Federer Changing Racquets

[stroke]

He'll be back.

[don_budge]

Motivation...

First off, I really enjoy your responses and replies, don_budge. Thank you.

Next up: Brands beats Federer in Gstaad.

Your estimation, don_budge? -----anyone?

jbill

I watched the entire match...David Brands 6-3, 6-4. Routine match. No fighting back. No passion. Passive performance. In a word...unmotivated. He missed off the forehand and the backhand. He went to the net sort of haphazardly. He served and volleyed but without the sharpness or crispness of a true serve and volleyer. He looked as if he were in some kind of funk. Not once did it look like he had any of that old Federer magic or the old Federer fire.

It's quite baffling really. Last week Roger played a number of very close matches and he at least appeared to be interested. Yesterday right in front of his father, his mother and his wife he went down very meekly. There is something about this kind of performance and some of the more recent play from Federer that just doesn't add up. All of a sudden it looks as if he cannot fight himself out of a paper bag.

I wonder if he was paid an appearance fee to play in Gstaad. If he was the sponsors were certainly left holding the bag.

I think that there is something wrong with Roger Federer. Whether it is a lack of motivation or something physical or whatever? It just doesn't appear that he gives a rat's ass. I have a hard time matching up that attitude with the legend.

It's a form of insanity. So is this. Stay tuned. It's hard to let go of the last remaining link to Classic Tennis. It's really tough to let go sometimes...of those that you love. It's the stuff that broken hearts are made of.

[stotty]

Brand v Federer

I missed the Brand match so cannot comment on Federer's performance.

The match won't concern him in one sense yet might in another. He won't care about the Swiss Open. He might care about losing to another minion...something he has rarely done for a decade. Federer is the best ever, alongside Pancho Gonzales, at defeating lower ranked players with ease, and he's going to find losing to another one annoying. He has a superiority complex (if the term exists) and finds it hard to contemplate losing to such players. He's brushed off a few of these defeats...can he keep doing so if more defeats like this roll in?

[jbill]

Brands over Fed

First off, I really enjoy your responses and replies, don_budge. Thank you.

Next up: Brands beats Federer in Gstaad.

Your estimation, don_budge? -----anyone?


jbill

[don_budge]

Motivation is a product of Inspiration...

I still think the big question for Federer is motivation. I don't think he really has it. He's got to be aware of these things.

Fed is not Andre Agassi.

The doubt is beginning to creep in.

I really don't see him playing this year with the same enthusiasm he has exhibited in the past. He often looks like he is just going through the motions.

The problem for him at this point in his life is if and when he retires from pro tennis, what does he do next? All he knows is tennis.

If he continues to lose to much lesser players will he want to continue?

Time is running out for Fed, regardless of a racquet change!

jbill

Some people say that you are only as old as you feel...don_budge says that you are only as old as the woman you feel. Ha ha ha...pretty clever don't you think? But do you get my point? The wife and kids inevitably become a yoke and tire around the neck. That's the reality of life. Perhaps he needs to make like the French or Fabulous Fognini for that little bit of extra inspiration that he needs to fire up his motivation going down the stretch run of his career. An unorthodox point to be certain...but everything is on the table in life. Especially in Roger's case...he has money to burn and eyes to see with.

You raise some really compelling issues that Roger Federer is staring in the face at this point of his career. It's really interesting to play arm chair quarterback here...but here goes.

I believe that motivation is always a huge factor...and motivation is born of inspiration. Federer is a tennis player...it is what he knows. It isn't about money at this point and that works in his favor as much as it may make him too comfortable. He is fully aware of every little tiny detail of his tennis game but that is not to say that his ego may trip him up from time to time. Let's face it...it takes a large dose of ego to accomplish what he has in his career. Sticking with the inferior equipment was a big mistake but it may not be to late to salvage some great play late in his career. He has played some great tennis in the past year. Some very mediocre tennis too. I am very curious as to what kind of impact this new racquet may have. It just might surprise some of you.

Brad Gilbert talks of playing set up points...well Roger is in the phase of his career where he is playing set up tournaments. They don't all carry equal value in his estimation and he is playing them accordingly. The perceived lackadaisical effort that we see sometimes may only be tactical retreat to play for the "Big Show"...as in the 2013 U. S. Open coming up. That loss in Hamburg was a smart loss. He is measuring every step he takes for the Open. By losing on Saturday he rests at home until Thursday when he plays David Brands today at 5pm Euro time. That is five days of practice and rest...not to mention home cooking and sleeping in his own bed. That alone might be enough to recharge the batteries of this Mercedes Benz. I will be glued to that match.

