Federer's new racquet experiment!

First topic message reminder :

Rumours, just a new paint job, of fan talk? You decide.

http://www.rogerfedererfans.com/forum/topic/1511-pics-from-roger-federers-practise-sessions-and-press-conference-at-hamburg/

Watching a Wilson infomercial, many players try racquets throughout the year and there is a constant testing/experimenting cycle which is is on-going. The competitions may not see too many of new ones, but the practice sessions constantly do. Federer, like many others, experiments a lot.

Berdych's Tennisography on Tennis Channel, has a bit about 2 minutes long, where he explains the racquet selection process.

Even Sampras experimented, despite remaining committed to the St. Vincent ProStaff.

Some rumination on this news.

General consensus seems to be "about time!". But had he made the switch a couple of years ago, do you think he would have had his stellar Sep 11 to Aug 12?

That run of results was achieved by playing 'Federer tennis' where touch and feel are prime components. Might this have blunted by both the different racquet and the period of becoming accustomed to it?

My gut reaction was that the change is late coming but, when I think of 2012, maybe he's timed it about right. And it's not as if he was bad in 2011 either.

I agree. The best time might have been way back when he could have won stuff with a frying pan.

Fed beats Hajek 64 63.

Federer was good today, except his BH. Started playing exho mode and cat-and-mouse with Hajek in the second set. Lopez/Mayer winner will be much harder. Hajek could have been a bit knackered due to his exertions against Gulbis, but played some excellent FHs, especially a pass past a lunging Federer at the net.

Footwork was better today, perhaps just adjustment to clay. The inside-out FH was cleaner, but not used heavily.

I would suggest a practice session with Nadal in Mallorca to work out kinks with the racquet. Not sure why these two do not practice with each other.

"I’m just still looking for the timing and the rhythm here, but the longer I stay in the tournament, the more confident I am that I’m going to play better and better as the tournament goes on," he said.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/07/29/Hamburg-Thursday-Federer-Haas-Monaco-Almagro.aspx

Roger won his first match in Hamburg today, defeating Germany's Daniel Brands (ATP 58) 3-6, 6-3 and 6-2.

It was Roger' first match with a larger racket (his Wilson racket now has 632cm2, previously it was 581). His serve was very strong, especially in the second set - where Roger won four out of five games to love. Our champ broke once in the second set and twice in the third to reach the third round in Hamburg, where he will meet Czech Jan Hajek.

www.rogerfederer.com

laverfan wrote:Federer was good today, except his BH. Started playing exho mode and cat-and-mouse with Hajek in the second set. Lopez/Mayer winner will be much harder. Hajek could have been a bit knackered due to his exertions against Gulbis, but played some excellent FHs, especially a pass past a lunging Federer at the net.

Footwork was better today, perhaps just adjustment to clay. The inside-out FH was cleaner, but not used heavily.

*I would suggest a practice session with Nadal in Mallorca to work out kinks with the racquet. Not sure why these two do not practice with each other*.

An excellent idea, if ever there was one. I personally felt they should have teamed up to win the Doubles at the AELTC.

Also, Roger is serving up a storm with his new sword, will be interesting to see his season serving speed average vs Hamburg,

From watching highlights of the Hajak match, Federer seemed to have a willingness to chase balls down I haven't seen for a while. He looked far lighter on his feet as well.

As for the racquet there were a couple of occasions where the extra plow through was really noticeable I thought. It should hopefully help him to keep a decent length on his backhand.

bogbrush wrote:Ok, I'm upgrading to level 4. Win the event and we might see a 5.

This is on the bogbrush grade of interest & belief. It's a scale from 0 - 10;

0 - give up, absolutely no motivation to pay attention (never reached for TMF).
1 - not much better
2 - despair, why do this? (The lowest point yet reached)
3 - loyalty to a hope, but no confidence
4 - reasons to be cheerful, keep watching
5 - it could happen, it's just unlikely
6 - guarded optimism
7 - playing it down, but hopeful
8 - quite confident, TMF has been repeatedly sighted doing his thing
9 - this is like the old days, he's strutting
10 - this is 2005/6/7.

I am puzzled. I have heard you labour long and hard that Roger has lost a yard in pace (or words to that effect) so I cannot see how a new racquet is going to elevate him from (say 3 on your scale) unless you think he will become a serve demon bombing aces down. He will still be a yard short of pace and nothing will change that. Sorry to be a doom merchant but we have to be truthful here.

