I predict Federer will beat Nishikori in the final, 4 sets. Fed adapted, as I rec.

[GeoffWilliams]

Oh well. Half right anyway.

Betting on the fastest unit turner in the business to beat Joker, and for Fed to attack him well in the final. Have to hand it to Fed for adapting, switching to a 98 sq. in. frame, with a 68 ra, strung at 59/57 lbs, as I suggested he do months before he made the switch, as Annacone was deriding me for suggesting the switch. Why was equipment change the difference? Bigger sweet spot, higher tension in the vs gut (with a Wilson label)/alu rough cross. He was missing too many fh long due to the low tension and smaller frame. He made bh improvements as well as more pop on the serve. I find it interesting he adopted the identical frame I was recommending and the same tension.

You can buy the same frame uncustomized now:

Head Size:
97 sq. in. / 625.81 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung Weight: 12.6oz / 357.2g overgripped: 364.2g
Balance: 12.38in / 31.45cm / 9 pts HL
Swingweight: 335
Stiffness: 68
Beam Width: 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm /
Composition: Braided Kevlar & Graphite / Basalt Fibers
Power Level: Low
Stroke Style: Full
Swing Speed: Fast
Racquet Colors:
Red/ Black
Grip Type: Wilson Premium Leather
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 7T,9T,7H,9H

So why did it make a difference? More power and more control, even a small amount, is the difference. The gut/alu combination allows for the most powerful, touch/control on the market today, and that combination allows the most spin, due to the teflon infused alu, as long as the stings are fresh.

Coming into the net more also has made a big difference. He's winning 65% of those approaches. Edberg helped with his positioning and attack mode.

[gzhpcu]

Against Cilic his net game failed him completely. Made hardly any points at the net. Cilic was just incredible. Still a good run for Federer, who is now number 2 in the world again...

[GeoffWilliams]

Three aces in a row in the last game. Ivo like. Never seen him play that well. HIs fh dtl is deadly to Fed. Had to cover the bh shot. My pick moves to Cilic, with his greather serving power and accuracy, and his relaxed unit turn off the burst step. He looks as if he's just rallying out there and then the fh dtl inside in comes down.

Nishikori's frame is very light. Cilic is only about 355g.

[don_budge]

You were spot on...GeoffWilliams

Have to hand it to Fed for adapting, switching to a 98 sq. in. frame, with a 68 ra, strung at 59/57 lbs, as I suggested he do months before he made the switch, as Annacone was deriding me for suggesting the switch. Why was equipment change the difference?

Coming into the net more also has made a big difference. He's winning 65% of those approaches. Edberg helped with his positioning and attack mode.

June 9, 2012

Once again...predictability breeds boredom. Most of the time. In this case it may be the most exciting thing to happen in what otherwise has been a rather ho hum event. Except for a brief flare up in the quarters the drama at the French Open has been lacking. The little bit of charisma that was present left the stadium yesterday.

It's too bad that the Djokovic vs. Federer semi final clash could not live up to its build up. Both players had survived scares in their previous rounds but survived. I hoped that both would sort of peak for some sort of titanic struggle but it was not to be. Djokovic is a little too strong and a little too quick for a Federer who is in the twilight of his career...and refuses to change equipment and perhaps lost half a step in the process. Federer came out flat for this match...he couldn't muster the energy that the occasion demanded.

I was always told that the two most important pieces of equipment of a tennis player was his racquet and his shoes. I remember watching some old clips of Richard Gonzales putting on some pair of flimsy canvas sneakers (remember Olof's, bottle?) after taping up his battered toes. I will forever remember Roger Federer playing out the last years of his career with yesterdays technology in his racquet. For the life of me I cannot figure out why he doesn't change to another racquet. To begin with his racquet is more than ten percent smaller than either Djokovic's, Nadal's or Murray's. Do you have any idea what ten percent more hitting surface means to a professional tennis player? It changes everything and it showed yesterday afternoon in gay Paris as Federer repeatedly mishit balls that didn't seem to be so difficult to hit. In a game like modern tennis where it is being played at a zillion miles per hour...practically at the speed of light compared to classic tennis, every little bit counts and ten percent hitting surface is too much for an "aging" champion tennis player to give away to his younger rivals.

