Roger Federer

Hey, slag off Nadal all you like, we get you don't like him, hope you feel better for getting that off your chest. But it doesn't change anything. You cant convert people to anti-Nadalism, its not a religion.

noleisthebest wrote:
Personally, I love the way he plays the game with that mad intensity and tons of heart and grit, to me it's quite inspirational, the way he doesn't let you breath in a point with his court-coverage

Those things you say about Djokovic many others say exactly the same of Nadal. Its all personal preference but you cant ram it down people's throats. If you could lay off the vitriol this place might be a bit more harmonious and encourage broader posting? Or is this forum only for people who hate Nadal? As a Federer fan do I have to keep wading through page after page of Nadal hate and bitterness to post here? Nadal isn't my favourite but its boring reading how he's the antichrist every day, you need to change your tune/sermon in my opinion.

wilson_nxt wrote:Hey, slag off Nadal all you like, we get you don't like him, hope you feel better for getting that off your chest. But it doesn't change anything. You cant convert people to anti-Nadalism, its not a religion.

Those things you say about Djokovic many others say exactly the same of Nadal. Its all personal preference but you cant ram it down people's throats. If you could lay off the vitriol this place might be a bit more harmonious and encourage broader posting? Or is this forum only for people who hate Nadal? As a Federer fan do I have to keep wading through page after page of Nadal hate and bitterness to post here? Nadal isn't my favourite but its boring reading how he's the antichrist every day, you need to change your tune/sermon in my opinion.

Quality vs quantity any day for me.
Safe thinkers don't float my boat.

Also, I don't hold back when expressing myself but at the same time never intentionally try to go for posters personally either. That is the sign of weakness in ability to debate anything.

I do get it that it's too much for some, but that really is their problem.
All or nothing for me, I am afraid, and that's with everything in life: full-cream milk type of person !

You don't go for posters? Haha...pull the other one nitb. I've seen plenty of your personal attacks on others over the months. Nice try at absolution though.
Extreme thinkers (zealot preachers, hypocrits and conspiracy theorists) don't float mine either. They're always looking to start wars and revel in the resulting discord. These people start conflict but forever absolve themselves of blame by taking the moral higher ground. Everyone else is wrong. From a psychology point of view its kind of fascinating. But not everyone sees everything as good vs evil, some people see life in shades of grey, not black and white (or all or nothing as you put it). Some people don't need to define discussion as safe vs 'exposing hidden truths'. All players have their good and bad points, forums don't have to focus only on the good points of Djokovic and Federer but bad points of Nadal. Its why I cant or don't want to post here much, its too extreme, too narrow minded despite thinking its the opposite. I like good debate but slagging off Nadal isn't good debate. I don't need to denounce Nadal to appreciate Federer (or Djokovic to others). To me the 2 things aren't interlinked. I don't see tennis as a religion, its not a battle of perceived good over evil to me. Its just a sport of 2 men hitting balls back and forth over a net until one wins. If constant unilateral player bashing constitutes quality, and refusal do so constitutes safe thinking then fair enough, we know where we stand. Oh and I prefer semi-skimmed milk as its always good to keep things balanced and healthy in the long run

wilson_nxt wrote:Perhaps Nadal is responsible for global warming, recessions and the Westernised birth rate decline too? Agree with luvsports, this just comes across as bitter vitriol with no rationality about it whatsoever, almost zealotism really.

I would say he is not responsible for all this but he is really a fully integrating part of the landscape and of everything that goes wrong today.

When thanks to science, and as we saw way too often in the recent past (LA) doddgy science, you can overtake a one in a century talent by feeding him with balls with so much power that they look like they have a life of their own and can run that fast for ever, then you know, like global warming, recession, modern day colonisation wars that something wrong is going on.

Where I differ with NITB is that Djoko is also very well part that landscape...but I don;t mind that much cause he gives Nadal a bit of Nadal's own medecine.