Craig, in fairness, BB has only elevated him to a 5 which equates to "unlikely"!

If the racquet works out, it has to be a net gain. He's still slower, he's still older but he's now got a more suitable racquet.

I see it as more of an insurance policy. I don't expect it to tilt things in his favour against Novak, Andy and Rafa. But if it makes him less vulnerable to players like Tsonga and Berdych, then he stays in competitions longer and gets a shot at more titles.

I thought BB still had him at 4 and said he may move it up to 5?

I wish him well with his new racquet and it may help him halt his slide down the rankings and instil some fresh belief but we shall see.

Yeah,he's a 4, maybe a 5 soon.

How does that contradict what I've said consistently?

I'd guesstimate only winning another slam would really please you even though he has 17 already. So for him to win a slam a new racquet isn't alone going to do it as you have long pointed out he has lost a yard in pace and consistency. He is not going to regain them through a new racquet so surely you should stand at 3 on your scale as that yard of pace will still be missing.

Im just curious but where on this scale was Fed during the first half of 2012?

CaledonianCraig wrote:I'd guesstimate only winning another slam would really please you even though he has 17 already. So for him to win a slam a new racquet isn't alone going to do it as you have long pointed out he has lost a yard in pace and consistency. He is not going to regain them through a new racquet so surely you should stand at 3 on your scale as that yard of pace will still be missing.

No, what pleases me is virtuoso tennis. That's why I've always watched him, it's not like I'm a patriotic Swiss (on either count) or have a thing for him.

If I see the prospect of him being able to do more of what he does better than any player I've ever seen in decades of watching this sport, I'll be happy. After 17 Slams frankly another one doesn't make a huge difference. What I'd really enjoy is see him come back long after his best has gone and show he can still play tennis that enlivens the sport. If Slams follow, then even better.

I'm at 4.

Born Slippy wrote:Im just curious but where on this scale was Fed during the first half of 2012?

He was a solid 6. Depending on where we pick, he was on his way to #1. It wasn't vintage but he was getting good results.
The letdown looked very much to me to be a reflection of what he took out of the tank to get that done,

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Im just curious but where on this scale was Fed during the first half of 2012?

He was a solid 6. Depending on where we pick, he was on his way to #1. It wasn't vintage but he was getting good results.
The letdown looked very much to me to be a reflection of what he took out of the tank to get that done,

Following Madrid, I'd have put him at 8 on your scale.

That was point I decided he was currently the world's top player.

The rest of the clay season removed a little of the lustre but Wimbledon and especially Cincy (didn't drop a set, bagelled Novak in the final) certainly restored it.

That was point he ran out of gas but from Sep 11 to April 12, it was just title after title after title.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I thought BB still had him at 4 and said he may move it up to 5?

I wish him well with his new racquet and it may help him halt his slide down the rankings and instil some fresh belief but we shall see.

See first page. It's not just the racquet, but also the fact that Federer looks slightly leaner, and the footwork appears to be a little better than it has been. If he's putting in the gym work, in conjunction with a new racquet, then there's definitely reason for expectations to rise. For me, the improved conditioning (and the desire that fuels it) is key, rather than the racquet which is more of a bonus that was required.

Good assessment by HM there, I would've had Fed at a 7 last season. He played excellently for most of the year, even when he lost - if he'd have played at the same level at the AO this year as he did in 2012 (in a similarly losing cause), I think Murray would've lost, for example. He wasn't unbeatable, but very solid and looked hungry.

Interesting. I would have probably consistently put him at a 9 from the latter part of 2011 through to Cinci, touching 10 from time to time. The guy went something like 62-2 in tournament play against players not called Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in that time which stands comparison with his very best seasons. The IW destruction of Rafa in a gale and the Cinci final against Djokovic were probably two of the finest matches he has ever played.

Born Slippy - I agree on IW and Cincy but don't forget that this period also included a 2nd round loss to Roddick at Miami and zero sets out of 5 v Novak on clay.  That's why I had to round him down to 8 although there were certainly spikes where he was at 9 going on 10.

Born Slippy wrote:Interesting. I would have probably consistently put him at a 9 from the latter part of 2011 through to Cinci, touching 10 from time to time. The guy went something like 62-2 in tournament play against players not called Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in that time which stands comparison with his very best seasons. The IW destruction of Rafa in a gale and the Cinci final against Djokovic were probably two of the finest matches he has ever played.

How can he ever be at anything like 10 at 30/31? That was his mega peak.

