All in all, has the new racket been good for Federer?

[Sander001]

I agree.

But I'm sure Federer would agree that he prefers to win Slams and Masters than not win them.

Yup and that's why he's equipping himself with the best tools to do so, which is far more critical now since the competition has gotten so much better compared to 10, even 5 years ago.

 

[tribesmen]

Because of the success he's had with the Tour 90.

Besides, I'm NOT arguing that his results would have been better with the Tour 90 over the past two years. I'm arguing that no one can be so certain as to claim that his results would have definitely been worse "for sure" with the Tour 90 over the past two years, as some here have asserted. In fact, his results couldn't possibly have been worse with the Tour 90 since he didn't win any Slams with the RF97A, so you can't get any worse than zero. And Slams are what he cares most about. BTW, "not worse" does not mean "better".

You really don't (and don't want) understand that Fed himself, his team made a decision to switch to new stick one reason only i.e. to stay competitive, winning the slam would be a cream on that if this would happen. Yes, we all know that we can't tell what his results would be if he would stay with 90, but percentage is vary high that he wouldn't be today among top 5. Just reality and common sense.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yup and that's why he's equipping himself with the best tools to do so, which is far more critical now since the competition has gotten so much better compared to 10, even 5 years ago.

And how's that been working out for him so far?

His competition 5 and 10 years ago, including Nadal, Safin, Nalbandian, Del Potro, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Murray, Djokovic, Berdych, Tsonga, etc. were no pushovers.

 

[BreakPoint]

You really don't (and don't want) understand that Fed himself, his team made a decision to switch to new stick one reason only i.e. to stay competitive, winning the slam would be a cream on that if this would happen. Yes, we all know that we can't tell what his results would be if he would stay with 90, but percentage is vary high that he wouldn't be today among top 5. Just reality and common sense.

You don't know that. He was #1 with the 90, so why wouldn't he be in the Top 5 with the same racquet? That is what I call "common sense".

Where is the rule that bigger is better? Why isn't Nadal switching to a bigger racquet to get back to #1? Unlike Federer, Nadal's game and strokes are custom tuned for bigger racquets. It would make no sense for both of them to be using similar sized racquets since Federer's strokes and game are custom tuned for smaller racquets. Thus, whatever the best sized racquet is for Federer, the best sized racquet for Nadal then should be something significantly bigger.

Can you cite examples of other pros that were able to win Slams by switching to a bigger racquet late in their careers?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

3. Exactly! We don't know how he would have done with the Tour 90 over the past two years because he didn't play with one. THAT'S BEEN MY WHOLE POINT THIS ENTIRE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!! I never claimed he would have had better results with the Tour 90 over the past two years than with the RF97A because I DON"T KNOW. Nobody does! But to claim he WOULD HAVE had worse results with the Tour 90 is pure speculation and thus preposterous. There are no results to compare it with because he didn't use the Tour 90, so any effort to do so is pure fabrication and fantasy. All I know is, since he didn't win any Slams with the RF97A, he couldn't possibly have done any worse with the Tour 90 since you can't win fewer than zero Slams! And that's what he mostly cares about.

I suppose Federer is the closest to know. And all the other pros using midplus rackets opposed to mid.

 

[BreakPoint]

I suppose Federer is the closest to know. And all the other pros using midplus rackets opposed to mid.

All the other pros using Midplus racquets do not play tennis like Federer does.

And unless Federer can go back in time and play all of his matches over the past two years over again using the Tour 90, he doesn't know either. Just like you don't know how you would have done in a match with a different racquet that you didn't use.

 

[tribesmen]

You don't know that. He was #1 with the 90, so why wouldn't he be in the Top 5 with the same racquet? That is what I call "common sense".

Where is the rule that bigger is better? Why isn't Nadal switching to a bigger racquet to get back to #1? Unlike Federer, Nadal's game and strokes are custom tuned for bigger racquets. It would make no sense for both of them to be using similar sized racquets since Federer's strokes and game are custom tuned for smaller racquets. Thus, whatever the best sized racquet is for Federer, the best sized racquet for Nadal then should be something significantly bigger.

