Federer needs to switch to a bigger racquet

[drakulie]

I agree with those who say Fed needs to switch to a larger frame. He should absolutely start listening to the 2.5 players here who have problems beating 2.0 pushers.

 

[sureshs]

Has there ever been a top level men's player helped significantly by changing racquets mid-career? I can't think of a single example.

Roger's problem is more likely the lack of objective advice he recieves because he is lacking coaching. You can see the lack of direction and inability to make both tactical adjustments while he's playing a tournament and strategic adjustments over the longer term.

If Federer were properly coached he might well still be number one.

And what exactly would a coach improve? Federer knows how to do everything, he just doesn't have the patience any more.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I normally try to keep it civil on these forums, but you and all the people who think you know better than federer about racket choice are simply ********

Yet again the minority was right .....proving that most people are just dumb.

Columbus said the world was round and no one believed him .......

This is what goes on here at TW.....the moral majority beating up on the intelligent minority .

One by on though ....slowly but surely the stupid majority is proved wrong over and over and over again.

 

[sureshs]

It was wise of Federer to listen to us over here at TT.

 

[tennis_hack]

I would like Federer to change back to small racket, just to spite TT.

Seriously though, I am amazed that a pro made a change to his equipment. I thought that as a tennis player your game and equipment are pretty much set in stone by the age of 12.

 

[The Dark Knight]

It was wise of Federer to listen to us over here at TT.

A severe minority of us .

A lot of stupidity here at TW

A bunch of sheep just following the crowd.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I would like Federer to change back to small racket, just to spite TT.

Seriously though, I am amazed that a pro made a change to his equipment. I thought that as a tennis player your game and equipment are pretty much set in stone by the age of 12.

That was Feds big weakness.....stubborn to change. As opposed to Rafa who is constantly evolving .

The definition of insanity is doing the same things over again and expecting a different result .

Fed has finally seen the light .....hopefully for him it's not a case of too little too late.

 

[sureshs]

Where is Breakpoint these days? Has he gone into hiding after hearing Federer say how he gets easy power on his shots with the 98 and how it now feels like an extension of his arm?

 

[tennis_hack]

That was Feds big weakness.....stubborn to change. As opposed to Rafa who is constantly evolving .

The definition of insanity is doing the same things over again and expecting a different result .

Fed has finally seen the light .....hopefully for him it's not a case of too little too late.

Whatever, I don't like either of them.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Where is Breakpoint these days? Has he gone into hiding after hearing Federer say how he gets easy power on his shots with the 98 and how it now feels like an extension of his arm?

I'm just praying for Rafa to win the AO ......all hell is going to break loose .....

Just watch the media laver and everyone annoint Rafa as the goat .

This place is going to get ugly .

Crys of bandwagoners bla bla will permeate the forum . Rabid fed fanatics will attack with a vengance .

The revolution is upon us.....it could happen now .

But Joker and Fed do look great.....it's anyone's slam.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Why did you all not listen??? Why why why?

 

[sureshs]

Breakpoint has vanished after seeing the results Federer is getting with his new frame.

He will show up again with a carefully crafted theory about how the wins were actually due to Edberg's coaching and the racket had nothing to do with it.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Breakpoint has vanished after seeing the results Federer is getting with his new frame.

He will show up again with a carefully crafted theory about how the wins were actually due to Edberg's coaching and the racket had nothing to do with it.

Or if Fed loses he will say "told ya"

 

[MichaelNadal]

Im glad he didn't

 

[MeatTornado]

In retrospect this thread is right around when he should have started exploring the option imo. He was coming off losses to Nadal both at Wimbledon and Australia, so times were clearly changing. He couldn't just keep doing the same thing and thinking it would solve itself.

Even though he'd finish the year #1, we now know what was coming in 2010-13.