It's strange why he would hang on to his obsolete equipment. Old champions are like that somehow. Ivan Lendl was playing with smaller racquets than what his rivals used for most of his career. Jimmy Connors was one of the last to switch to oversize or midsize as was John McEnroe. Björn Borg never did make the switch and instead chose to disappear into the woodwork. He probably would of had at least a couple of more French titles in his collection of trophies had he made the "prudent" decision to switch. I myself...good old don_budge was the very last to switch from the old wood and gut apparatus...my excuse was my love for the game. I did it for passion's sake. Silly me. Even now I play golf with Mizuno mp33 blades and all of my golf buddies constantly are on me about my dinosaurs...my golf clubs.

Federer is the last thing that we have that resembles a classic tennis player and he still clings to his dinosaur...his Wilson Excalibur. It's a shame really that someone close to him cannot get him to change. It may of cost him a couple of majors. Maybe zillions of dollars to boot. Certainly some of his close calls may of been turned around if the equipment factor was equal. Here I go again...I think that the area of a tennis racquet in the hands of a professional tennis player should be limited to 80 square inches. Let's take the equipment argument out of play...even though nobody seems to notice it but me. There was nothing more fair than two guys going at each other with a couple of wood sticks in their hands. So much for equipment.

You know...it is an interesting phenomena the tennis equipment. Nowadays...if you talk about this kind of stuff people think you are obsolete and some kind of old crackpot. It is sort of like talking to young people about an age of man where electronic gizmos didn't rule their lives. They look at you and wonder how could anyone exist in such a boring world. Everyone is so convinced that somehow these things make life better but I am not so sure. These things certainly make things faster...just like modern tennis equipment. Is faster necessarily better? Does everyone seem to be so much happier? Are we content with our game...with our life? True some things become a bit more convenient but on the other hand mankind survived without it for how many years? Do we truly understand what effect this technology will have on the race in the future? Tennis is a nice little microcosm here. A metaphor for life...while some laud the changes in the game, those who know better realize that something of significance was lost. Traditionally speaking that is. Things are happening very quickly as I see it...from my vantage point out here in the woods. Yesterday I witnessed a proud doe taking her new little fawn on a walk through our fields into the woods. As wonder will have it my wife just called me to the window to see the two of them again...out in our fields. Nobody was there to catch it on their Ipod...therefore did it really happen? Not much changes in the woods. Don't the critters get bored? Oh well...I will give it a rest for now. Suffice it to say that I still "love" tennis even though I feel she has betrayed me. Just a little, little bit.

But I really wonder about Roger and Björn and Ivan and Jimmy and Johnny and Richard Gonzales. It was not that long ago...historically speaking.

Djokovic vs. Nadal? I like Djokovic...just a little bit better than I don't like Nadal. That is not to say that Nadal does not look to be invincible. He has chewed up the field and spit them out with disdain...even though he keeps apologizing out of one side of his mouth to his Spanish and Latin buddies. He relishes a good old fashioned knockout just like any other good heavyweight would. This should be a donnybrook...with no love lost.

Here's one for the "old geezers" out there. The over 45 legends doubles semi final to be played today is Mats Wilander and Mikael Pernfors against the McEnroe brothers. Very cool. I will take the McEnroe's in this one but if the Swedes win that will be alright too.

I wrote this two years and three months ago...although the thoughts were in my head long before. Roger may have switched too late to really capitalize. I think he should have gone to a different company to maximize the windfall profits. Keeping line with the modern philosophy or lack of one that money is everything.

[don_budge]

Spot on GeoffWilliams...

Have to hand it to Fed for adapting, switching to a 98 sq. in. frame, with a 68 ra, strung at 59/57 lbs, as I suggested he do months before he made the switch, as Annacone was deriding me for suggesting the switch. Why was equipment change the difference?

So why did it make a difference? More power and more control, even a small amount, is the difference. Coming into the net more also has made a big difference. He's winning 65% of those approaches. Edberg helped with his positioning and attack mode.

July 1, 2012

I have a couple of bones to pick with Roger Federer. Just a few things that come to mind when I watch him struggle with players that I think he should routinely beat.

Number one is the equipment. The racquet that Roger is playing with is at least 10% smaller than most of his competitors. As far as I can tell his racquet is 90 square inches and the competitions are for the most part 100 square inches. This is too much precious area to give up in a game that has an electronic eye discerning if balls that are flying zillions of miles per hour are within millimeters in or out. That 10% difference in area is really huge in the hands of trained professionals.