Can you cite examples of other pros that were able to win Slams by switching to a bigger racquet late in their careers?

I don't recall any "modern" pro this moment that was so long a top player and competitive younger generation. Maybe there is some exception, but majority stopped with playing (or went retrograde) due to injuries or because they were stubborn and did not move on to more modern equipment

PS90 is a great racquet indeed, but nowadays only for enthusiasts, nostalgists to play for fun or in "village" leagues, but not at pro level.

PS1: Answer to your question: "Where is the rule that bigger is better?" > no one who means something in the ATP does not play with racquet under 95".
PS2: Please, do not reply how much better today's players would be with racquets 80-90", but they don't know this, because they play with inferior 95+" sticks

 

[Povl Carstensen]

And unless Federer can go back in time and play all of his matches over the past two years over again using the Tour 90, he doesn't know either. Just like you don't know how you would have done in a match with a different racquet that you didn't use.

I have about 15 different rackets, and I have a pretty good understanding of the differences between them, even though I can not use more than one at a time. And I still think Federer knows better, even if you might disagree.

 

[Ihatetennis]

Also to add to breakpoint's stats argument, karlovic isnt going to win any slams because he only wins 10% when returning, federer in 2015 won 27% of the games returning

Karlovic will never be able to return and break enough to be dominant

if he is winning 96% of service games while only winning 10% of returning breaks he wins 13/25 games. Federer however wins 15/25 games

These stats have truth to them because they are reality.The difference between slam finals at this level is hardly about how you can hold your serve, but how many people you can break while holding your serve.

Federer is just a notch below djokovic in returning. his new racket is the biggest thing helping his returning games, as shown from a stat increase since 2012. His racket increases his serving and returning, that means he should be dominant right? no, he doesnt break enough compared to djokovic. the numbers don't lie.

I will humor your argument though, if its tactics that are helping him, why have these new tactics not helped him win a slam while improving his game?

you claim he is playing better because of edberg, while i don't disagree, he should theoretically be winning slams.

HE is not, and its because of his body. Tactics and racket have helped him overcome age to an extent.

Safe conclusions, federer is playing better with this new racket, his switch was the right move.

Proven stats, federer is aging and that is why he is winning less return games than he used to.

Factual evidence, breakpoint will never agree that federer is playing better now than with the 90. Or that djokovic who has won 9 slams in 5 years, is better than the competition was 12-8 years ago.

Historical evidence that proves djokovic is better than federers competition back then, federer didnt lose a hard court match in 13 months at his peak, if the players of the era were better than today, there would have been more than 9 losses in 2005-2007

 

[BreakPoint]

PS1: Answer to your question: "Where is the rule that bigger is better?" > no one who means something in the ATP does not play with racquet under 95".

No one else on the ATP Tour plays tennis exactly like Federer. If they did, they'd also have 17 Slams. Just because racquets over 95 are good for other players does not necessarily mean it's also good for Federer. Most of those other players did not grow up using an 85 sq. in. racquet and have their strokes and muscle memory ingrained to a smaller racquet.

No other ATP pros at time time found it possible to play with a T-2000 either, but Connors was able to play with one very successfully. Why? Because he had been using one for so long that it was ingrained into his stroke mechanics and muscle memory. And after switching to a bigger racquet (PS 85) late in his career, he realized his mistake and went right back to his T-2000 for several more years.

 

[BreakPoint]

I have about 15 different rackets, and I have a pretty good understanding of the differences between them, even though I can not use more than one at a time. And I still think Federer knows better, even if you might disagree.