So with Roger it is an issue of inspiration and the only thing that can really inspire him at this point is Grand Slam titles and rightfully so. One can only travel around the world at full speed so many times before you just run out of gas...out of energy. But Roger has been pacing himself pretty good this year. He should have made the switch at the beginning of the year so that he would have had some big time tournament play under him at this point. I will bet you now that he wishes that he would have switched before Wimbledon...and before Roland Garros. That defeat in England stung him more than any other. The rest were meaningless compared to that one. The draw was looking pretty good until the semis...but he crashed to whatshisname.

But time waits for nobody...taking a look at Daddy Federer it doesn't look to me that he is some genetic marvel so it is a matter of time...as well as genetics in a sense. He is no Agassi...but he is Federer. He has eight more square inches...is it enough? Agassi played with 108 square inches most of his career. For me he has always been over rated due to the equipment question, the image is everything personna and perhaps ped's. I hate that questions about equipment and ped's enter into the equation. Standardize and test!!! Level the playing field for all.

There is your chronological age and your biological age. They don't always go hand in hand. Even life isn't that perfect. Hass' biological age is 30, not 35. A stroke of luck.

It's becoming more and more about shot tolerance and phenomenal court coverage. Federer simply cannot match what's going on at the moment.

A new racket will alter events very little...it's too little too late.

As far as chronological age goes...from don_budge as well...it's not the miles...it's the terrain.

Roger has many, many miles on him. But like a beautifully engineered Mercedes Benz or Toyota Land Cruiser he is built for many, many miles. His longevity and remarkably consistent performance through the years is testimony to this quality about him. He has played relatively injury and illness free all of these years and much of this is due to the friction free manner in which he plays the game. This guy has some more miles left in that engine.

As far as shot tolerance goes this piece of equipment will be a big help in this regard. He won't be making nearly the number of mishits that we have seen in the past. When he starts to strike it pure he is going to offset marginally his court coverage issues as his opponents will not be pressing him when faced with cleaner hits. Conceivably the new racquet makes the forehand a bit better...more spin, cleaner hits, fewer misses. The backhand underspin and topspin are both a notch better. The serve gets a little more zip with even less effort....and the volley and approach game take a big step up.

This additional racquet face area also may be enough to broaden some tactical choices for Roger. I watched his match against Florian Mayer at Hamburg and was impressed that he was trying to finish at the net more often...and more successfully. This fresh approach to his game may give him some additional "inspiration" that is needed to fuel his motivation. Although a younger girlfriend may give him a bit more giddyup in his step too. Hmmm...

The racquet could very well be enough to offset some of the deficits that he has been playing to recently. As I said in a previous post...this is the biggest story in the sport of tennis this year. We are merely speculating at this point. The initial tournament results are barely preliminary. It is the U. S. Open that will offer us the true results of this experiment. I have been raising this equipment issue from my very first posts here on the forum some two and a half years ago.

[bman]

My guess is that he retires at the end of the U.S. Open next year, although I hope he plays longer if he can still compete at a high level. He's not going to pull a Hewitt though, where we keep saying, "Is that guy still around?" The key is whether he loses a few straight Grand Slams in the first 3 rounds. That would be very tough on his ego.

With that said, I would love for one more Sampras-like run in a Grand Slam. I also think he might have some incentive to get 1,000 match wins. (I think he's at like 907 now or something like that)

[jbill]

Motivation

I still think the big question for Federer is motivation. I don't think he really has it. I think at this point in his career he is unsure of where he is heading. He's certainly aware that he doesn't have the consistency he used to have. And is he losing a half step? He's got to be aware of these things.

Fed is not Andre Agassi. Agassi had something to prove at a very late stage in his career. Fed doesn't have anything to prove. He's already done it. He's already amassed more grand slams then anyone else.

Fed has often said that he wanted to play until the 2016 Olympics. But will he? I actually found a quote from him the other day where he admitted that things could change for him in a moments notice, that he might not make it that far. The doubt is beginning to creep in.

I really don't see him playing this year with the same enthusiasm he has exhibited in the past. He often looks like he is just going through the motions.

The problem for him at this point in his life is if and when he retires from pro tennis, what does he do next? All he knows is tennis.

If he continues to lose to much lesser players will he want to continue? I don't see him as a Tommy Hasse or a Layton Hewitt. If Fed doesn't continue to stay in the top ten and beat the big elite players will he want to hang around on the ATP tour? Will he watch himself slide down that slope to mediocrity or will he want to go out more at the top of his game? I think his ego will opt for the latter.

I believe we will have the answers to these questions sooner rather than later. Time is running out for Fed, regardless of a racquet change!

jbill

[stotty]

Hmmm

Federer can play pretty much as well as he ever did. His form just isn't as consistent as it was. There is your chronological age and your biological age. They don't always go hand in hand. Even life isn't that perfect. Hass' biological age is 30, not 35. A stroke of luck. Federer may be the same or not...too early to say.