When you see the statistics of these matches you realize that during the course of some five set matches this week the players are sometimes deadlocked in the number of points won. At one point near the end of the fourth set with Benneteau after 194 points played...Roger had won 97 and his opponent had won 97. Come on...in a sport that is being played so fast and so close you must make certain that your equipment is up to the task and that you are not losing points in the course of the match because of it. That racquet that Federer plays is costing him millions. It would be impossible to ascertain just how much it has cost him over the course of his career...how many more Grand Slam titles he may of won if he had just paid a bit more attention to his choice of equipment.

The second thing that sort of makes me wonder about his judgement is his play on the grass when it comes to approaching the net and when it comes to volleying. Early on in Federer's career it looked as if he would follow in Pete Sampras' footsteps to become a great serve and volley player...especially on the grass of Wimbledon. But as Stotty has informed us there has been much engineering on the lawn at the All England Club and serve and volley has been delegated to a less frequently used option...to say the least. But when Federer is volleying he certainly does not have anywhere the comfortable look that Sampras had for instance. Too often...when the ball is at waist level or higher Roger chooses to use a full swing rather than classic volley technique. The problem is not that he misses balls at these higher heights...the problem is that he does not look as comfortable on balls that he must use the classic volley motion. By swinging at the high balls he has lost his touch on the more feathery of volleys. Furthermore...I must question his choice of approach shots as well as he opts frequently to use topspin to approach the net when conventional wisdom used to say that underspin or sidespin was the percentage play. Too often his ball will set up or land short because of his choice of topspin for him to effectively get into position to volley. That being said everything in the game has been engineered to the detriment of the volleyer in modern tennis.

Finally...there is this thought about the Federer backhand. Since Roger is playing the one handed backhand we must give a bit of thought about what he is doing with it tactically as well as technically. Most of the time...in modern tennis the guy on the other side of the net is going to be playing a backhand with two hands. The backhands on tour are most impressive these days in the sense of power and the ability to repeatedly get the ball in play. The one question that I have for Federer is his choice of tactics. Too often he plays his topspin right into the teeth of his opponents two handed backhands which is giving them the ball they want to hit...waist high or higher. Right in their strike zone. Benneteau in particular looked to be very comfortable in handling the Federer topspin drive but when Roger started to mix in the slice it seemed to upset his comfort zone just a bit...it seemed to have him just a bit off balance.

Federer used to make his living using the slice to set up the two handed competition. I remember in particular...for instance, how he used to own Söderling on the backhand side by employing the slice. Slice, slice, slice...until he got the two hander to drop to the one hand slice themselves, then he had them...or he sliced until he got the ball he could run around and pound it into either corner with his Federfore. The Federer we have seen in the last couple of years seems to be too prone to predictability as he drives his backhand over and over. Traditionally the big advantage of the one hand backhand is its flexibility...its versatility. Arm in arm with the comments about his approach game go with this observation that he should be approaching more often with underspin off the backhand wing. What you lose in overall power with underspin you gain in versatility of placement as in depth or angles...particularly when you are close to the net. Plus...don't forget disguise as in the ability to mix in the drop shot. He must use all of the tricks in his bag as at this point in his career he is going to be hard pressed to out gun...the big guns.

So Roger...just a little friendly advice from yours truly, don_budge, I think that if you beef up your equipment a bit and supe up your approach and volley game and mix up your play on the backhand side. You might win a couple of key points to get you over the hump...against the likes of Djokovic and Nadal et al.

Roger's equipment decision has been a talking point with us for a long time. This post was during the 2012 Wimbledon Championships. Some critical analysis about his tactical decisions as well. Questions for his coach...his team.

[don_budge]

Spot on GeoffWilliams...

Have to hand it to Fed for adapting, switching to a 98 sq. in. frame, with a 68 ra, strung at 59/57 lbs, as I suggested he do months before he made the switch, as Annacone was deriding me for suggesting the switch. Why was equipment change the difference?

Coming into the net more also has made a big difference. He's winning 65% of those approaches. Edberg helped with his positioning and attack mode.