I also have a very good understanding of the differences between racquets. And the fact that I know there are differences is why I don't know how any particular match would have turned out had I used a different racquet. If you lose a match with one racquet and then go back in time and replay the match again changing an important variable by using a different racquet, you have no idea what the new result will be. Maybe the ball lands in instead of out on an important break point and that's enough to turn a loss into a win. Like the rest of us, Federer doesn't have the ability to know the result of something that never occurred.

 

[BreakPoint]

Also to add to breakpoint's stats argument, karlovic isnt going to win any slams because he only wins 10% when returning, federer in 2015 won 27% of the games returning

Karlovic will never be able to return and break enough to be dominant

if he is winning 96% of service games while only winning 10% of returning breaks he wins 13/25 games. Federer however wins 15/25 games

These stats have truth to them because they are reality.The difference between slam finals at this level is hardly about how you can hold your serve, but how many people you can break while holding your serve.

Federer is just a notch below djokovic in returning. his new racket is the biggest thing helping his returning games, as shown from a stat increase since 2012. His racket increases his serving and returning, that means he should be dominant right? no, he doesnt break enough compared to djokovic. the numbers don't lie.

I will humor your argument though, if its tactics that are helping him, why have these new tactics not helped him win a slam while improving his game?

you claim he is playing better because of edberg, while i don't disagree, he should theoretically be winning slams.

HE is not, and its because of his body. Tactics and racket have helped him overcome age to an extent.

Safe conclusions, federer is playing better with this new racket, his switch was the right move.

Proven stats, federer is aging and that is why he is winning less return games than he used to.

Factual evidence, breakpoint will never agree that federer is playing better now than with the 90. Or that djokovic who has won 9 slams in 5 years, is better than the competition was 12-8 years ago.

Historical evidence that proves djokovic is better than federers competition back then, federer didnt lose a hard court match in 13 months at his peak, if the players of the era were better than today, there would have been more than 9 losses in 2005-2007

You judge "better" or "worse" by results. And "results" means wins and titles and Slams. If someone has great stats but loses every match, can you claim that he's a "better" player? However, if someone went from 0 Slams to 6 Slams over the next two years, you would definitely say that he's now a "better" player. People say that Djokovic is a "better" player now than he was before. Do you think they're talking about his stats or about his wins and titles?

Do they give out trophies and winner's checks or put you in the record books for having the best stats or for winning tournaments?

 

[Ihatetennis]

You judge "better" or "worse" by results. And "results" means wins and titles and Slams. If someone has great stats but loses every match, can you claim that he's a "better" player? However, if someone went from 0 Slams to 6 Slams over the next two years, you would definitely say that he's now a "better" player. People say that Djokovic is a "better" player now than he was before. Do you think they're talking about his stats or about his wins and titles?

Do they give out trophies and winner's checks or put you in the record books for having the best stats or for winning tournaments?

first, if someone lost every match they would not have good stats. at best they would either hold or break 100% of the time while winning 0% in the other column

second, trophies checks and all of this have a direct corrilation with stats achieved. The best player will have the best stats, they go hand in hand

third, records are stats, they are stats on what players achieve


lastly, better or worse is not judged by results. Better or worse is proven by stats. winning a grandslam with all 5 set matches vs making it to the finals of a grandslam without losing a set and losing the final in 5 sets is different. yes, the grandslam was a huge accomplishment, but the evidence suggests that the tournament losing in the finals was played by a better player than previously. (same player in both examples, in chronological order of tournaments played)

the issue federer has is that djokovic is so much better than ever before and he is not as good as him. his racket wont change that. Federer will never win another grandslam if he has to face djokovic, if he plays anyone else he has a good chance as he is the second best player right now

 

[BreakPoint]

first, if someone lost every match they would not have good stats. at best they would either hold or break 100% of the time while winning 0% in the other column

second, trophies checks and all of this have a direct corrilation with stats achieved. The best player will have the best stats, they go hand in hand

third, records are stats, they are stats on what players achieve


lastly, better or worse is not judged by results. Better or worse is proven by stats. winning a grandslam with all 5 set matches vs making it to the finals of a grandslam without losing a set and losing the final in 5 sets is different. yes, the grandslam was a huge accomplishment, but the evidence suggests that the tournament losing in the finals was played by a better player than previously. (same player in both examples, in chronological order of tournaments played)

the issue federer has is that djokovic is so much better than ever before and he is not as good as him. his racket wont change that. Federer will never win another grandslam if he has to face djokovic, if he plays anyone else he has a good chance as he is the second best player right now

Didn't you just spend the last several days showing us that Federer has better stats than before even though he's not winning as many titles?