You may not know, but he went TWO years through 2005/6 losing only 9 matches, and 5 of them were to Rafa on clay.

HM Murdoch wrote:Born Slippy - I agree on IW and Cincy but don't forget that this period also included a 2nd round loss to Roddick at Miami and zero sets out of 5 v Novak on clay.  That's why I had to round him down to 8 although there were certainly spikes where he was at 9 going on 10.

Fair point Murdoch. I have to confess I was more commenting on his hard court form. Even the Roddick match wasn't that bad a result - just won IW, outplayed Roddick just didn't get the breaks. Is it that different to losing to Baby Murray in 06 or Canas in 07? I'd agree though, taking into account clay maybe brings it down to an overall 8, with peaks at 9/10.

Silver wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I thought BB still had him at 4 and said he may move it up to 5?

I wish him well with his new racquet and it may help him halt his slide down the rankings and instil some fresh belief but we shall see.

See first page. It's not just the racquet, but also the fact that Federer looks slightly leaner, and the footwork appears to be a little better than it has been. If he's putting in the gym work, in conjunction with a new racquet, then there's definitely reason for expectations to rise. For me, the improved conditioning (and the desire that fuels it) is key, rather than the racquet which is more of a bonus that was required.

Sorry I am puzzled. No matter how leaner Roger looks, the Federer fans here have long insisted he has lost a yard of pace primarily due to him being in his 30's. In short he could get as lean as a stick insect and he still wouldn't regain that extra yard in pace. When it's gone it has gone - so if you feel he has got it back again then that flies in the face of what the majority of Fed fans have been saying.

CC, it can be a bit of in-between. He may never be at his best again, but he may - perhaps - be able to bring himself to the point he can still win a slam.

He obviously does not have to be back to his very best before he could win a slam. So, there is room for hope for a slam win while realizing peak Fed is gone for good. Of course, those hoped-for results may not materialize.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Silver wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I thought BB still had him at 4 and said he may move it up to 5?

I wish him well with his new racquet and it may help him halt his slide down the rankings and instil some fresh belief but we shall see.

See first page. It's not just the racquet, but also the fact that Federer looks slightly leaner, and the footwork appears to be a little better than it has been. If he's putting in the gym work, in conjunction with a new racquet, then there's definitely reason for expectations to rise. For me, the improved conditioning (and the desire that fuels it) is key, rather than the racquet which is more of a bonus that was required.

Sorry I am puzzled. No matter how leaner Roger looks, the Federer fans here have long insisted he has lost a yard of pace primarily due to him being in his 30's. In short he could get as lean as a stick insect and he still wouldn't regain that extra yard in pace. When it's gone it has gone - so if you feel he has got it back again then that flies in the face of what the majority of Fed fans have been saying.

It seems to me your just trying to get a little dig at Federer fans, but I don't see where there is any contradiction.. The obvious answer would be: yes, he's lost a step and won't reclaim it, but he's also been able to be a true top 2 player as recently as 7 months ago, and taking out the back problems,etc which certainly derailed him earlier in the year- prob still top 4 capability even now.....So what's so crazy about thinking that if he was able to be competitive with the older technology while having lost a step, that a boost from the new technology can help compensate some of what he's lost and give him the extra 2% needed to remain in that elite mix?

@CC.. this is not a dig at any player, but Nadal added weight recently to his racquet.

http://www.10sballs.com/2012/01/03/nadal-takes-physical-risk-by-adding-weight-to-his-racquet/

Federer, changing his racquet, is not that significantly different.

This is not a dig at Murray, but when he is around 30+ and loses a bit of foot-speed, would you not consider a leaner frame (then now) and perhaps a lighter racquet to try and reduce weight drag. (Think of jockeys).

If you lose foot speed then you are more likely to use a heavier racquet to try and shorten rallies. A lighter racquet is not going to reduce "weight drag".

I was thinking more in terms of what Nadal did. Lighter racquet with a heavier head. Wrist injuries, which Murray has had in the past, would be my concern with a heavier racquet.

The news that Federer tweaked his back at Hamburg reinforces my "5" rating.

Really, anyone pretending Federer has been anywhere near peak for years is just protecting current players.

[quote="TRuffin"]

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Silver wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I thought BB still had him at 4 and said he may move it up to 5?

I wish him well with his new racquet and it may help him halt his slide down the rankings and instil some fresh belief but we shall see.