I have little doubt that there are lots of things which have been organised behind curtains to facilitate Nadal rise to the top on all surfaces. (slowing of the conds, turning a blind eye on time between points, rigged draws, less doping tests since 2006, etc...). Maybe all that is pure coincidence but knowing how much money is at stake when you have/had a Fedal final as opposed to a Fed/Gonzalez one, I doubt the people with money leave too much things to chance.

wilson_nxt wrote:You don't go for posters? Haha...pull the other one nitb. I've seen plenty of your personal attacks on others over the months. Nice try at absolution though.
Extreme thinkers (zealot preachers, hypocrits and conspiracy theorists) don't float mine either. They're always looking to start wars and revel in the resulting discord. These people start conflict but forever absolve themselves of blame by taking the moral higher ground. Everyone else is wrong. From a psychology point of view its kind of fascinating. But not everyone sees everything as good vs evil, some people see life in shades of grey, not black and white (or all or nothing as you put it). Some people don't need to define discussion as safe vs 'exposing hidden truths'. All players have their good and bad points, forums don't have to focus only on the good points of Djokovic and Federer but bad points of Nadal. Its why I cant or don't want to post here much, its too extreme, too narrow minded despite thinking its the opposite. I like good debate but slagging off Nadal isn't good debate. I don't need to denounce Nadal to appreciate Federer (or Djokovic to others). To me the 2 things aren't interlinked. I don't see tennis as a religion, its not a battle of perceived good over evil to me. Its just a sport of 2 men hitting balls back and forth over a net until one wins. If constant unilateral player bashing constitutes quality, and refusal do so constitutes safe thinking then fair enough, we know where we stand. Oh and I prefer semi-skimmed milk as its always good to keep things balanced and healthy in the long run

Neither do I.
I only despise the way he won what he did and deprived others of a fair chance. Or do you think he has won all those slams fair and square?

It's alright for people to debate removed and on academic level, so let's take it home: how would/did you feel in your own life when you saw others take short-cuts by means of connections, lying, bribery in short - cheat, and perhaps gain something that rightfully belonged to you ?
Not nice, I'm sure.

Well, that's how I see Nadal and his career.

It has nothing to do with appreciating Djokovic or Federer.

thanks. You're entitled to your views of course and I'm not here to defend nadal, I have no idea whether he has done the things you claim in effect. but i do presume innocent before proved guilty, that isnt the case here. how do you know Djokovic isn't the one cheating given the massive result gains he showed? or murray for the huge muscle gains? it just all seems one way traffic to me. anyway, sorry to bother you all, clearly wasting my time here with the in-crowd.

wilson_nxt wrote:thanks. You're entitled to your views of course and I'm not here to defend nadal, I have no idea whether he has done the things you claim in effect. but i do presume innocent before proved guilty, that isnt the case here. how do you know Djokovic isn't the one cheating given the massive result gains he showed? or murray for the huge muscle gains? it just all seems one way traffic to me. anyway, sorry to bother you all, clearly wasting my time here with the in-crowd.

All the players you mentnion are suspicioius.
It is worth noticing that Novak did win his first slam before his gluten intolerance was discovered, which a lot believe was an excuse to explain new fitness level enabled by doping.
Now, I know he suffered from a lot of allergies before 2011 because in 2010 he had to pull out of Serbian Open and I think Madrid or Monte Carlo early because of it. I remember how he looked, red eyed, blowing his nose all the time, he suffered from respiratory allergies big time.
Whether he doped on top of the allergy, is a thing to decide for anyone who has played tennis and knows whether it's possible to endure long physical rallies over several hours.
Same for Murray and others.

We all know though who "lowered" the bar and started the trend, unchecked, encouraged, pushed, helped, thus changing the game beyond recognition making it a circus, not a "show" as he likes to refer to it.

It was wrong of ATP and ITF to do it, very wrong. I would like to believe that some people have bad conscience over it in hindsight which is why they are trying to revert the trend by enforcing the 25 sec rule and at least put on the facade of increased doping control with this "blood passport" talk.

If you like Federer, surely you can see that Nadal is not beating him with tennis, but exclusive physical endurance which certainly is not natural.

Ok...enough talking tennis ...let's play the game now....catch up with you all later.

I was watching Fed QF match in AO 2005 against Agassi on Utube and man how fast he looked that time, it was lightening. No T, Fed's game has declined vastly and its not just his back that's holding him down. Its maybe what happens to all, aging.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I was watching Fed QF match in AO 2005 against Agassi on Utube and man how fast he looked that time, it was lightening. No T, Fed's game has declined vastly and its not just his back that's holding him down. Its maybe what happens to all, aging.