The other thing is the game has left Federer a little behind. It's becoming more and more about shot tolerance and phenomenal court coverage. Federer simply cannot match what's going on at the moment.

A new racket will alter events very little...it's too little too late.

[don_budge]

The U. S. Open 2013...Roger Federer's focus

I think you're being a bit generous here. Fed lost in straight sets to a qualifier!!! Lost in straights to Tsonga at the French and lost to a non-powerhouse (albeit one who played like one for a day!) at Wimbledon -- his first pre-quarerfinal loss at a Slam in nine years. The writing is (and has been for some time) on the wall.

These losses not only likely sting him in a cumulative manner, they also steadily embolden his opponents!

I agree, as you point out, that one should "let go of losses"; I just think that's getting harder and harder for Fed to do so these days.

If one were to spin it in Fed's favor, one could say he's testing out a new racket and finding his way with that.

Roger Federer does not care one iota about any of these losses. They are forgotten and in the rearview mirror. He knows exactly where he is at and the fact that he is conceding to a new bigger piece of equipment is a positive sign. Keep in mind the resurgence of Tommy Haas at the age of 35...whatever precipitated that remarkable comeback?

Federer may have lost half a step...my father was telling me that the veterans in the game of baseball used to tell him that the legs were the first thing to go. With that half step goes the ability to set up and take a proper balanced swing. He may just be able to buy back some time with the extra eight square inches. That is almost nine percent in terms of hitting surface of the racquet. This might not produce miracles but it will level the playing field which he has been playing at a deficit all of these years.

He has only one thought on his mind from this point forward...The 2013 U. S. Open in New York City. Everything that happens from this point forwards is only practice...rehearsal. For the Big Show.

[don_budge]

Roger Federer and the Racquet Switch...

You call it generous, I call it being respectful.

People jump off and on the bandwagon like fleas on a dirty terrier. That's there prerogative. I get it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/20/sport/tennis/tennis-federer-racquet-hamburg/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

I guarantee you one thing about the process Roger Federer is going through in his switch of racquets...he doesn't give a hoot about the loss to Federico Delbonis. Federer at this point in his career has bigger things on his mind than what he considers an inconsequential loss to the 65th ranked player in the world. He's looking at the big picture. He regards this tournament as a petri dish...an experiment and he was only interested in the results. The loss was of no consequence whatsoever. We have seen him lose "bigger" matches recently where he apparently wasn't overly concerned. Perhaps the loss at Wimbledon was an epiphany of sorts...but thank God he is switching racquets. Albeit too late. The damage has been done to his career.

Not enough can be made of this switch of equipment and I only wish that one journalist had the balls or the acumen to ask the right questions and put this question into a historical perspective. It's too much to ask these days...for a journalist to do their job...afterall it's dangerous. You might end up on somebodies "hit list". The game is played on very precisely measured courts...there should be standardization of the equipment. It is not like skiing or golf. You don't see anyone changing the size of a basketball or a basketball hoop.

But as far as the loss to Delbonis goes...Roger was more than happy to give Federico something to tell his grandchildren. What Roger wanted out of this tournament that he specifically added to his schedule along with Gstaad, Switzerland was feedback. He's testing a new racquet and his sole concern was the feedback under playing tournament conditions. I imagine that he was more or less happy to skip a meaningless final (for him) against Fabulous Fognini and cop a day of rest somewhere with the wife and kids. His resume is complete without that title...let's face it. The match was meaningless except that he got to play two more sets with the new stick. By losing in the semifinals he get to rest until Wednesday in Gstaad...probably at home. Every step you take...he is measuring in some way, shape or form.

His analysis of the big picture goes something like this. He is committed to changing racquets so he needs match play to gage the work in progress. He took a second round win against Daniel Brands 3-6, 6-3, 6-2...third round win Jan Hajek 6-4, 2-6, 6-4...quarterfinal win against Florian "Quirky" Mayer 7-6, 3-6, 7-5...he will take all of this information home with him and talk it over with Paul Annacone and get ready for this week in Gstaad. He coincidentally plays Brand again in the second round which is an unbelievable stroke of good luck so that he can calibrate his results from one week to the next. He is only looking for information these two weeks. He wants to know...if he can continue to compete at his present or even his former level with a piece of equipment that is finally equal to that of his competition.

This change of equipment by the worlds best player of the past decade is the biggest story in tennis this year. I hope that there are some really in-depth analysis on the decision making process and the historical implications. I doubt if it will happen. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens as a result of this experiment. I think that he should have changed racquet companies as I suggested in a post a couple of months ago. He could have really cashed in...with a new contract from Head, Prince or Babalot. You know what company I wish he would have consulted with? Dunlop. I think that he needs a racquet with more feel than the racquets that Wilson manufactures have.

[GeoffWilliams]

I could have made the volley he missed. Says something about the game's decline away from the net. Hey, Delbonis, work on your volley and maybe next time you will win!