See first page. It's not just the racquet, but also the fact that Federer looks slightly leaner, and the footwork appears to be a little better than it has been. If he's putting in the gym work, in conjunction with a new racquet, then there's definitely reason for expectations to rise. For me, the improved conditioning (and the desire that fuels it) is key, rather than the racquet which is more of a bonus that was required.

So what's so crazy about thinking that if he was able to be competitive with the older technology while having lost a step, that a boost from the new technology can help compensate some of what he's lost and give him the extra 2% needed to remain in that elite mix?  

The key (or supposedly so) to Roger falling away has been losing a yard of pace (not solvable by a new racquet) and others have noted a loss in consistency (again not solved by a new racquet). We all agree that the yard of pace in his 30's is irretrievable and as for the consistency well that depends if that is also age-related ie hand-to-eye co-ordination and timing etc and if it is then that is also irretrievable. I am not so sure that the consistency thing is so age-related myself though. Now the use of the racquet will help him get more power into his shots for sure and the hope will be that this will help him fore-shorten points/rallies but unless he can sort out consistency cutting down on unforced errors then the new racquet will not really make a difference.

More power means more pressure on opponents, means less under pressure himself, means less urgency, means fewer unforced errors.

It can improve him without being able to address other aspects of his decline, and as we saw in 2012 a past-best but still decent Federer can win Slams and get to #1. Personally I think the former is more plausible now than the latter.

Oh I am not denying players not at their best can't win slams. We just saw Murray win Wimbledon but I've seen him play better. But, and I have said this elsewhere, for Federer to win another slam now he needs a heck of a lot of stuff to fall into place and a lot of them are external factors. First of all he needs greater consistency in his own play the such-like we have not seen for a year now, he will need a favourable draw with not too many potentially taxing matches early doors and he'd need a few upsets like we saw at Wimbledon befalling Djokovic, Murray and Nadal.  Also he'd need to rip up a few record books as his last US Open win came in 2008 (has anyone won a US Open with a five year gap between them apart from Pete Sampras), and similarly his last win at the Australian Open will have been four years ago and French Open well that just belongs to Rafa. That brings us back to Wimbledon which is another year away.

CaledonianCraig wrote:...has anyone won a US Open with a five year gap between them apart from Pete Sampras...

Rosewall, 1956 and 1970, a 14-year hiatus.

PS: Jimmy Connors, 1978, 1982-1983 comes close.

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:...has anyone won a US Open with a five year gap between them apart from Pete Sampras...

Rosewall, 1956 and 1970, a 14-year hiatus.

Cheers laverfan. What an incredible feat.

Off peak winning - not a killer, he's shown he can win stuff while more than just not in form. The guys peak was so ridiculously high that he has more wiggle room than anyone I've ever watched.

Favourable draw - they all get them; look at who Murray / Djokovic had to play to make the final (well Djokovic got some good players to be fair).

Tear up records - completely not a problem, that's been going on for a very long time.

I'm still at 4 because he's 32, married with growing up kids,  keeps hurting his back. If fit and motivated, and stopped playing with inferior equipment, then he's back in the mix at the business end. Hes handling the equipment and that shows motivation. It's the fitness / back that bothers me.

When you say fitness BB - do you mean purely the back and nothing else or also the yard of pace thing?

CaledonianCraig wrote:When you say fitness BB - do you mean purely the back and nothing else or also the yard of pace thing?

Back worries me, pace is just a done deal. That's all mixed up in the 'using up wiggle room' category.

@CC... Just trying to watch Fognini-Almagro and researching is making me miss some stuff.

Newcombe 1967 and 1973.

I haven't seen him play with the new racquet so what difference do you feel it gives to his shots and serve etc? Do you feel it is something he should have tried a year or two ago?

laverfan wrote:@CC... Just trying to watch Fognini-Almagro and researching is making me miss some stuff.

Newcombe 1967 and 1973.

Sorry LF you can stop and get back to watching the tennis. Amazed by Ken Rosewall though who reached the Wimbledon final in 1974 approaching 40-years-old.  

CaledonianCraig wrote:I haven't seen him play with the new racquet so what difference do you feel it gives to his shots and serve etc? Do you feel it is something he should have tried a year or two ago?

I'm no expert really. Lydian has been saying it for years and the report I posted on this thread;

Is this guy Lydian?