I've always argued this, that Federer has simply declined from even a few years ago (even last year), but for some reason Tenez just totally won't accept it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I was watching Fed QF match in AO 2005 against Agassi on Utube and man how fast he looked that time, it was lightening. No T, Fed's game has declined vastly and its not just his back that's holding him down. Its maybe what happens to all, aging.

I suppose you realise how much faster courts were in 2005.

If courts were sped up back to 2005, Fed would not need the bigger racquet at all.

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I was watching Fed QF match in AO 2005 against Agassi on Utube and man how fast he looked that time, it was lightening. No T, Fed's game has declined vastly and its not just his back that's holding him down. Its maybe what happens to all, aging.

I suppose you  realise how much faster courts were in 2005.

If courts were sped up back to 2005, Fed would not need the bigger racquet at all.

Oh cmon NITB, this is simply ridiculous.
Are you really suggesting that Roger's movement is now slower than it was in 2005 as the courts have more sand?

It's not ridiculous.
You are just not able to see it.

This is the same player who won Wimbledon and was number one this time last year.

What do you think has changed so drastically?

He is still top Feds, maybe injured, maybe not fit but a very, very fine player.

I hope he somehow regains his confidence soon. And hope he gets physically 100%.
Tennis wise, everything is still there.

Maybe this reduced schedule just didn't work out too well for Federer this year which is why he announced he is going to play Brisbane as a warm-up tournament for AO next year.

Not taking anything for granted any more.

No I'm saying what's ridiculous is you claiming that the slower courts have somehow meant that Roger has slower movement.
The courts slow down for the balls, I don't think it makes much of a difference to player speed.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I was watching Fed QF match in AO 2005 against Agassi on Utube and man how fast he looked that time, it was lightening. No T, Fed's game has declined vastly and its not just his back that's holding him down. Its maybe what happens to all, aging.

I agree with you 100%. The Federer of 2005 and the Federer of 2013 look like two completely different players. Sad.

But you must have a very good eye rotla if you can diferentiate between back and aging problem.

Having a back back makes you look old and stiff...isn;t it?

In fact losing to Brands perfectly supports that very point. He won v Brands last week and lost this week. Are you suggesting Fed gets older by the week?

Tenez wrote:In fact losing to Brands perfectly supports that very point. He won v Brands last week and lost this week. Are you suggesting Fed gets older by the week?

Well he does get older by the week, a week older to be precise, but it's not the point either me or ROTLA are making here.

The point is this:
-As Fed gets older he loses his consistency (more loss of focus for patches)
-He loses some of his sharp reflexes (compared to his prime, ie 23-28)
-He moves slower (maybe it's different for other players, but I agree with ROTLA's analysis that it's clear Fed is half a step slower than few years ago).

OK, he may/ may not have a back injury to accentuate this, but it doesn't change the bare facts Federer is simply not as good now as he was during his prime years. Your refusal to accept this is somewhat bizarre.

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I was watching Fed QF match in AO 2005 against Agassi on Utube and man how fast he looked that time, it was lightening. No T, Fed's game has declined vastly and its not just his back that's holding him down. Its maybe what happens to all, aging.

I suppose you  realise how much faster courts were in 2005.

If courts were sped up back to 2005, Fed would not need the bigger racquet at all.

Courts were fast. Yes. AO looks lightening with those green surface. But Clay wasn't faster in 2005, or was it? The fact is Fed played well even on slow clay in those days shows that court pace wasn't much of a problem for him. He was a different player altogether who couldn't even be touched on faster indoor surfaces. But current Fed is going to lose to anyone with decent game and having a half decent day even on lighten fast surfaces and low bouncing indoors. Gstaad is not exactly slow like MC, high altitude makes it fly fast. But Fed struggled and lost in straight sets.

Tenez wrote:But you must have a very good eye rotla if you can diferentiate between back and aging problem.

Having a back back makes you look old and stiff...isn;t it?

 The most significant part of aging physically is that the back gets worse. Some are lucky to still have a healthy back at 50 but in the end the discs will dehydrate. Whether Fed's loss of form is due to aging or a bad back makes no difference to me, it's basically the same ('aging back'). Fact is: his last great match (final Cincy 2012) is almost a year ago, after that it consistantly went downhill.

Tenez wrote:But you must have a very good eye rotla if you can diferentiate between back and aging problem.