October 14, 2012

I get it now. Federer doesn't care. Of course. Why didn't I think of that? One reason that I didn't realize that is because of my Quixote complex...I care too much. I'm usually the last one caring too, like the poor old Don Quixote so you can imagine the terrible ramifications that has had on me through the years.

Take the Prince racquet for instance. It was as if I was the only one that cared when "they" were making the switch...when "they" stole the sport right out from under us. I yelled bloody murder...and got repaid in scorn. That's alright, I played my part...instead of Kramer vs. Kramer with Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep, it was Kramer vs. Prince Graphite. It was DeNiroesque and Pacinoesque all wrapped into one. Navarroesque one might say. I wish you guys could of seen it...one of you probably did. Ok...it was really stupid and set the tone for the rest of the futility and the nonsense. No wonder you can't appreciate Celine, Kyle. You are too level headed.

But take Roger for instance. You guys are right and I didn't see it. The whole time that Murray was pasting him at the Olympic Gold Medal match I had a difficult time believing my eyes but yesterday I saw it again...even if it wasn't so obvious. He didn't care. Not that he didn't care enough to go out and make a good showing of it. Nobody could of accused him of tanking yesterday...even though Koenig and his partner kept repeating that he was doing some things so badly that they thought they were epic lows for the Fed Express. Things like double-faulting three times in a row to lose his serve in the first set.

I can understand too...in a sense it is getting late in his career. You can only go around the world so many times playing tennis at the speed of light. At 31 he's been there, done that. Why take a risk of blowing a cog somewhere along the way? Somewhere like Shanghai. I noticed how he was delaying the play because of a few drops of rain on the court...he kept saying why take the risk. I thought it was gamesmanship but he knows how many zillions are on the line at the next stop, the next show. He can afford to pick and choose. Live to play another Grand Slam. Live to play the Barclay's. I get it now. Why take the risk? It's a little like Big Time Wrestling...only not nearly as queer.

gsheiner may of had it right with a theory that he had about Federer...he posted it in the "Gold Medal" thread. He speculated that Roger would rather lose to Murray for reasons so bizarre that that there may be an element of truth to them. When he posted it I thought it was ridiculous but now I am not so certain. Federer is plotting his course...in the twilight of his career. Maybe he didn't want to play Djokovic just now...perhaps he isn't in top form after a layoff. Let the two of them fight it out while he lays low in Switzerland playing with the twins relaxing for 48 hours before the next stop...the next show. Who knows? The truth these days is definitely getting stranger than fiction.

But the one thing that bothers me. Come on...you know what its going to be don't you? It's the racquet. Federer's racquet is 90" sq. and Murrays is 98" sq. That is 10% for all intents and purposes unless you want to quibble with me. In the hands of trained professionals this is simply too much of a discrepancy. It is too much of an advantage. You can see it in the play. At least I can. Why doesn't Annacone get him to go to some Prince Space Monster for the rest of his career? He could pick up a few more baubles and billions in cash along the way. What a coup that would be for Prince!

Better yet why doesn't tennis limit the area of the hitting surface to 90" sq. I can just see nokomis telling me now that it will never happen. I know nokomis. I am just musing. I am only thrusting my puny little pen...actually my keyboard, figuratively my sword at gigantic windmills. But I cannot for the life of me figure out that if he truly cared about giving himself the best chance in any given match that he would not seek out a superior piece of equipment. If I were him I would take that antiquated piece of work to the deepest lake in Switzerland and heave it as far as I could. Just like Arthur tossed Excalibur to a wet and deep resting place. But it's getting late. Why taint the legacy.

You know...one thing that I have learned later in life is that to be the one that cares too much about things is not necessarily a good thing. You can get disillusioned on a daily basis. The one that doesn't care in the end holds the power. Once you don't care you can afford to be more ruthless.

It seems that something seemed to be incongruent to me back then...way back then. About the equipment. It wasn't only Roger's equipment either. It wasn't that his was too small...it was that the rest of the other's was too big. A subject that I will never tire of. How the game was stolen...thirty pieces of silver and the rest of the loot. It wasn't worth it. Not in the end.

[don_budge]

Spot on GeoffWilliams...

Have to hand it to Fed for adapting, switching to a 98 sq. in. frame, with a 68 ra, strung at 59/57 lbs, as I suggested he do months before he made the switch, as Annacone was deriding me for suggesting the switch. Why was equipment change the difference?

