Federer's biggest career mistake?

Mixed feelings over this.
This took me half a year to get in contact with these names (as little old journalist me doesn't have any contacts or nepotism to call on) and I am really proud of it.

I am fuming, however, at the person who did the headline. Really gutted about it and have asked to change it.
Please share far and wide so i can get into sports journalism from local news!

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/06/26/roger-federer-disappointment/

This is generally a very well researched article with lots of quotes from people in the know.  I agree the headline doesn't really make sense and doesn't describe fairly the article.   But editors of magazines and journals (online or paper) will generally have experience as to what headlines grab peoples attention that act as hooks into the articles.

"Is Roger Federer a disappointment?" though it doesn't represent the content of the article it certainly creates curiosity - but I think it will leave the reader a little puzzled after reading the article.  I think a better headline for the online magazine as well as for you would be: "Roger Federer's Big Mistake?"  That will grab peoples attention, maybe even more so, and does reflect the content of the article.

ps Yes - the title you use for this thread is more appropriate - and more or less equivalent to my suggestion having read your article.
pps: I see the headline has now been changed to something more appropriate

I largely agree with the article in that I don't think Federer would have added to his 17 slams without the racket change and he probably should have switched earlier. It's definitely given him some easier power on serve and more confidence to drive through the backhand. However I would be wary of attributing correlation with causation as I think there are other factors that have contributed to the recent successes - for one I think he slightly altered the motion of his backhand, swinging it with less topspin.

Also I don't think we should forget how devastating his old forehand was - personally my favourite shot of all time. Nadal's forehand punishes you and grinds you down but Federer had that 'liquid whip' which could hurt you from anywhere. It's definitely not quite the shot it was with the old 90 sq in racket. Fed has also said himself he thinks his backhand slice was slightly better before the racket change.

No name Bertie wrote:This is generally a very well researched article with lots of quotes from people in the know.  I agree the headline doesn't really make sense and doesn't describe fairly the article.   But editors of magazines and journals (online or paper) will generally have experience as to what headlines grab peoples attention that act as hooks into the articles.

"Is Roger Federer a disappointment?" though it doesn't represent the content of the article it certainly creates curiosity - but I think it will leave the reader a little puzzled after reading the article.  I think a better headline for the online magazine as well as for you would be: "Roger Federer's Big Mistake?"  That will grab peoples attention, maybe even more so, and does reflect the content of the article.

ps Yes - the title you use for this thread is more appropriate - and more or less equivalent to my suggestion having read your article.
pps: I see the headline has now been changed to something more appropriate

We got it changed bud!
Thanks for the feedback

Good points The Losty

The What-if analysis and speculation is just that. If he had never won any of the first 17, with a larger racquet, would this have gone down the path - Hey Mr. Federer, please switch to the 90-in WW and we can get you into a Time Machine and get you 17 big ones?

Such speculation and second-guessing one of the worlds elite athletes, is good for armchair pundits.

Next topic - Nadal's racquet changes, perhaps?

Should we also discuss shoe changes, clothing changes, etc.?

Such discussions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ouch.

laverfan wrote:The What-if analysis and speculation is just that ... Such speculation and second-guessing ... Such discussions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Not at all.

In order to determine whether someone has made a mistake one needs to precisely analyse what-if pathways - especially if some of those what-if pathways fall into the subset of pathways a reasonable person or a "qualified" person with responsibility would be expected to take under the given set of circumstances encountered.  Whether it is a sporting mistake, an engineering mistake, a medical mistake, a driving mistake, a police mistake, a teaching mistake, a political mistake etc etc one can only call it a mistake if one is privy to the concept of what should or could have been done differently.

Similarly what-if analyses are absolutely essential to the learning process and in developing optimisation procedures - what could be done better.  This is something that is essential for example in formula one sport.

What this really mounts to is your lack of interest in this particular consideration of whether a mistake occurred.  But surely in other areas you would be interested in determining whether a mistake occurred and whether things could or "should" have been done better.

Not sure about that. In the examples you give mistakes are more obvious and have more concrete ways of determining alternate outcomes e.g. a building collapses, a person dies, an innocent person goes to prison.
For something like a racket change it's almost impossible to isolate the importance of that one change from all the other changes that take place in a sportsperson's life, and predict with any certainty what might have happened.
It's a valid discussion, but I too take the conclusions with a grain of salt.
'What if' Fed had decided to play with a DHBH from a young age? Was that his greatest mistake?

JuliusHMarx wrote: ... For something like a racket change ...  It's a valid discussion ... a grain of salt

Well that is what the article explores (the racket change) and brings in expert comments as well as Roger Federer's own comments.  Roger Federer did make the change and our freelance sports journalist explores the delay in Federer making that change.  I agree it is valid, I agree this is the type of thing sports journalists are equipped to explore.  

Now we have two grains of salt, one from you and one from Laverfan.  Now, using Archimedean principles, I am off to build a very large lever to move the earth along with the critics.

@NNB ... what-if Nadal played Football instead of Tennis?

laverfan wrote:@NNB ... what-if Nadal played Football instead of Tennis?  

They would probably call him the Beast of Barcelona.

ps as with all these arguments there is a balance to be drawn between extrema positions (pps maybe I have mis-remembered but I seem to recall you being a hard nosed engineer?)

@NNB... imo, dealing with worst-case scenarios in engineering designs is driven by requirements provided. And we do ask - what is the probability of a Cat5 hurricane or a tsunami, but the analysis becomes rigorous mathematically, without any room for further speculation. Can I design foundations which withstand Richter 7.5 quakes - very unlikely.

I was just pushing the limits of such speculative analysis, without any intent of questioning LS's journalistic credentials.

I play Gonzalez-Pasarell or Federer-Nadal 2008 W, but do realize the futility of such thought. We shall see what these two warriors bring to court this year. Both have re-invented their careers, which amazes me.

I think there is a mistake in the article. At the top, there is a video and it says that this 4-year old could beat you. However, after careful inspection of the video, I am pretty sure I could beat her comfortably.