Having a back back makes you look old and stiff...isn;t it?

 ageing and physical problems go hand-in-hand. With age the physical issues start to show its bigger effect. And when the physical issues start affecting someone, we call it ageing. Ageing is not separate from back or any other physical problems. Physical problems are a part of this ageing itself. Slowness of the feet and reaction time are also parts of ageing. 

I'm still not convinced Fed's poor performance for so long are due to some severe back issues. He hasn't mentioned anything of this sort in any of his interviews. All I read is him saying he is fit and healthy and positive. He added 2 tournaments to his schedule, even added Brisbane in early Jan. How can someone with back issues be playing more tennis than initially planned instead of resting?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:But you must have a very good eye rotla if you can diferentiate between back and aging problem.

Having a back back makes you look old and stiff...isn;t it?

 ageing and physical problems go hand-in-hand. With age the physical issues start to show its bigger effect. And when the physical issues start affecting someone, we call it ageing. Ageing is not separate from back or any other physical problems. Physical problems are a part of this ageing itself. Slowness of the feet and reaction time are also parts of ageing. 

I'm still not convinced Fed's poor performance for so long are due to some severe back issues. He hasn't mentioned anything of this sort in any of his interviews. All I read is him saying he is fit and healthy and positive. He added 2 tournaments to his schedule, even added Brisbane in early Jan. How can someone with back issues be playing more tennis than initially planned instead of resting?

 Obviously i agree on the first part of your post, it's what i said too in my previous post. But i do think the back is a chronic issue and linked to his long lasting poor performances. That's why i don't believe there's a way back. And after seeing him play with the new racket i'm quite sure about that.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:But you must have a very good eye rotla if you can diferentiate between back and aging problem.

Having a back back makes you look old and stiff...isn;t it?

 The most significant part of aging physically is that the back gets worse. Some are lucky to still have a healthy back at 50 but in the end the discs will dehydrate. Whether Fed's loss of form is due to aging or a bad back makes no difference to me, it's basically the same ('aging back'). Fact is: his last great match (final Cincy 2012) is almost a year ago, after that it consistantly went downhill.

 yes and no. Cause he had bad backs before Cincy 2012 and yet produced great tennis after having back problem. Wimby 2012 simply shows how he coudl come and go.  

It's clear that his back problem gets more frequent but he still produces great tennis....even in his losses. The match he lost to Debonis was really bizarre as he played really well shot making wise. Unfortunately his mouvement is affected. I have not seen the match v Brand but clearly it's the back again as it was announced by Truffin who seem to follow his health closer than us.

At the end of the day you are right age or bad back it;s the same thing....result wise...but for me it's not cause I can see some very nice patches of tennis still. When a player ages, there is no coming back....that's quite different.

Have to say it's -apart from the results- still the same for me: An aging player can produce patches of good tennis, just like a player with a bad back. But after seeing him struggle for almost a year now and his game basically getting worse every next tournament, i don't think he can come back. Right now those small patches of great tennis are no longer satisfying for me, i can hardly watch it actually because you can see the troubles coming from miles away in about every match, which is quite annoying.
 
The old champ still loves what he does best and wants to find out if there are a few glory days left for him. And why not?
But personally i made up my mind: the glory days are over. I believe soon he'll realize his career planning (play until 35?) wasn't realistic. And if time will tell i was right: it's not tragic, not for the fans and definitly not for him.

Agree with GP and ROTLA.  For me too, at the end of the day, discussion of whether or not Fed is only declining because of his back is of secondary importance.  Maybe good for one or two threads where we can debate how much of his deterioration is due to back and how much due to other factors, but at the end of the day what matters is that as he is aging, he is likely to find it harder and harder to be in good enough shape to challenge for the titles.

The way I see it, backache  at the age of 31 is not ageing, it's an injury, just like Nadal's knees, yet nobody seems to think Nadal is ageing.

We could all witness problems Nadal had with his movement when he returned to the competition in January. How much more it is tough for Federer for whose game timing is everything, so back pain will affect his fine-tuned game heavily based on movement straight away.

Tennis wise, all is intact with Federer.

For me then there is only one question that needs answering: can the back be fixed?

That's where we all enter into the grey area of speculation as we don't know what exactly is wrong with it.