Coming into the net more also has made a big difference. He's winning 65% of those approaches. Edberg helped with his positioning and attack mode.

November 15, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

Hmmm...for the thousandth time...what about his choice of spin? If Federer hits a nice wicked sidespin to the Djokovic backhand the ball doesn't sit up as it does here when he hits that inside out topspin and therefore Djokovic doesn't get the spin that he has been used to hitting the whole entire rally. Maybe that is just enough to throw off the passing shot and gives Roger a bit more time to close in on the net. Maybe a short spinning slider or something deeper into the corner. That ball that Federer approached on landed short...it was just beyond the service line with the topspin. He didn't hit that approach very sweetly and it just sort of stood up as an invitation to Djokovic to do what he did with it. The approach shot was like a desperate shot that had very little chance of winning...like a desperate player on the verge of losing that had all but conceded defeat. Looking back in hindsight one would have to conclude that it was the poorest of all possible choices to attack on.

At any rate his choice of shots and his choice to attack was ill fated...that much we know. His fate was sealed long before that shot as a matter of fact. It doesn't matter any longer...what is done is done. He gives way too much away to Djokovic in the equipment department. Coupled with the age differential it was pretty much a foregone conclusion and only a Super Man effort on the part of Roger was going to change that. The fact that he was up a break in each set and not able to close it out tipped us off that something was amiss. That's not like Roger...all things being equal.

My question about his equipment however still stands and with all of the mathematical minds and Phd's out there why hasn't someone considered the fact that a percentage of Roger's mishits and errors are due to a certain lack of hitting area in his equipment. Someone brought up the question of statistics...doesn't the player, with all things being equal, with the larger area in his racquet, have a better shot percentage wise hitting the sweet spot of the strings. Percentage wise statistically speaking. Of course it does. I have played that racquet that Federer plays and I can tell you that it is far less forgiving and is inferior in performance even to the racquet that I play now. I switched for that very reason...look for Federer to do the same in the near future.

A huge contract with Head or any equipment manufacturer would make all of the sense in the world. Notice how he upped the ante on Basel, his hometown. It is time to up the ante on Wilson and tell them to take a hike. Money talks. How many titles has he forfeited on account of inferior equipment? He has lost so many titles to Nadal, Djokovic and now Murray. All play with larger hitting areas and superior equipment. Add them up. That 10% + that he gives up adds up during the course of each point, the longer the point goes on the bigger the advantage to the bigger racquet.

Even the announcers were making the comment to that effect...sans the equipment factor. Boris Becker and Peter Fleming both made comments to the effect that Roger was looking for ways to end the point quicker. This is not to mention the actual advantage over the course of the match...and especially when it comes to tight points and critical points. Roger is the superior "tennis player" but his equipment is inferior. That racquet that Djokovic is wielding is far superior to that of Federer's. I expect that there should be overwhelming support for this theory of mine...but on the other hand it will be pooh poohed back to my keyboard here on the Swedish Internet, which incidentally has the reputation of being the fastest in the world. And I know just how much modern tennis gurus and junkies worship speed.

I made the same kind of noises back in 1981 but the response then was nonsense and as deafening as it was retarded...the consensus was that there was no advantage to the Prince Graphite over the Jack Kramer Autograph. Sheer and utter nonsense. Standardize the equipment...reduce the head size while you are at it.

The questioning of events that have occurred in history long after the fact serves a purpose. One should never stop questioning the nonsense that is heaped on everyone these days in the guise of news or information. Today you have a choice and it is nearly 50/50 as near as I can tell. It is either information or it is disinformation. Good luck in making any sense of it.

But this question about the equipment of Roger Federer is one that should be considered in any Sports Ethics curriculum. Is there such a thing? The lady in Portugal led me to believe that there was. There are those that question the events on this day...thirteen years ago.

[don_budge]

By the numbers...Federer's racquet improvement

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/09/38/By-The-Numbers-Federer-Improvement.aspx

Roger switched racquets at the beginning of 2014. Despite being a year older his results improved dramatically. Equipment has changed the game and unduly so...to the detriment. Bigger racquets only give the illusion of superior skills...in fact the opposite is true. "Survival of the fittest" in reverse.