 

[MeatTornado]

True, even he finishing #1 was because of Rafael being injured, otherwise that was gonna be a big problem in all the slams he won. He definetly should have explored the option after the AO and even if he had lost a slam or so he would have gained more of it in 10-13 and also been better accustomed in 14-15 as well, in retrospect he lost a lot of productivity. Thank goodness he got 2017-18 phase with Novak injured. Come to think of it, his 09-10 phase and 17-18 are both a result of luck shining on him, technically that Mono ended his dominance permanently.

Almost made it through a whole post without a backhanded compliment.

 

[gjm127]

In retrospect this thread is right around when he should have started exploring the option imo. He was coming off losses to Nadal both at Wimbledon and Australia, so times were clearly changing. He couldn't just keep doing the same thing and thinking it would solve itself.

Even though he'd finish the year #1, we now know what was coming in 2010-13.

But in the midst of things after the racquet smash of Miami 09 vs. Djoker, he beat Rafa in Madrid, he won RG 09, Wimbledon 09... Made the USO F, won AO 10... So I doubt he was even thinking of changing anything until at least early 2011... I guess that's when he switched to BLX too.

 

[Silverbullet96]

in addition, should this theory of switching to a larger racket apply the same or even more for Grigor Dimitrov (smaller racket head size and denser string pattern in comparison to federer's racket):roll:

If this is true, TF was Grigor doing with a less than 90 square inch racket in 2009 ?

What is happening is that he is declining and one thing I would guess that is the biggest factor is likely his eyesight. He is not often very good on challenges. The bad thing about this is that no matter who he gets to coach him if his sight is in decline he will not be able to get back to the form he once had. In fact he may well decline faster than anyone expects.

How old did this person think Federer was back then, 77 ?

 

[The Fedfather]

How old did this person think Federer was back then, 77 ?

Reading that post you'd think Federer was a couple years away from needing a white cane to walk.

 

[MeatTornado]

But in the midst of things after the racquet smash of Miami 09 vs. Djoker, he beat Rafa in Madrid, he won RG 09, Wimbledon 09... Made the USO F, won AO 10... So I doubt he was even thinking of changing anything until at least early 2011... I guess that's when he switched to BLX too.

I know he wasn't. That's why I sad in retrospect. The success he had in 09 after this thread was made was a bit of a mirage considering how "bad" his 2010-13 seasons were compared to the years before.

And the BLX was just a paintjob. He used the exact same racket every year from like 03 to 13.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Yes, changing rackets will significantly change the feel on every shot and might easily screw him over (exhibit a, djokovic who is nowhere near his level from last year since his racket change). However, i think there is a non-zero chance it might help him. Sampras's parallel case cannot be totally dismissed.

Wonder whatever became of that Djokovic guy.

 

[Oval_Solid]

big problem with chemotherapy is that it causes cancer
young fed with a modern racket wouldn't be fair

 

[Deleted member 295013]

Ha ha, I haven't posted in years. So had to laugh that this thread is still around lol

 

[Sudacafan]

I think it’s too late, but thanks for the advice.

 

[ForehandRF]

Yeah, it looks like some people really knew how things are going, Fed did need a bigger racket.You cannot play in the baseline grinding era with a racket more suitable to the 1990s

 

[ForehandRF]

I could agree with you for 2004-2007, but not for 2008-09, that was an unsuccessful period by Roger's own standards, look at the slams won at the AO 09, he could easily have been on 0 slams if Soderling never beat Rafa, Roddick had a bit more clutch and if Nadal had not got injured during AO10, this was a lucky phase but Fed relied too much on luck.

IMO, 2008 wimbledon is stage 1 when your diagnosis is clear and you are no longer ranked 1 due to Rafa, 2009 ending is stage 2 when you are back to rank 1 but you should know the disease is gonna get worse, 2011-2012 is stage 3 when Novak himself has arrived and now you have more problems and doing it at the end of 2013 was stage 4 when it is just too late, had he prolonged it another 1-2 years then his tennis career would be dead.