If a player injures their back and cannot play well as a result, I will agree it has nothing to do with aging. But if a player has back issues throughout their career and by early 30s they become unmanageable, then I think that is just one facet of them aging.

It is similar with Nadal's nees. If they gave way when he was 22, I would not consider it aging but if he say lasts another couple of years and then the problems become bad enough to impact his game, I will chalk it down to aging too.

However, at the end of the day, I do not even care so much whether bad performances are due to aging, injuries or other factors. I care about how a player plays, but not so much the reasons for it.

summerblues wrote:If a player injures their back and cannot play well as a result, I will agree it has nothing to do with aging.  But if a player has back issues throughout their career and by early 30s they become unmanageable, then I think that is just one facet of them aging.

It is similar with Nadal's nees.  If they gave way when he was 22, I would not consider it aging but if he say lasts another couple of years and then the problems become bad enough to impact his game, I will chalk it down to aging too.

However, at the end of the day, I do not even care so much whether bad performances are due to aging, injuries or other factors.  I care about how a player plays, but not so much the reasons for it.

But there's the catch!
He has had patches of utter brilliance this year, played some fantastic matches. He has not won much and had more losses than ever before, that's the only difference.

I think a lot of his fans can't live with him not winning like he used to and then decide to mentally write him off as "aged" and beyond help.

I still enjoy him just like I did before: his presence on the court, the way he moves and hits the ball, 9/10 of ALL his shots are still better and more beautiful than anything anyone else can produce. Maybe even more than before as I know he won't be around for ever.
I can live with the occasional shank. To me, winning is not the main thing, although it probably is very important to him because of confidence which certainly affects the way he plays.

summerblues wrote:If a player injures their back and cannot play well as a result, I will agree it has nothing to do with aging.  But if a player has back issues throughout their career and by early 30s they become unmanageable, then I think that is just one facet of them aging.

It is similar with Nadal's nees.  If they gave way when he was 22, I would not consider it aging but if he say lasts another couple of years and then the problems become bad enough to impact his game, I will chalk it down to aging too.

However, at the end of the day, I do not even care so much whether bad performances are due to aging, injuries or other factors.  I care about how a player plays, but not so much the reasons for it.

 Well my turn to agree with NITB. the fact they cannot manage their back is one thing, ageing is simply another regardless if result wise it doesn;t make much of a difference.

Plenty of players suffered with back problems in their career and had to retire early...we never talked about ageing for them (Mecir, Rios, Leconte to name a few).

I woudl not make such a point if people were talking about Federer ageing. AT 32 he could still be able to play the best tennis of his life....unfortunately his back and not his old arteries prevent him to do so.

The question is whether his back issue can be fixed or not. (is it wear and tear of the vertebra disks or is it something else).

If it was the disk wearing then there would not be a coming back...or certainly not as easily. The fact he was completely stiff v Malisse in WImby 2012 but then suddenly felt fine shows it could be something else.

We don't know is the bottom line...but it certainly seems serious.

noleisthebest wrote:
But there's the catch!
He has had patches of utter brilliance this year, played some fantastic matches. He has not won much and had more losses than ever before, that's the only difference.

I think a lot of his fans can't live with him not winning like he used to and then decide to mentally write him off as "aged" and beyond help.

 The only difference? Come on now. The utter brilliance your talking about was something he could produce 4 out of 5 matches, and throughout a match. This year he sometimes plays a good set. And other times he only plays a few good games in a match. I don't know why you keep insisting tennis wise there's nothing wrong. He plays quite poor overall and that's why he's no longer winning and even hardly gets to finals or semi finals. If Federer plays great, he wins, simple as that.

I can easily live with the fact he's no longer winning, simply because he has won everything and has nothing left to prove. So why would i write him off when he still plays great? Why?

You're implying i only judge him on his results but that's totally untrue.

You are so funny GP for taking it all  personally!

We have a resident double agent Federer fan here under the name of Blueclay who seems to have washed his hands off poor aged Fed long time ago, and loves to come to tell us he told us so.
All we need to do is mark his words!

Anyway, if I err, I err on the emotional side in this case, so if I'm wrong, no pride wounds to suffer....but I hope I'm not, as (like I said) I still quite enjoy watching Fed despite everything.

No problem, but your words could have been a respond to my post so i reacted on that.