If stats told the whole story, there would never be a reason to ever watch a tennis match. Just look at the stats afterwards. Stats are not going to tell you that Federer lost a point because he went for a topspin backhand instead of a slice nor how much angle he's getting on his forehand to pressure his opponents.

 

[Ihatetennis]

Didn't you just spend the last several days showing us that Federer has better stats than before even though he's not winning as many titles?

If stats told the whole story, there would never be a reason to ever watch a tennis match. Just look at the stats afterwards. Stats are not going to tell you that Federer lost a point because he went for a topspin backhand instead of a slice nor how much angle he's getting on his forehand to pressure his opponents.

if someone loses every match they will not have good stats that is a fact. and i gave you their best case scenario. I never said stats don't matter, you did

federer is better in almost every area than in his prime, except for return games won and break points converted, however he is better than in 2012 which was not his prime, and his last slam title

here is the only stat you need to see on whether someone loses a match or wins it

this is the only stat that djokovic excelled in during the final.

Break points won

6/13 (46%)

4/23 (17%)

the stats will tell you why he lost though, to lose 19 breakpoints is more than just a mental slip here or there

 

[Ihatetennis]

and also, federer did not lose every match, he had the second best win index after djokovic. federer only lost 11 times this year.

seppi
djokovic
monfils
kyrgios
djokovic
wawrinka
djokovic
djokovic
ramos vinolas
isner
djokovic

I notice a pattern, excluding seppi and vinolas as outliers, he lost to 1/3 things in these matches: big servers more physical players or overpowering players

 

[Topspin Shot]

this is the only stat that djokovic excelled in during the final.

Break points won

6/13 (46%)

4/23 (17%)

They see me trollin, they hatin....

 

[BreakPoint]

if someone loses every match they will not have good stats that is a fact. and i gave you their best case scenario. I never said stats don't matter, you did

federer is better in almost every area than in his prime, except for return games won and break points converted, however he is better than in 2012 which was not his prime, and his last slam title

here is the only stat you need to see on whether someone loses a match or wins it

this is the only stat that djokovic excelled in during the final.

Break points won

6/13 (46%)

4/23 (17%)

the stats will tell you why he lost though, to lose 19 breakpoints is more than just a mental slip here or there

Thanks for confirming that Federer can't break serve using the RF97A. LOL

 

[Ihatetennis]

Thanks for confirming that Federer can't break serve using the RF97A. LOL

notice how he got himself the opportunities, and his returning is hgiher than the late years of his 90

old man time is why federer is losing. no ifs ands or buts about it

 

[oble]

Pretty sure Federer has now ditched the PS RF97A for the 500 sq in Blade.

 

[Sander001]

72% voted yes. And those votes don't even include McEnroe, Navratilova, Wilander, Courier, Henman, Roddick, Cahill or Gilbert! Anybody else I'm missing?
And with the old racquet, Federer lost 8 times to a fat guy! Zero losses to fat people with the new racquet as far as I know.

 

[BreakPoint]

72% voted yes. And those votes don't even include McEnroe, Navratilova, Wilander, Courier, Henman, Roddick, Cahill or Gilbert! Anybody else I'm missing?
And with the old racquet, Federer lost 8 times to a fat guy! Zero losses to fat people with the new racquet as far as I know.

Do you know who thinks the new racquet has been REALLY good for Federer?

