Edberg interview on (among other things) Federer

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Edberg was here in India and did a wonderful interview with the leading English daily Times of India, talking about his unique approach to S&V (getting close to the net rather than split stepping in the middle), his rivalry with Becker and of course his illustrious disciple, Federer.

He dwelt briefly on the topic of the larger racquet, mentioning that he too shifted to a larger one (was not aware of this).

"
Did you suggest the larger racquet head to him?

That was already decided before and he started playing with a new racquet. There is no question he needed to change racquets. I have changed racquets myself to a larger head as well and it does make a difference. It is very challenging at the later stage of your career but Roger is the man to do it. He’s got the touch, he’s got the knowledge and he’s quicker than anybody else.

Did it affect his slice?

Overall it helped his backhand a lot. The backhand was probably the weak point of his game, but not any longer. It helps your serving as well which probably is your most important shot. I would say it’s 80/20 in terms of advantage vs disadvantage."


Full interview here:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...d-work-stefan-edberg/articleshow/63063353.cms
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
Interesting interview. He made Roger get fitter to play more aggressive tennis. Federer has definitely looked leaner since 2014. In all this interview is quite supportive of the idea that Federer’s game has evolved, maybe even to a higher level than the years in which he was dominating the tour more comprehensively.

I look forward to reading an in depth Ljubicic interview one day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Interesting interview. He made Roger get fitter to play more aggressive tennis. Federer has definitely looked leaner since 2014. In all this interview is quite supportive of the idea that Federer’s has evolved, maybe even to a higher level than the years in which he was dominating the tour more comprehensiblely.

I look forward to reading an in depth Ljubicic interview one day.
Federer has certainly evolved and in doing so at this late stage of his career, is all the more unique. Has he raised his level even above his peak? Not sure and inclined to say no. I was rewatching the HLs of the 2012 AO match against Nadal and before that of their 2009 match. In those slower conditions, Nadal could move him around and negate his backhand better than in 2017 when RLA played significantly faster. And speaking of Nadal, man, he was incredible in both matches, time and time again making unbelievable passes when he should have been dead in the point. And if Fed's IO forehand or CC backhand was even a trifle too deep, Nadal was ruthless and jumped on the DTL forehand. A younger, sprightly Fed of 04-07 may have beaten him by virtue of himself having the footspeed but I honestly think Nadal of 09/12 would crush 2017 Fed. Being younger than Fed, Nadal rose to his absolute peak just as Fed was falling off and this tilted the match up off clay in Nadal's favour. With time, Fed has aged better than Nadal at least as things stand and his sheer range gives him more options than Nadal. But in 2011/12, it did take Earth's Mightiest Warrior to stand up to Nadal and wear him down from the baseline.
 

natalia

Hall of Fame
Federer has certainly evolved and in doing so at this late stage of his career, is all the more unique. Has he raised his level even above his peak? Not sure and inclined to say no. I was rewatching the HLs of the 2012 AO match against Nadal and before that of their 2009 match. In those slower conditions, Nadal could move him around and negate his backhand better than in 2017 when RLA played significantly faster. And speaking of Nadal, man, he was incredible in both matches, time and time again making unbelievable passes when he should have been dead in the point. And if Fed's IO forehand or CC backhand was even a trifle too deep, Nadal was ruthless and jumped on the DTL forehand. A younger, sprightly Fed of 04-07 may have beaten him by virtue of himself having the footspeed but I honestly think Nadal of 09/12 would crush 2017 Fed. Being younger than Fed, Nadal rose to his absolute peak just as Fed was falling off and this tilted the match up off clay in Nadal's favour. With time, Fed has aged better than Nadal at least as things stand and his sheer range gives him more options than Nadal. But in 2011/12, it did take Earth's Mightiest Warrior to stand up to Nadal and wear him down from the baseline.

2009 AO? When certain someone could play two five-setters for 48 hrs with no sign of tiredness? Aawww those golden days of pre-bio passport era....
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
2009 AO? When certain someone could play two five-setters for 48 hrs with no sign of tiredness? Aawww those golden days of pre-bio passport era....
So...riddle me this. How did a much older Nadal play back to back five setters in the bio passport era and nearly win the AO again? He lost only because Fed played lights out in the fifth set.
 