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/roger-federer-shows-his-age-stubbornness-to-use-modern-racket-in-stunning-loss-at-wimbledon-sergiy-stakhovsky-062613


Especially interested in this

When Pete Sampras left, he said he wished he would have switched to a bigger, more modern racket. He had stubbornly held on to his past. Here’s something else that’s true: Federer is using almost the exact same racket Sampras thought was outdated in 2002. Jim Courier used the same racket, too.

It’s all touch, no power. When Bjorn Borg came back years after retiring, he tried to trot out his old wood racket to get the same old feel, too. It became a joke.

I didn't realise Federer was playing with such outdated equipment!

Seems to back it up.

As I say it took me by surprise when the guy says Federer's been playing with a racquet Sampras considered outdated in 2002.

I suppose with Roger it was what worked for him and is why he stuck with it. I mean Stephen Hendry in snooker stuck with a cue that was as cheap as chips for years because he was comfortable with it. If it does help him then great and time will tell but if it does then he may regret not making the change a year or two earlier. Also may this be just an experiment? I mean he was late entering Hamburg and G'Stad so perhaps he just wants to see how he goes with it before changing back if he doesn't feel comfortable with it or sees no benifit with it.

Perhaps so, there were some quotes cited that he said he decided finally 48 hours after Wimbledon. I think he's not an impulsive guy, he knows it could be a bumpy ride for a while.

To me there is always going to be the optimum size and weight for a tennis racquet, I think we reached that in 2000 or thereabouts.

Going bigger isn't always better, it means less head speed, so more weight needs to be added and strings need to be tightened, this means more muscle to produce old speed, which in itself equates to less stamina in the arms and shoulders, until compensated with extra exercise. Material weight is reliant on head speed, with carbon and graphite modular forms allowing for better aerodynamics and greater string tensions, we now have only small incrementation of progress to tweak designs here and there instead of the great leaps in technology we saw back in the 80's.

Going for a bigger head design is fraught with danger and not something any player would try unless desperate or in Federer's case, trying to extend his career. Its not going to work IMO, and he'll go back to the old design. He won a ton of stuff with it, when all around him were using slightly updated equipment so I can't see what advantage he is going to get from using a larger racquet at this stage in his career.

Also, I presume to idea of going to a bigger racquet means the sweet spot is bigger but hitting outside of that central space is tougher on the wrists and or makes for more errors, I'm assuming of course.

I dont agree with much of that TBH. 98-100sqin racquets haven't done Nadal/Djokovic/Murray much harm!
You say less head speed results with bigger sizes but try telling that to Nadal who plays with a 100sqin APD! The key thing is weight, not size. Besdes, the actual difference between 90 and 100 sqin isn't as big as you'd think anyway...take a look at Feds old 90 vs Nadal/Djokovic's 100.



I think the change will work in terms of better stroke consistency and he'll stick with it. He doesn't come to the net much these days anyway so the reduced feel of a larger racquet isn't that big a deal and the benefits probably far outweigh the risks...the advantages he'll get are more easy power, bigger sweet spot, less strain on the back. I don't think hitting outside the central zone on a bigger racquet causes any more wrist injury, if this was the case the explosion of 98-100 sqin racquets amongst the pros wouldn't have been sustained. 90 sqin racquets are quite simply old school...Federer himself says he didn't change as he was doing so well, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done even better had he changed ages ago!

Lydian wrote:Federer himself says he didn't change as he was doing so well, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done even better had he changed ages ago!

That is a what-if scenario, partially fueled by the likes of McEnroe and Sampras and their statements.

You do recall the trials and tribulations of a certain Mr. Djokovic after switching brands. Laying the blame on Todd Martin's door, is partially incorrect, for this specific case, IMHO.

The way I look at it, Nadal v Zeballos ~ DelBonis v Federer.

Give him some time and a wide berth for it to settle down. We should re-visit this in 6 months and see where Federer is, especially closer to USO (before and after).

Nice info Lydian, I stand corrected. I didnt realise so many players played with the larger head.

Again, you're right the difference is almost negligible going by that diagram, considering square area, so hitting outside the sweet spot may not have such an impact as I thought.

I can only say that I was gauging my post on my experience playing a huge Prince racquet years ago, that a female player had, against my old Slazenger, both graphite, but the weight of the Prince was noticeably heavier and rimming a shot actually hurt, not much but enough to make me wonder why go for the bigger head. It was big difference in head size, normal shots were easier to hit, and I found I was skying quite a few but like anything I suppose it takes time to get used to it.

Currently very unconvincing against Daniel Brands.

Indeed, Brands beats him 63 64.