Novak Djokovic! LOL


BTW, Warwrinka, Tsonga, Raonic, etc. are not exactly skinny, either.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Honestly, kind of wish he'd gone to a bigger frame 5 years ago. It's a concession, but the game got this way. Think he threw away some late-career success by delaying adoption. Better late than never though. He's into year 3 with this iteration of the racquet, so I think his confidence with this frame is going to be very high.

 

[BreakPoint]

Honestly, kind of wish he'd gone to a bigger frame 5 years ago. It's a concession, but the game got this way. Think he threw away some late-career success by delaying adoption. Better late than never though. He's into year 3 with this iteration of the racquet, so I think his confidence with this frame is going to be very high.

So he could have stopped winning Slams even earlier? LOL

 

[Sander001]

Honestly, kind of wish he'd gone to a bigger frame 5 years ago. It's a concession, but the game got this way. Think he threw away some late-career success by delaying adoption. Better late than never though. He's into year 3 with this iteration of the racquet, so I think his confidence with this frame is going to be very high.

Agreed, he'd definitely have over 20 slam singles titles if he'd have switched sooner, especially without the back injury.

 

[zep]

I think yes, he is getting more power and accuracy on his serve and his BH is very solid. You hardly see those infamous BH shanks with this one. His FH however has lost a lot of its fizz but that's more due to his age/movement than the racquet. Overall I think it has served him really well.

 

[BreakPoint]

Agreed, he'd definitely have over 20 slam singles titles if he'd have switched sooner, especially without the back injury.

And it's just as possible he would have stopped at only 10 Slams if he had switched sooner.

Both are just pure speculation, which means using words like "definitely" is silly.

 

[BreakPoint]

I think yes, he is getting more power and accuracy on his serve and his BH is very solid. You hardly see those infamous BH shanks with this one. His FH however has lost a lot of its fizz but that's more due to his age/movement than the racquet. Overall I think it has served him really well.

You should go back and watch videos of when Federer used the PS 6.0 85 to see how powerful and accurate his serves were and how great his backhand was.

 

[Ihatetennis]

You should go back and watch videos of when Federer used the PS 6.0 85 to see how powerful and accurate his serves were and how great his backhand was.

his serving is better now than then. Looks don't cut it in terms of whats better or best. It's a fact that he is serving as good if not better now than in his prime. Especially on clay.

 

[RanchDressing]

Agreed, he'd definitely have over 20 slam singles titles if he'd have switched sooner, especially without the back injury.

Yeah if I'm honest it almost seemed like a ditch effort.

I was kind of waiting for fed to go into "big banger attack" "sabr" style tennis in like 2010-12. Never happened, and I just thought he would fade away. I think with his extra movement ability back then, this game style and the new racquet would have bought him at least another two majors. I thought I was the only one who thought this though. Glad to see I'm not alone on that front.

 

[am1899]

You should go back and watch videos of when Federer used the PS 6.0 85 to see how powerful and accurate his serves were and how great his backhand was.

The pro game was different then. The way Federer played back then was different. And, Federer was younger back then. Apples to oranges.

 

[zep]

You should go back and watch videos of when Federer used the PS 6.0 85 to see how powerful and accurate his serves were and how great his backhand was.

And you should get on with the times. When I said, he was serving better the comparison was with the last few years of the old racquet.

 

[BreakPoint]

And you should get on with the times. When I said, he was serving better the comparison was with the last few years of the old racquet.

But he wasn't. His average serve speeds were higher with the old racquet in the past few years. Besides, he also had a back injury during the last few years with the old racquet.

 

[zep]

But he wasn't. His average serve speeds were higher with the old racquet in the past few years. Besides, he also had a back injury during the last few years with the old racquet.

Don't agree. Till the US open, he was holding 93% of his service games in 2015, the highest in his career and he did that with a considerably inferior ground game, even compared to 2012. Also do you have any data back up this statement- "His average serve speeds were higher with the old racquet in the past few years" ?

