Fed playing with new Racquet!!

Well, adding the two clay tournies certainly stumped me, but now to the big news! Fed is in Hamburg and is practicing with what looks to be a Wilson Blade BLX...  My guess is the 93 version.
I've played with the Blade and it will give him more power, but it's going to be a transition..  Esp if it's the 98 version.   

What do you think?  We've all pushed for a racquet change but this close to the US Open?   any of these guys can switch and play with other racquets, but I think where it comes into play is in the crunch moments... Serving in pressure moments, facing break point-- the guys at top are creatures of habit... just a little difference in feeling or just thinking about how the new racquet will perform can screw things up............  

I hope it's a good move if he sticks with it.. Long term I am sure it will be.

Well that's a piece of news which though surprising, won't surprise many of us as we were talking about it just a few weeks ago. It was time he goes for a bigger frame. 3 spinch extra will give him more confidence, he should have done that a long time ago...(in 2007 when he started to add more spin to his FH).

Let's see what the specs are...but that certainly coud explain his playing Hamburg and Gstaad.

Some on his website are saying it's the 98 " ?   That would be surprising as that's quite a leap without much time to adjust...

I hope they repaint it to his recent traditional reds/whites...

I think he will be just fine.
How do we know he hasn't tried it already?  
I'll never forget that match against Simon (forgot where it was somewhere on hard courts earlier this year, not RG) the power and pace he was generating were unbelievable, I was barely able to see the ball!

98 inc is great. I think he is going to win the next 4 slams with that racquet. Half kidding...once you get used to bigger frame, it;s a huge improvement. I made the leap from 90inch to 98 now and really it makes your game so much more comfy> i really don;t understand why he did not move to that earlier.

I was having a discussion about it with Prostaff90 from v2 (one of their best posters there) and he did not want to make th emove....maybe now he will.

He,he, even my racquet s 98 sq in. Babolat, though. At least it's red and black

noleisthebest wrote:He,he, even my racquet s 98 sq in. Babolat, though. At least it's red and black

 You play with Nadal's racquet?

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:He,he, even my racquet s 98 sq in. Babolat, though. At least it's red and black

 You play with Nadal's racquet?

I know... 

I don't think Nadal's is the Pure Storm one, though. Plus it has GT written on top of the handle  
Maybe I should hide & carry it in the RF case I had during Wilson days!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:He,he, even my racquet s 98 sq in. Babolat, though. At least it's red and black

 You play with Nadal's racquet?

 

“Right now I just want to win a lot of matches, hopefully win a couple of tournaments and then sort of build confidence and go from there into the hard courts.”

Federer talked about Andy Murray’s historic triumph, and he did send to him a congratulatory text message.

“I didn’t see anything but I did send him a message. I was happy for him. I think he’s been very consistent for a long time. Last year, was a huge year for him winning the Olympics, making the Wimbledon final and winning the US Open. I thought after missing Paris to come back and win Wimbledon it was amazing.”
==============
Interesting bits....

Tenez wrote:“Right now I just want to win a lot of matches, hopefully win a couple of tournaments and then sort of build confidence and go from there into the hard courts.”

Federer talked about Andy Murray’s historic triumph, and he did send to him a congratulatory text message.

“I didn’t see anything but I did send him a message. I was happy for him. I think he’s been very consistent for a long time. Last year, was a huge year for him winning the Olympics, making the Wimbledon final and winning the US Open. I thought after missing Paris to come back and win Wimbledon it was amazing.”
==============
Interesting bits....

 Not an easy draw this week for Fed to build confidence-- unless he wins of course :-)

Brands put out a message on his twitter that it was dream come true to play the greatest player in history on Wednesday.... also I believe it's Brands bday. should be quite a match.

Shit, is Brands playing Nadal on Wednesday?!?

Tenez wrote:“Right now I just want to win a lot of matches, hopefully win a couple of tournaments and then sort of build confidence and go from there into the hard courts.”

Federer talked about Andy Murray’s historic triumph, and he did send to him a congratulatory text message.

“I didn’t see anything but I did send him a message. I was happy for him. I think he’s been very consistent for a long time. Last year, was a huge year for him winning the Olympics, making the Wimbledon final and winning the US Open. I thought after missing Paris to come back and win Wimbledon it was amazing.”
==============
Interesting bits....

I was right about the confidence!
I really hope the racquet change works for him, and that he regains the playing confidence, then we can have a great rest of the season, Fed is still too good and too young to be written off

Is Brands teh german guy who was better than Nadal on clay? ...until his human fitness dropped?

Yes, that's him.

Nadal started poorly, that happens with many top stars from time to time.