CoconutGT

Rookie
So, let me get this straight..

Roger has 'knowingly' been playing handicapped with a smaller racquet throughout his career?

His arrogance knows no bound as I suspected.

Still 'mirin hard though..
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Edberg should receive way more credit than he's given for turning twilight years Fed into a contender both physically (after that 2013 injury ridden mess) and gamewise (more aggressive BH, intent on moving forward). One thing that stands out to me is how under him Wimbledon became Fed's best slam again after that 2010-2013 period where despite the 2012 title (where he was still in danger of losing in early rounds) Fed suffered quite a few upsets (the most shocking one being against Stakhovsky obviously).

Of course Ljubicic did good work (not just with Fed, Raonic too), in making Fed's net rushes much more opportunistic and further improving that BH ROS and drive. However, those were still IMO modifications done upon the solid foundations Edberg built and he didn't have beasting Novak as an obstacle to Fed's slam title success.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
So, let me get this straight..

Roger has 'knowingly' been playing handicapped with a smaller racquet throughout his career?

His arrogance knows no bound as I suspected.

Still 'mirin hard though..

No, that's nonsense, for Fed's earlier game and physicality K90 was a perfect fit. Maybe he should have made the switch a few years earlier than 2013-2014 but that's about it.

It takes quite a bit for a player to change the tool that won him 17 slams, in that regard Fed's very lackluster 2013 might have been a blessing in disguise. Champions won't usually make substantial changes until the results aren't there anymore.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
No, that's nonsense, for Fed's earlier game and physicality K90 was a perfect fit. Maybe he should have made the switch a few years earlier than 2013-2014 but that's about it.

It takes quite a bit for a player to change the tool that won him 17 slams, in that regard Fed's very lackluster 2013 might have been a blessing in disguise. Champions won't usually adapt until the results aren't there anymore.
Exactly what I wanted to post. And not a matter of just moving to a new racquet. The long break in 2016 finally let him get totally grooved with it. He wasn't hitting the backhand like that at all in the 2014 AO for instance.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Edberg should receive way more credit than he's given for turning twilight years Fed into a contender both physically (after that 2013 injury ridden mess) and gamewise (more aggressive BH, intent on moving forward). One thing that stands out to me is how under him Wimbledon became Fed's best slam again after that 2010-2013 period where despite the 2012 title (where he was still in danger of losing in early rounds) Fed suffered quite a few upsets (the most shocking one being against Stakhovsky obviously).

Of course Ljubicic did good work (not just with Fed, Raonic too), in making Fed's net rushes much more opportunistic and further improving that BH ROS and drive. However, those were still IMO modifications done upon the solid foundations Edberg built and he didn't have beasting Novak as an obstacle to Fed's slam title success.
I think bit by bit Annacone, Edberg and Ljubicic, along with Luthi, put together the pieces. Fed began to use S&V more under Annacone and had success with it. I think 2012 was all told a great season in a super competitive year, the height of the Big Four. He got back to no.1 and trailed Djokovic closely until Paris. Under Edberg, his volleying sharpened and his reliance on the IO forehand reduced. But his ground game lacked bite. Under Ljubicic, the backhand reached pretty much dizzying heights and he worked out a game based on hitting on the rise and being aggressive and pulling the trigger very early. For the first time since his peak years, Fed is playing the match on his own terms and not letting the opponent set the agenda. Again, though, with a weaker field vis a vis say 2012, it's hard to tell how effective this would have been against peakdal or peak djoker.
 

2ndServe

Hall of Fame
Nice read but it looks like he still takes a really fast split to at least balance himself. No huge hop like Murray just a a subtle one.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
So, let me get this straight..

Roger has 'knowingly' been playing handicapped with a smaller racquet throughout his career?

His arrogance knows no bound as I suspected.

Still 'mirin hard though..

Yes he likely has, but it's not so surprising.