 

[BreakPoint]

Don't agree. Till the US open, he was holding 93% of his service games in 2015, the highest in his career and he did that with a considerably inferior ground game, even compared to 2012. Also do you have any data back up this statement- "His average serve speeds were higher with the old racquet in the past few years" ?

Do a search. It's been gone over multiple times ad nauseum on this board in the past. It's a fact based upon actual match stats.

 

[zep]

Do a search. It's been gone over multiple times ad nauseum on this board in the past. It's a fact based upon actual match stats.

I see you did not address the point about his high service hold percentage.

 

[zep]

Do a search. It's been gone over multiple times ad nauseum on this board in the past. It's a fact based upon actual match stats.

"Do a search" is not a great reply. His average first serve speeds were 117 and 118 mph in the Wimbledon semi and final, not at all slower than with his old racquet.

 

[Ihatetennis]

I see you did not address the point about his high service hold percentage.

I've already killed that argument

This year fed had more aces with less matches played on clay than in 2006 or 2012

Look in the fed racket thread for my post. I broke down how fed is playing better than ever. Breakpoint said stats don't prove he's better, only tournament wins do. I showed him how the only thing fed can't do, but is doing better than 2012, is return well. Djokovic is also just about amazing in his current form. If we could simulate Wimbledon over and over with his stats from this year it would be 24-1, or he would win 3 times before losing in the 4th round. A 75% chance of winning the tournament with his current game. Which makes sense in geandslams since he only lost 1/4 this year. Breakpoint is oblivious to stats and only uses stats that favor him, but don't matter. Serve speed doesn't matter, holding does. Karlovic only wins 13/25 games according to stats while federer wins 16 games for every 25.

Breakpoint argues on how fed isn't good cuz of the racket. When fed is serving better than in his prime, but lacking in the return. He will only ask why karlovic isn't winning slams if holding is so important, and the reason is his return game is lacking, same as fed. This year fed lost to better returners or bigger servers. I highlighted it in the other thread. It only shows how if you can't break you can't win. And fed can't break that well anymore compared to Djokovic who holds slightly less at 89-91% but the difference is 8%+ on returns which is where the odds are stacked against fed.

I have done research and compared stats. Breakpoint has seen them and still concludes federer sucks because of his racket, when in fact all his stats went up since 2012, his last good year. But breakpoint negates it with a back injury. Which is why I used 2006, then he continued to just look at pointless numbers like overall aces. Which he hit more of in 2006, but the same amount roughly in 2007

Breakpoint won't listen, he will just act like a pigeon playing chess, knock over the pieces and strut around victorious.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

If you lose a match with one racquet and then go back in time and replay the match again changing an important variable by using a different racquet, you have no idea what the new result will be. Maybe the ball lands in instead of out on an important break point and that's enough to turn a loss into a win. Like the rest of us, Federer doesn't have the ability to know the result of something that never occurred.

Actually, you do have an idea. But you can not be absolutely, 100% sure. If that is your point, I think we got it by now.

 

[zep]

I've already killed that argument

This year fed had more aces with less matches played on clay than in 2006 or 2012

Look in the fed racket thread for my post. I broke down how fed is playing better than ever. Breakpoint said stats don't prove he's better, only tournament wins do. I showed him how the only thing fed can't do, but is doing better than 2012, is return well. Djokovic is also just about amazing in his current form. If we could simulate Wimbledon over and over with his stats from this year it would be 24-1, or he would win 3 times before losing in the 4th round. A 75% chance of winning the tournament with his current game. Which makes sense in geandslams since he only lost 1/4 this year. Breakpoint is oblivious to stats and only uses stats that favor him, but don't matter. Serve speed doesn't matter, holding does. Karlovic only wins 13/25 games according to stats while federer wins 16 games for every 25.

