 65:13
2009 61:12
2008 66:15
2007 68:9
2006 92:5
2005 81:4
2004 74:6
2003 78:17
2002 58:22
90: 755:128 or 85.503%
2001 49:21
2000 36:30
1999 29:23
1998 54:13
85: 168:87 or 52.459%
So before this year Federer won a fraction of a percent more matches on average than over his entire career with the 90, and in 2014 the first year of the switch his ratio was better than the previous 8 years with the 90.
With 2016 factored in he won 1.35% more matches with the 90. I really didn't think it would come out that close.
There have only been two players who could regularly beat Federer at any point in the past 13 years, so I guess it's not that surprising?
As cknobman said it's helped his backhand, and general solidity, but he doesn't have quite the precision with it that he had before, not as scalpel-like with the forehand precision or the bite of the slice. Still, I was on centre yesterday and he looked stunning against Dan Evans!
moon shot
Hall of Fame
Lets check out aces:
YEAR: TOTAL ACES or % OF SERVICE POINTS
2015: 597 or 17.96% tied with 2010 for most aces per service point
2014: 627 or 16.15%
97: 1,389 or 16.98%
2013: 399 or 13.14%
2012: 665 or 17.08%
2011: 504 or 14.91%
2010: 657 or 17.96%
2009: 658 or 17.57%
2008: 695 or 17.56%
2007: 597 or 16.77%
2006: 656 or 13.97%
2005: 599 or 14.48%
2004: 563 or 16.41%
2003: 690 or 17.61%
2002: 504 or 14.85%
90: 7,187 or 16.04%
So looks like Federer has more aces per service point with the 97 than with the 90. The obvious asterisks is I couldn't find the data for 2016. Saying it is a wash is accurate, or that he reversed a declining trend.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Your ability to be inside other peoples head never ceases to amaze.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No need to see inside his head. Federer himself stated that he wants to win at least 20 Slams and that he wouldn't be satisfied with only 19.
"Asked if he would be happy to add another three to his record total of 16 major wins, he told Radio 5 live: "No, I wouldn't, I would want to win more."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8908993.stm
Federer knows and understands the history of the sport better than just about any other player and he is also very much aware of his own legacy. To say that he doesn't care whatsoever if either Djokovic or Nadal surpasses him in Slams is just ridiculous. Yes, he would very much like to keep this very important record as long as possible and is obviously concerned about losing it. No need to be a psychiatrist to fathom that.
What do you expect him to say?
"Nah, I wouldn't be happy to win more."
You are such an idiot.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No, an "idiot" is someone like you who thinks Federer doesn't care if Djokovic or Nadal surpass him in Slams.
And the question was if he'd be happy with a total of 19 Slams, NOT if he'd be happy to win more, so your answer doesn't even make any sense. But what else is new?
It's like asking you "Would you be happy if I gave you a million dollars?"No, an "idiot" is someone like you who thinks Federer doesn't care if Djokovic or Nadal surpass him in Slams.
And the question was if he'd be happy with a total of 19 Slams, NOT if he'd be happy to win more, so your answer doesn't even make any sense. But what else is new?
You obviously say yes.
He wasn't asked if he wants to win more, but if he'd be happy to.
That's a huge difference, but dumbasses like you don't get that.
And just don't answer me again, my time is too precious for your ********.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
It's not the same thing at all but you obviously don't have the IQ to understand the difference. Sad.
If he wasn't asked if he wants to win more then why was his answer - "I would want to win more"?
He wasn't asked if he'd be happy to "win more" but if he'd be satisfied with a total of 19 Slams. His answer was - "No, I wouldn't".
Because by your interpretation, then he was saying that he wouldn't be happy to win more.
I have to assume that English is not your first language or that you failed in school.
moon shot
Hall of Fame
Q: Breakpoint, would you like to make 50,000 posts to this board?
A: ...I would want to post more.
This statement has no goals. It does not indicate you are trying to put space between yourself and LeeD or sureshs. A want is not a goal, but a goal is something you want.
Still waiting for any quote from Federer indicating that goal.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Obviously not. May I ask how much education you have?
If you were negotiating your salary with your boss and he asks you:
"Would you be happy with more money?" Of course your answer would be - "Yes".
But if he asks you - "Would you be happy with $3,000 more?" Your answer might be be - "I would not, I would want more."
See the big difference? This is exactly the case with the question posed to Federer. He was never asked if he would be happy to win more, like you said. He was asked if he would be happy to win just 3 more Slams, to which his answer was - "No, I would not".
Ironic that you're the one going around calling others "an idiot".
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If I had made that statement, then my goal would be to make more than 50,000 posts to put more distance between myself and LeeD or sureshs.
But since I don't give a crap about post counts, I would never actually make that statement nor ever set that as a goal. But Federer does indeed care about winning Slams....a lot!
moon shot
Hall of Fame
If I had made that statement, then my goal would be to make more than 50,000 posts to put more distance between myself and LeeD or sureshs.
But since I don't give a crap about post counts, I would never actually make that statement nor ever set that as a goal. But Federer does indeed care about winning Slams....a lot!
Not all wants are goals.
I suppose you think all rectangles are squares as well.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
When you quantify it, as in "more than 19", then yes, that want is indeed a goal.
I think you need to learn what a "goal" is. A "goal" is something you want to achieve. Federer wants to achieve at least 20 Slams. Therefore, that is his goal.
moon shot
Hall of Fame
So that's it, revealed on BBC radio by a sly interviewer asking if he would like to win three more, baiting Roger to say he wanted more? Thats how the man let slip that his main goal is to win more than 20 slams to distance himself from Nadal and Djokovic, even though the latter had only won a single slam at the time.
Roger should have won 30 by now according to his math, no wonder he switched racquets.
Last edited:
Sander001
Hall of Fame
Watching Federer play at this Wimbledon has been an absolute pleasure. He's really comfortable with the racquet which is surprising because to switch from something that he's spent hundreds of thousands of hours perfecting to be millimetre perfect, to something new all in the highest standards of tennis is a remarkable accomplishment, especially at his age. I still remember Djokovic switching to Head and his game took nosedive, and that was when he was much younger, an age when it's much easier to change habits.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
To me Federers statement is a humorous way to indicate his level of ambition, that he wants to win as much as possible. In the sense that you should not limit your own level of ambition, which I suppose is the correct attitude for a sportsman of his stature.
FedLIKEnot
Professional
These posts always get convoluted. Remember everyone this is opinion and all that matters in that regard is Rogers. And he seems happy with his results and game he had a slip up here and there beginning of the grass court season but thus far at Wimbledon he's playing amazing.
As far as my two cents his new racquet has helped his backhand and his serve. His forehand is a touch erratic but even at his best with Breakpoints beloved 90 and 85 he had moments of that. Those boosts to his game more than make up the difference in the fh his touch is still subperb. Lastly the 97 has given him another year or two on your as I don't think he'd just hang around he'll retire being in the top 10 on tour.
As far as my two cents his new racquet has helped his backhand and his serve. His forehand is a touch erratic but even at his best with Breakpoints beloved 90 and 85 he had moments of that. Those boosts to his game more than make up the difference in the fh his touch is still subperb. Lastly the 97 has given him another year or two on your as I don't think he'd just hang around he'll retire being in the top 10 on tour.
- Status
Similar threads