Firstly, he grew up and was formed as a player playing an even smaller racquet than the 90, namely the 85. So making a further transition was never going to be an easy choice for him — 85 to 97 square inches, that's a massive difference compared with what he actually grew up with. Just like how the guys who learned playing 65-inch wooden racquets didn't immediately jump all the way to 90s when new racquets became available, but instead gradually moved upwards in size.

Pros who are on top of the game are also often notoriously risk averse: if you're already winning slams, you'd probably hesitate to commit to a situation with an unknown payoff, even if the potential upside of doing so could be slightly greater. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that polyester didn't make its way into the tour primarily through the top players, but instead gradually through the lower ranks who were more willing to gamble. Example being Guga who burst through at Roland Garros as an unseeded player, whereas a Sampras clung on to his conservative gear till he retired, and later voiced regrets about that. As such, it's also unsurprising that Fed himself finally made the leap on the back of a season where he really struggled and people were starting to write him off.
 

onehandbh

G.O.A.T.
IMO, Edberg really help Federer a lot with his backhand volley. It became a much firmer shot. He used to "chop" it a lot more and hit more spin on his backhand volley, making it harder for him to put balls away b/c the ball moved slower through the court.

Also, his overall net coverage and game improved.
 

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
Interesting interview. He made Roger get fitter to play more aggressive tennis. Federer has definitely looked leaner since 2014. In all this interview is quite supportive of the idea that Federer’s has evolved, maybe even to a higher level than the years in which he was dominating the tour more comprehensiblely.

I look forward to reading an in depth Ljubicic interview one day.
Can Suresh do the same with Weed 135 extended/oversize racquet? (He's already using size 110)
weed-tennis-racquets-logo-1497283697.jpg
 

CoconutGT

Rookie
No, that's nonsense, for Fed's earlier game and physicality K90 was a perfect fit. Maybe he should have made the switch a few years earlier than 2013-2014 but that's about it.

It takes quite a bit for a player to change the tool that won him 17 slams, in that regard Fed's very lackluster 2013 might have been a blessing in disguise. Champions won't usually make substantial changes until the results aren't there anymore.

Exactly what I wanted to post. And not a matter of just moving to a new racquet. The long break in 2016 finally let him get totally grooved with it. He wasn't hitting the backhand like that at all in the 2014 AO for instance.

Yes he likely has, but it's not so surprising.

Firstly, he grew up and was formed as a player playing an even smaller racquet than the 90, namely the 85. So making a further transition was never going to be an easy choice for him — 85 to 97 square inches, that's a massive difference compared with what he actually grew up with. Just like how the guys who learned playing 65-inch wooden racquets didn't immediately jump all the way to 90s when new racquets became available, but instead gradually moved upwards in size.

Pros who are on top of the game are also often notoriously risk averse: if you're already winning slams, you'd probably hesitate to commit to a situation with an unknown payoff, even if the potential upside of doing so could be slightly greater. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that polyester didn't make its way into the tour primarily through the top players, but instead gradually through the lower ranks who were more willing to gamble. Example being Guga who burst through at Roland Garros as an unseeded player, whereas a Sampras clung on to his conservative gear till he retired, and later voiced regrets about that. As such, it's also unsurprising that Fed himself finally made the leap on the back of a season where he really struggled and people were starting to write him off.

My question is did he ever experiment with new head size when he realized most (if not all) players, especially Nadal, has been obviously exploiting his weak backhand for number of years? He must have known players are targeting his backhand 100% of the time, but he still struggled with it for a long time.

To me, he was unstoppable in his prime until Nadal came along with his crazy lefty top spin, which made Fed focus on working on his BH exclusively to deal with Nadal. This had a negative side effect on his normal BH by weakening it to a degree, and everyone can see that and start to exploit it.

Headsize increase was probably the last thing on his mind, but Fed does seem to mishit a lot of his backhands even in his prime years IIRC, so I'm surprised he didn't make the change sooner than he did.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
My question is did he ever experiment with new head size when he realized most (if not all) players, especially Nadal, has been obviously exploiting his weak backhand for number of years? He must have known players are targeting his backhand 100% of the time, but he still struggled with it for a long time.