Breakpoint argues on how fed isn't good cuz of the racket. When fed is serving better than in his prime, but lacking in the return. He will only ask why karlovic isn't winning slams if holding is so important, and the reason is his return game is lacking, same as fed. This year fed lost to better returners or bigger servers. I highlighted it in the other thread. It only shows how if you can't break you can't win. And fed can't break that well anymore compared to Djokovic who holds slightly less at 89-91% but the difference is 8%+ on returns which is where the odds are stacked against fed.

I have done research and compared stats. Breakpoint has seen them and still concludes federer sucks because of his racket, when in fact all his stats went up since 2012, his last good year. But breakpoint negates it with a back injury. Which is why I used 2006, then he continued to just look at pointless numbers like overall aces. Which he hit more of in 2006, but the same amount roughly in 2007

Breakpoint won't listen, he will just act like a pigeon playing chess, knock over the pieces and strut around victorious.

Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't waste my time arguing with someone like him, have better things to do in life.

 

[Rabbit]

Breakpoint argues on how fed isn't good cuz of the racket. When fed is serving better than in his prime, but lacking in the return. He will only ask why karlovic isn't winning slams if holding is so important, and the reason is his return game is lacking, same as fed. This year fed lost to better returners or bigger servers. I highlighted it in the other thread. It only shows how if you can't break you can't win. And fed can't break that well anymore compared to Djokovic who holds slightly less at 89-91% but the difference is 8%+ on returns which is where the odds are stacked against fed.

I have done research and compared stats. Breakpoint has seen them and still concludes federer sucks because of his racket, when in fact all his stats went up since 2012, his last good year. But breakpoint negates it with a back injury. Which is why I used 2006, then he continued to just look at pointless numbers like overall aces. Which he hit more of in 2006, but the same amount roughly in 2007

Breakpoint won't listen, he will just act like a pigeon playing chess, knock over the pieces and strut around victorious.

And, if I'm not mistaken, BP was also the one who argued the Agassi wasn't winning majors because he changed to polyester from kevlar/gut. BP seems to ignore Father Time in all his "logic".

 

[Ihatetennis]

And, if I'm not mistaken, BP was also the one who argued the Agassi wasn't winning majors because he changed to polyester from kevlar/gut. BP seems to ignore Father Time in all his "logic".

I mean it's proven we recover better in our youth, federer is slower today by just enough to keep him at #2-3. Not much you can do about that at his age.

Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't waste my time arguing with someone like him, have better things to do in life.

yeah, i proved him wrong with stats

So you had to isolate it to only clay court matches to get your numbers to look better? LOL Oh, and he had more double-faults in 2006 because he served way more games (260 vs. 214).

Again, where are your stats for number of Slams and Masters won in 2006 versus 2015? That's the ONLY "stat" that matters! Everything else is irrelevant as they are not results. Stats are NOT results.

Karolvic has the best serving stats in tennis. Do you think he would trade his service stats for a Wimbledon title? You bet he would! LOL

Notice how I isolated it to clay to prove he was serving better and I showed a stat of more aces and less double faults, while playing less matches in 2015 than 2006.

Also notice he thinks stats don't mean anything and only tournament wins do.



Roger Federer 2015 Clay stats


SERVICE RECORD
Aces 110
Double Faults 15
#PhraseItemNotFound# 63%
1st Serve Points Won 77%
2nd Serve Points Won 58%
Break Points Faced 61
Break Points Saved 61%
Service Games Played 214
Service Games Won 89%
Total Service Points Won 70%
RETURN RECORD
1st Serve Return Points Won 32%
2nd Serve Return Points Won 50%
Break Points Opportunities 130
Break Points Converted 41%
Return Games Played 210
Return Games Won 25%
Return Points Won 39%
Total Points Won 54%

Roger Federer 2006 Clay stats

SERVICE RECORD
Aces 90
Double Faults 21
#PhraseItemNotFound# 60%
1st Serve Points Won 74%
2nd Serve Points Won 57%
Break Points Faced 117
Break Points Saved 68%
Service Games Played 260
Service Games Won 85%
Total Service Points Won 67%
RETURN RECORD
1st Serve Return Points Won 37%
2nd Serve Return Points Won 55%
Break Points Opportunities 215
Break Points Converted 39%
Return Games Played 255
Return Games Won 33%
Return Points Won 42%
Total Points Won 54%