I believe he was afraid it will take too long to accommodate with a new racket, that's why he didn't switch earlier but once he lost a step, he realized that there is no way he could avoid the change anymore.His lateral movement/court coverage and timing to the ball just weren't good enough anymore for a racket with such a small sweet spot

 

[ForehandCross]

It's literally amazing to read the "he is already at 90!!!! " when everyone and their mother was at least already playing with a 95. Even in 2009.

 

[ForehandRF]

Yeah, "afraid to adapt" is the key here. Plus he had coachless years in his peak. Fired Lundgren after winning his 1st slam, then hired Roche years after that, then fired him too after an year or so? Then later hired the worst coach ever as his prime was ending. His arrogance and stubbornness can be seen here, listened to no one and refusal to dig deep until it was just too late.

Roche was a good coach for him but I think Fed fired him because of the French Open failures.I can't remember why he fired Lundgren tho, it made no sense

 

[ForehandRF]

Federer fired Lundgren like Raducanu fired her coach, lucky for Roger he is Roger and not Raducanu

Federer would have benefitted with a coach who was really focused on the Nadal riddle, maybe someone like Lendl, Roger was too stagnant till 2014, it was Edberg who began to change Roger's approach towards the game before Ljubicic who finally proved to be the right coach that tuned his backhand, so late in the autumn of his career he had the right events happening.

Yeah but I still don't know if Fed would have been capable to hit shoulder height backhands consistently over 5 sets against Nadal at RG even with the bigger racket and someone like Lendl on his side.I might be wrong though.2011 was such a missed opportunity though with the lower bounce and faster conditions and Nadal not at his best; that was Federer's biggest chance imo, not 2006 like many Fed fans say

 

[ForehandRF]

Or was Rome 2006 a proof that he had the ability and his only limitation was his mentality ?

 

[hoodjem]

Now that he is retired, I say go for a 110 or a Big Bubba.

 

[ForehandRF]

Yeah, even if Fed doesn't win RG vs Nadal I would say not losing his edge at W and USO was more important. Djokovic possibly could not have been beaten in Australia unless Federer started hitting like Stan, but in W and USO Federer could have stolen some slams between 10-16, that is where the loopholes were, Federer missed it. Even Murray, Stan, Cilic all took home USO. Murray took wimbledon 2013 by catching Novak at his weak point. Rafa was injured later but Roger was busy being slamless.

Truly RG 2011 was the best chance he could have after his change of racquet, catching Rafa at his weakest, but all this can only be even dreamed with a better backhand and stick, otheewise the roger of 2011 had no chance, he was still Nadal's pigeon.

That freaking first set after leading 5-2 was like the summary of his story against Nadal on clay.
Yeah, 11-16 was an unlucky period.One has to look at 2011 itself with thr French then USO.He should have never gone slamless that year and there shouldn't have been Djokovic's year as we know it.
He also started to have so much pressure on his shoulders with the other 2 peaking and him slowing progressing to the last part of his career.We don't know how the other 2 would have done had they been is his shoes, older and chased

 

[abmk]

True, even he finishing #1 was because of Rafael being injured, otherwise that was gonna be a big problem in all the slams he won. He definetly should have explored the option after the AO and even if he had lost a slam or so he would have gained more of it in 10-13 and also been better accustomed in 14-15 as well, in retrospect he lost a lot of productivity. Thank goodness he got 2017-18 phase with Novak injured. Come to think of it, his 09-10 phase and 17-18 are both a result of luck shining on him, technically that Mono ended his dominance permanently.

With that sort of stuff I will flip and say Nadal became #1 because of fed's mono+back injuries.

Nadal when healthy got ousted by Sod at RG.
Abdominal injury only in summer HC 09 anyways. Was due for a dip after clay season 08-clay season 09.

That way I will also say Djokovic benefitted big time from fed-nadal punching each other out and fed going past his prime.

Djokovic was fine in AO 17 anyway. Just got upset by Istomin.
He'd need to be at 11/14/15 form to beat fed of Wim 17. So injury or no injury, he'd have likely lost at Wim to fed in 17.
Which leaves AO 18.
Djoko already benefitted from mono fed in AO 08. So ..

