Talk Tennis Guru
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.
And what exactly would a coach improve? Federer knows how to do everything, he just doesn't have the patience any more.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.
Yet again the minority was right .....proving that most people are just dumb.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 ********
That was Feds big weakness.....stubborn to change. As opposed to Rafa who is constantly evolving .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.
Whatever, I don't like either of them.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.
I'm just praying for Rafa to win the AO ......all hell is going to break loose .....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?
Or if Fed loses he will say "told ya"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.
Almost made it through a whole post without a backhanded compliment.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.
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.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.
If this is true, TF was Grigor doing with a less than 90 square inch racket in 2009 ?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:
How old did this person think Federer was back then, 77 ?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.
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.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.
Wonder whatever became of that Djokovic guy.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.
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 spotI 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.
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 senseYeah, "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.
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 sayFederer 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.
That freaking first set after leading 5-2 was like the summary of his story against Nadal on clay.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.
With that sort of stuff I will flip and say Nadal became #1 because of fed's mono+back injuries.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.
Was it? Would have he done better from AO 2010 till the racket change if he had changed earlier?Fed has finally seen the light .....hopefully for him it's not a case of too little too late.
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.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.
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.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.