Anyway, his great shots are rare nowadays, so it's no fun for me. I know what he can do and i know what he does now. There's a huge gap between those 2

I did not see his match v Brands and surely he must have played poorly. I was however impressed by his shots when he played Debonis. The problem he faced that day was that the ball was coming back more often than expected and with spin and power.

A bit more confidence that day and he coudl have won more easily with a break in each.

Quite hard times for Fed, but all players will go through this period sooner or later.

Every real tennis fan must perceive that Fed got at the intersection of his career. It is absolutely clear that it came sooner for him than could it be and it is a real bad luck for tennis fans. And all due to his back. Who played tennis and had problems with back know what it means.
I do not know if Fed and his doctors/physios underestimated the weight of this problem or whether Fed just did not think that it can affect his game so much as we see at the moment.

I was astonished when I watched how Fed served out the match with F. Mayer in Hamburg. The last game he could hardly bend his back down and was so stiffed that he just could not walk naturally. Only by his brilliant hand he was able to finish that match.

The outlook does not look good for him. This injury has heavy subsequences on his game. He is not able practise as much as he should do, his move is limited in „extreme“ positions. That affects his timing, then his confidence just gone and on the top he switched to a new racket with a quite larger frame by 8inches. To be honest I did not believe that when I heard it. IMO that big frame is absurd for his game and can controversially speed up his retirement. I understand that in order to save his career and mitigate his back issue, that can be a solution, but for his game, his tennis mastership that is a disaster.

I saw his match with Brands. Fed could not base his game on his great serve and was not able to produce any pressure from his great advantage. That was striking.
Fed is not able to play a winner DTL from backhand side when standing on the BL. That is horrible fact. His confidence just gone, he did so many mistakes on the net which I have never seen. In addition his passive returns are by a margin slower with a new racket. That was not match that Brands played so well, but Fed was heavily under his par. If Fed faced to his left hand friend, then two bagels would be on the table.

So, these who think that this larger frame will help him just say, that Fed impressive attacking game must transform into another mode, which means that he is going to be a kind of „roadrunnish“ player. For me that is totally foolish idea, even to think about.

I see only hope for Fed to try everything possible to get his back better, then to return to his classic size of frame (the biggest 95 inches) and focus on surfaces and tourneys where he feels well and has a decent chance to start up his attacking game again. Please no clay sessions. Good luck for him.

I think the new racquet is not as bad for Fed as the results from this clay stretch may indicate, he played injured with it, so not the best time to judge it just yet.

He attacked a lot with it and did it quite well, just like with the old racquet.

To me, it's a miracle he played with a bad back in the first place, I don't know how he does it!

He said that Canada is in question now, so we'll probably have to wait and see how the racquet works on hard courts till Cincy, which I suppose is better than Canada as it is probably the fastest HC atm.

He may well go back to the old racquet if he is not happy with it after USO, but right now, until the back gets sorted it  is irrelevant what racquet he is going to use.

Obviously the old one suited his game perfectly, but it was a very heavy thing.
When he started with it, he probably could not envisage hundreds of high bouncing heavy balls coming back to his BH from the baseline like they seem to nowdays.

So, we just hope the back gets well, and then wait and see. The main thing, he is still hungry for tennis and is prepared to sacrifice a lot.
We have to respect that hugely.

noleisthebest wrote:I think the new racquet is not as bad for Fed as the results from this clay stretch may indicate, he played injured with it, so not the best time to judge it just yet.

He attacked a lot with it and did it quite well, just like with the old racquet.

To me, it's a miracle he played with a bad back in the first place, I don't know how he does it!

He said that Canada is in question now, so we'll probably have to wait and see how the racquet works on hard courts till Cincy, which I suppose is better than Canada as it is probably the fastest HC atm.

He may well go back to the old racquet if he is not happy with it after USO, but right now, until the back gets sorted it  is irrelevant what racquet he is going to use.

Obviously the old one suited his game perfectly, but it was a very heavy thing.
When he started with it, he probably could not envisage hundreds of high bouncing heavy balls coming back to his BH from the baseline like they seem to nowdays.

So, we just hope the back gets well, and then wait and see. The main thing, he is still hungry for tennis and is prepared to sacrifice a lot.
We have to respect that hugely.