 

[wangs78]

As they say, necessity breeds change. Until 2013-4 Roger was still regularly making it to Slam finals and semifinals and his epic losses to his Big 3 rivals in those Slam events were generally very close, especially the ones against Novak. So it’s hard to simply say “the racquet is to blame” when tight nerves on big points were just as much and probably more to blame. And also, people like to argue that the bigger racquet is clearly better hence Roger erred by not switching earlier. The RF97 does have more power and stability but it also has drawbacks (I’ve played with both). You can definitely stay in rallies more consistently (fewer shanks), keep the ball deep more consistently, and it’s easier on defense. But the kind of precision baseline offense that Roger was able to do with his 90 is just not possible with the 97 because it’s not as precise. This is why after the switch, clean winners became much less frequent from Roger — of course, a slower step was also a reason. His game after he made the switch became much more about applying relentless pressure (heavy deep shots hit on the rise to take time away from the opponent) and moving forward than pulling the trigger for a winner whenever he saw an opening. Also the slices on the 90 are noticeably better, because of the narrower box beam which allows you to swing down at a sharper angle without risk of framing the ball. Credit to Roger for still being able to have an A+ slice after making the switch.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Fed has finally seen the light .....hopefully for him it's not a case of too little too late.

Was it? Would have he done better from AO 2010 till the racket change if he had changed earlier?

Or even in 2014 and 2015 when he did well would have he done better if he had been playing with the new racket since earlier?

 

[abmk]

If Nadal became 1 only because of Mono then how come Roger lost in AO 09? Nadal despite having a high level match against Verdasco had enough in the tank to beat Federer. There was no effect of Mono then and Roger was still outplayed by a peak Nadal whose level was higher.

well, as long as we looking at excuses like injuries , federer's back injuries lead to serve becoming inconsistent in the late 2008 till Rome 2009 period. one such match was AO 09 final.
fed might have had enough to pull off atleast 1 of Wim 08/AO 09 vs Nadal if not for longer term of effects of mono (missing training block) and lingering effects of back issue. Obviously AO 08 and other tournaments in early season HC - he was directly affected by mono.
so without mono+back injury, Nadal might not have been #1.

I'm just playing your card.

Reality is I think nadal played well to be #1 (clay season 2008 to clay season 2009) as did Fed (USO 08 win+AO 09 final+Madrid 09-USO 09). I wouldn't be using injury/not well excuses to discredit one or the other.

One other thing: AO 09 was prime, but not peak fed and not top 3 or even top 4 AO for him.
AO 09 was absolute peak Nadal and his very best AO.

If Roger had utilized 2009 to experiment his new racquet after USO or during USO then year 2010 would be fought directly against Rafa with a new racquet, then 2011 with Novak, had Fed come out victorious in these 2 years it would have provided him a better boost to clearly dominate 2012, these 3 years would have further been pivotal for Federer to launch another assault on Peak Novak in 14-15 when Nadal is clearly injured. Then 17-18 period when Novak is injured. These 5-6 years could have been Federer's when he picked 1-2 slams per year, the race would have been won, he would be on 24 or 25+ by wimbledon 2019.

It'd be extremely dumb to switch during USO 2009 or just after given he'd just win RG and Wim. end of 2010 is possibly the 1st time when it makes sense to switch.

nadal was only injured in 2nd half of 2014. not injured first half of 2014 or in 2015.

Like I said, Djoko wasn't injured in AO 17 and unless he plays his best (not likely), he ain't winning Wim 17 - injury or not.

federer became #1 in 2012 overtaking prime Djokovic and prime Nadal. But yes, he could have won 1 more slam in 11-12 for sure with better coaching/maybe a new racquet if he had switched at end of 2010.

new racquet could also have backfired.
his slice was never the same with the new racquet. would've possibly been a factor vs Djoko.
FH wasn't that great in 14-15 with new racquet.
Took sustained training block in 2nd half of 2016 to get the FH right again.