To make things easy for @BreakPoint to understand. In 2006 federer served an ace in 34.6% of service games and served a double fault in 8.1% of his service games. a ratio of 4.27 aces for every double fault. In 2015 federer served an ace in 51.4% of his service games and served a double fault in 7% of his service games. a ratio of 7.34 aces for every double fault. Federer served 1.72 times more aces for every double fault, almost doubling his ratio. Consequentially, federer won 5% more service games and 3% more service points in 2015 than in 2006.

In 2006 federer faced a breakpoint in 4.5/10 of his service games saving 68% or losing 1.44 games out of every 10 games.

In 2015 federer faced %a breakpoint in 2.85/10 games saving 61% or losing 1.11 games out of every 10.

I have simplified and explained the stats on clay, his worst surface, to show you how much better the new racket is and how he is serving better than ever with it.

 

[Ihatetennis]

Your tendons, like the one in your elbow, become more brittle and thus easier to tear as you age. Tennis elbow is micro tears in your elbow tendon. It also take your tendons much longer to heal once it's torn as you get older. Thus, it's definitely much easier to get tennis elbow as you get older. Younger players' tendons are much more flexible and resilient and thus more resistant to tears, and once it's torn can heal itself much faster. That's why they can feel some elbow pain and then just take a few days or weeks off and be back out on the court again. For older players, it can take 4-6 months for TE to fully heal.

breakpoint conceded to age wearing down bodies. game over fed is old and thats why he isnt as good

 

[BreakPoint]

breakpoint conceded to age wearing down bodies. game over fed is old and thats why he isnt as good

The last I checked, Federer doesn't have tennis elbow.

Besides, since he's getting older and according to you, how can anyone claim he's definitely playing BETTER with the RF97A. You just said that he's not as good as before.

 

[BreakPoint]

And, if I'm not mistaken, BP was also the one who argued the Agassi wasn't winning majors because he changed to polyester from kevlar/gut. BP seems to ignore Father Time in all his "logic".

Um..no. I've NEVER said that. So please stop putting words into my mouth.

 

[Ihatetennis]

The last I checked, Federer doesn't have tennis elbow.

Besides, since he's getting older and according to you, how can anyone claim he's definitely playing BETTER with the RF97A. You just said that he's not as good as before.

his body isnt as good, his racket is better. look at how good his service games are and how bad his return games are

 

[BreakPoint]

"Do a search" is not a great reply. His average first serve speeds were 117 and 118 mph in the Wimbledon semi and final, not at all slower than with his old racquet.

I just don't want to waste several more hours doing all the research all over again for the umpteenth time since this has already been proven and confirmed so many times already in the past. Accept it and move on.

I do recall that Federer's average 1st serve speed in the 2012 Wimbledon semis against Djokovic was 119mph and second serve was 103mph, both faster than both the 2014 and 2015 Wimbledon finals against Djokovic.

 

[BreakPoint]

his body isnt as good, his racket is better. look at how good his service games are and how bad his return games are

His new racquet is much stiffer than his old racquet and will likely cause him more injuries as he gets older. I would never use the RF97A for just that one reason alone.

If his service games are better, it's because he's serving and volleying a lot more, something he should have been doing with the Tour 90 (but why bother when his ground game was so good with the 90), and not because his serves by themselves are better.

 

[BreakPoint]

his body isnt as good, his racket is better. look at how good his service games are and how bad his return games are

If he's not as good as before, how can you tell his racquet is better? The last I checked, a racquet doesn't play by itself.

 

[Ihatetennis]

If he's not as good as before, how can you tell his racquet is better? The last I checked, a racquet doesn't play by itself.

His stats went up considerably from 2010-now