[bman]

Oddly enough I thought Fed played pretty well against Delbonis. Remember Delbonis just beat Verdasco, who was a hair away from beating Murray at WImbledon. Fed just lost a few key points, just like against Stakhovsky. I actually think his backhand is better than ever. I don't expect him to win any more slams, but he's still dangerous, and that, as a fan, makes me excited.

[klacr]

The 33rd through 52nd players in the world this week average 26.1 tournaments per year. These are great players, but a little behind the guys that are getting seeded at the Grand Slams and the ATP1000's.

Youzny, great player, is # 32. In 2012 played 22 events going 32-21 (60.3%) winning Zagreb and $824, 396 for the year. He's played 26 events in the last 12 months and is 20-15 so far this year. He has 1235 ranking points.

Hanescu, a good player (career earnings over $3.8MM), is #52. He's played 25 tournaments in the last 12 months and has 857 points. His record is 14-16 this year. In 2012 he played a lot more matches than he gets credit for. He is listed as 6-13, but that is only on full ATP Tour level events. He also played a lot of matches in challengers, winning three and getting to the Challengers Tour Finals. This year his actual match record is 18-17 (51.4%) including all the qualifying matches he's won. He's done well, moving up his ranking and earning over $317K so far this year

Imagine for a moment that you win 1/2 of your matches and we give you 26 trips to the plate. That means you win 13 first rounds. We'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you win 7 second rounds (7/13). Then you win 3 (3/7) third rounds/quarters. We'll give you one of three fourth rounds and even one fifth round in an ATP250 for a title. That's exactly half your matches.

Now we take it down to your points. In the majors, you win two first rounds and one second and even one third to get you to 50% in the majors (0-1, 0-1, 1-1, 3-1 adds up to 4-4). It also gets you, 10, 10, 45 and 180 points and somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000 (that 4th round was worth about $150,000).

Then in the super 9's, we'll say you played 8 and went 50% here too (0-1 4 times, 1-1 twice, and 3-1 twice for an total of 8-8). That got you about $45,000 for the first round losses, another $35k to $45k for the second round losses and one of the fourth rounds was IW or Miami so that was a quarter and a semi or maybe $150,000. So, again somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000. We'll call it a total of $450,000 for majors and ATP 1000's so far. For points you got 40 for the first round losses, 90 for the two second round losses, and 180 and 360 for the quarter and semi for a total of 670 points. That's pretty good. You've already got 915 points in just 12 events.

So you've made almost $500,000 and you have only played 12 events and 18 weeks. You've got the rest of the year to put up 6 more good results toward your rankings out of another 14 events you will play for a total of 32 tournament weeks for the year (including second weeks of two week events which is usually a rest week). If you are really doing this well, you stand a good chance of being seeded for the 4 500's you will play and highly seeded for the other 10 ATP250's you will play. You should be able to make another $200,000 to $300,000 for those 14 events and add another 200 points. 1100 points will put you at about 35 in the world.

Current YTD records of the players from 31 to 35:
31 Lopez: 16-10 $573,000
32 Youzhny 20-15 $729,388
33 Meltzer 17-18 $669,495 (doubles)
34 Verdasco 18-14 $831,587
35 Benneteau 18-11 $747,878 (doubles)
and
40 Rosol 15-14 $412,299
41 Tomic 19-13 $516,434
42 Davydenko 16-16 $433,452

My point? If you can win half your matches at the upper levels of this game, you are really good and you will be rewarded. Win 2 out of 3 and you can get to the top 20 and maybe beyond. Today, 70% gets you in the top 11 in the world. But you are still going to lose almost every week!!

Fed's career record is 81.4%. This year it is 30-9 counting this week, 76.9%. From 2004-2006 Fed was 247-15 (94.3%). He is not that guy anymore!

don

Great number crunching Don! Wow. My head hurts. Yes, the money is good. But as a competitor, the losing still stinks. Delbonis will pick up a nice paycheck this week for making the finals. But having 3 match points for his maiden ATP Title, and losing, well I'm sure he'd like to be holding the winner's trophy.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

I think Fed has at least 1 more majpr in him. And his record of 36 Grand Slam quarters in a row is hard to even truly appreciate.

Yes, it's possible. With a good draw and one of the other key players getting knocked out, it would take just one blinding performance to lift a slam trophy.

It can happen. Rosewall knocked around well after his sell by date and ended up in two slam finals at nearly 40 years of age.

It's well worth Federer lurking around if you ask me. I just wonder if he's left it a little late to change his racket.

Love tennis_chiro's win/loss permutations. Players really do spend a lot of time losing, don't they?

[stroke]

I think Fed has at least 1 more majpr in him. And his record of 36 Grand Slam quarters in a row is hard to even truly appreciate.