Nitb, I do not want to say something sad about Fed, but if a miracle does not happen this year, then I can not see him playing in 2015 on tour.
Many players play with injuries, shoulders, elbows, back, groin, ankles. Actually there is no player over 25 who would not struggle with anything. Therefore I am very sceptical that so long term back issue is still getting worse and fans do not get anything about their treatment. There is something strange with that.

Yes, very heavy racket, SHBH, quite big twist of his hips when serving, so many FH volleys, overhead smashes, that all have an enormous impact to his back. But the switch to such a large frame of racket demolishes his attacking game, his killing instict. His serve and volleys dropped by 30-40% from his top level. Is that racket switch in order to prolong his career and grab some money and play 3rd rounds as maximum? No, fans do not deserve it and Fed alone should decide if playing this way is really worthy for him. For me, that is a devalvation of his great mastership without any doubts. Is he hungry for playing tennis when he does not get a sniff on GS and will play some 250 tourneys with a potential to succeed? Surely not.

I am convinced that his words about continuing his career for five years as he said recently are reasoned by his sponsors, his team, but not by himself. If he is coaxed to play on such a poor level for years, then there will come disgrace from his fans soon. That is nothing what he needs.

So, let us hope that his back will get better and he will be able to return to his game, which is based on great accuracy, great swing and great feel for the ball.

I am convinced that he is not able to stay on the top with 98 inches frame. IMO he should try to  play with a frame about 95inches, by 15-20 grams  lighter  frame, a bit less stiff  than his previous one. His recent matches showed that current Fed's belong to ordinary mortals and he has nothing  to outplay them as he used to show us for many years.

paulcz wrote: I am convinced that he is not able to stay on the top with 98 inches frame. IMO he should try to  play with a frame about 95inches, by 15-20 grams  lighter  frame, a bit less stiff  than his previous one. His recent matches showed that current Fed's belong to ordinary mortals and he has nothing  to outplay them as he used to show us for many years.

I am pretty sure the 98" racquet is lighter than the old one.
In the beginning, I also thought that 95" could have been the better solution, a compromise between the size and feel.
Still, he knows best what he is doing and has probably tried all kinds of weights, sizes and tensions before opting for the current one.
I would like to see Fed play with the new racquet healthy & confident, I think he'd be fine with it.
Whichever  racquet he ends up choosing, the main thing atm is the back. He may even need a longer break to recover and then try to come back. Very tricky with the current calendar.
Maybe play Cincy and USO and then skip Asian swing and turn up for Bercy and WTF.

Latest interview from Federer confirms his current injury struggles, recovery and how it is affecting his racquet change:


"I've had serious problems with the back; I had to get some anti-inflammatories last week in Hamburg due to the pain. I will have to do a lot of exercises and see how it all feels. My main priority now is to fix my back. I would love to be able to train at 100 percent. I'll have to see if the rehab is enough to let me play in Montreal. If it is, I'll go; if not, then it gives me another week.

A change like this is very important but I honestly can't tell right now due to my low level. It's hard to analyze anything. I still don't have even enough information to try and explain. I have no clue where I am right now with the racquet change."

What he says makes sense.

Looks like Matt Wilander and Marion also believe Fed can win another slam.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/mats-wilander/wilander-m-believer-federer-again-090539439.html

I am actually a bit more sceptical....though I still believe he can beat anyone on the day still....it's the doing it day in day out which I seriously question.

Federer answers that question in the interview he gave to Roddick just before this USO.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yIj1_Nb2UXg

It's interesting to hear him talk about his number 7 ranking as well as some doubts he had during the worst of his backache.

I think he wants another slam pretty badly, and if his back holds, he'll do it.

Amazing!!!! Federer says in that Roddick interview exactly what I have been saying about "him loving to win as opposed to his opponents hating to lose". Something I have said 30 times when comparing Federer v Murray...and now he says it exactly word for word.

I like the bit about containing his emotions in the locker room after that wimby 09 final...because of Roddick.

noleisthebest wrote:Federer answers that question in the interview he gave to Roddick just before this USO.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yIj1_Nb2UXg

It's interesting to hear him talk about his number 7 ranking as well as some doubts he had during the worst of his backache.

I think he wants another slam pretty badly, and if his back holds, he'll do it.

Great interview. Fed looks genuine in is answers as always. Thanks nitb