To me, he was unstoppable in his prime until Nadal came along with his crazy lefty top spin, which made Fed focus on working on his BH exclusively to deal with Nadal. This had a negative side effect on his normal BH by weakening it to a degree, and everyone can see that and start to exploit it.

Headsize increase was probably the last thing on his mind, but Fed does seem to mishit a lot of his backhands even in his prime years IIRC, so I'm surprised he didn't make the change sooner than he did.
Well, let's examine this chronologically. Until 2007, he was winning everywhere except clay. So players attacking the backhand didn't bother him so much. In 2008, mono affected his first half and even after he recovered, remained a touch slower than before. I think this combined with conditions getting slower and allowing defenders like Nadal to draw him into long rallies is what affected him most. It wasn't so much that the backhand was weak but that it got exposed more now than before. But up to Feb 2010 he had still won another 4 slams so he couldn't have had an incentive to change. 2011 was his first slamless year since winning W in 2003 but he was in one final and had match point in the semi in another. Won a slam again in Wimbledon. What I am saying is along the lines of @Sysyphus's post. There has to be a major incentive to change and if you're still winning slams, still getting to no.1, there isn't, especially if losses like the USO 2011 one can't be attributed to the backhand. Regardless, Fed did in fact act after the 2011 drought and development on the new racquet began in 2012. He started sporadically using it in 2013 and by 2014 made the switch permanently. Doesn't seem to me like he wasted a lot of time in making the change. Maybe the fans were greedy, expecting him to win everything forever but there was bound to be a dip, racquet change or not. If Fed was still winning slams or at least creating opportunities to do ao, what incentive would he have to take a long break and work on really grooving his strokes on the new racquet? It took 2016 to make him take the plunge. And again, he was this close to losing at AO all over again to Nadal. So we could have been looking at a completely different script instead of this magical comeback saga.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
My question is did he ever experiment with new head size when he realized most (if not all) players, especially Nadal, has been obviously exploiting his weak backhand for number of years? He must have known players are targeting his backhand 100% of the time, but he still struggled with it for a long time.

To me, he was unstoppable in his prime until Nadal came along with his crazy lefty top spin, which made Fed focus on working on his BH exclusively to deal with Nadal. This had a negative side effect on his normal BH by weakening it to a degree, and everyone can see that and start to exploit it.

Headsize increase was probably the last thing on his mind, but Fed does seem to mishit a lot of his backhands even in his prime years IIRC, so I'm surprised he didn't make the change sooner than he did.

He might have been experimenting in private but the way tennis season is structured, there isn't really a whole lot of time for top players to devote time to trying out new things. Especially for making such drastic changes to a game that is already dominating the whole field save one or two players.

My point is, there are far too many variables in tennis to boil it down to bigger racquet->Fed wins CYGS and beats Nadal at FO. For all we know, Fed with a 97 inch racquet might not have dominated the field in 2004-2007 nearly to the extent that he did and still might have lost to younger Nadal on clay (who was a monster physically) at the French. He himself admitted IIRC that while there are gains on BH and serve, his FH and slice aren't as effective as they used to be. It's always a trade-off.

There's a reason that when it comes to the Open Era atleast, no one has dominated the sport for like a decade straight. People are sometimes too focused on individual stars to understand that the field would have caught up with Fed eventually one war or the other, it's just the way it works in tennis. There's no equipment, tactics or training method change that would have allowed Fed to magically stay #1 until he was 30 and win like 28 slams in the process.

Nearly every ATG save Agassi (who was a very special case and wasted his prime years) slowed down when they were around 27-29 age, then they either reinvent themselves to stay relevant or slowly fade away until the inevitable retirement. Nadal did so recently without any equipment change by beefing up his serve and being more aggressive off the ground under Moya's tutelage, Fed switched to a larger headsize, Sampras became an almost pure serve and volleyer etc. we'll see what Novak or even Murray have in store.
 
Top