Who won the first set of Djokovic Nadal?

I assume then Djokovic was too tired for the first set, unlike Brands.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal started poorly, that happens with many top stars from time to time.

 It's not very nice not to recognise the talent of a gutsy player like Brands. he made the game interesting by sending Nadal in all corners. Nadal won the french open 8th times just retrieving balls in all 4 corners. Nadal only plays better when his opponents tire. Everybody knows that...even Nadal. That is why he needs extra time between points.

Brands is a better player than Nadal on clay, like many others....They simply are not as fit as Nadal hence why most fail over the distance.

As a Nadal fan Amri, you should recognise that simple fact....it would show at least that you have a bit of understanding about the game.

Tenez wrote: you should recognise that simple fact....it would show at least that you have a bit of understanding about the game.

What? That everyone is better than Nadal on clay? LOL.

How did Djokovic lose the first set against Nadal then? Was he also tired?

Brands played well in the first set, but Nadal was all over the place- I remember on break point he was uncharacteristically shanking the ball into the stands.

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Brands played well in the first set, but Nadal was all over the place- I remember on break point he was uncharacteristically shanking the ball into the stands.

 Exactly....how can you shank a ball hit 5m behind the baseline when the ball slows down so much? It's not like Fed shanking due to taking the ball early on dodgy bounces with a SHBH, is it?

He was hsnaking cause Brands was hitting a pacy ball. And Nadal doesn't like a flat pacy ball...that's why he struggles on fresh grass or fast HC (like never winning a seed at the USO until they added enough sand to bog down a tank).

Well as far as I can remember the shank was on a relatively weak defence from Brands, Nadal looked really edgy and stepped up, only to miss horrifically.
I'm not denying Brands played a good set, but it's pretty clear that Nadal looked very edgy... not that's it's an excuse, but it's a sense of perspective.

Why would King of clay look edgy against an anonymous player?

To be quite frank, this whole analysis from you Tenez to try and twist one set against Brands as conclusive proof that Nadal is inferior to most players on clay is even pretty poor and shocking by your standards. I notice you have not yet replied to my response to your 'Djokovic's best surface against Nadal is clay' line- and that's not surprising either.

1/ Firstly it's a statistical rarity. In the vast majority of matches Nadal has played on clay, Nadal has not only won the first set, but he has always broken before his opponent. Using this statistical rarity against Brands is cherry-picking of the highest order.

2/ The analysis of the game itself is ridiculous. It's clear that Nadal looked edgy, but no doubt Brands played very well. This is entirely possible, there are many top players who have bad days at the office. Your specific sentiment that Nadal was shanking because of Brands's pace only, is ridiculous. Federer generates a lot of pace, probably more than Brands could. Out of the 15 matches Federer has played against Nadal on clay, Nadal has won the first set 11 times. How did Nadal not shank those first sets away?

3/ Nadal has sometimes played his best tennis in the first set. In his two biggest matches on clay in the past two years, Nadal vs Djokovic 2012 and 2013; Nadal has not only won the first set both times but also broken first each time as well. It makes a mockery of your attempt to make the Brands match representative of something it most definitely isn't.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote: you should recognise that simple fact....it would show at least that you have a bit of understanding about the game.

What? That everyone is better than Nadal on clay? LOL.

How did Djokovic lose the first set against Nadal then? Was he also tired?

Brands played well in the first set, but Nadal was all over the place- I remember on break point he was uncharacteristically shanking the ball into the stands.

I am really curious to know do you comprehend the enormous role fitness plays in Nadal's game, and also how unnatural that fitness appears to be?
It's one thing to play a counter-punching game and win by guile, but completely the other to do it by using brutal physicality which on top of it all looks nothing short of dodgy.

Watch the first 3 games of Djokovic-Nadal French Open 2012 perhaps, that should be a good headstart as to how Nadal operates. As for Nadal just being defensive... he hit more winners than Djokovic in the semi this year.

Anyway let's hope Tenez can reply to my post, and doesn't use your post as a diversion to avoid that.

It's not one set....it's 2 sets, nearly 2 sets, ....but no different than v PHM a few years back, or Gulbis, Klizan, Andujar, Isner, Almagro, Federer, Djoko, etc...How many times has he "come back" thanks to the opposition tiring?

Today I played a "club level" Nadal. The guy is super fit running everything down...18 years younger...I made him run to exhaustion under the noon sun....61 75...I was getting really tired too though he was doing all the running. But at teh end his heavy topspin got a few shanks too...Pure delight.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Watch the first 3 games of Djokovic-Nadal French Open 2012 perhaps, that should be a good headstart as to how Nadal operates. As for Nadal just being defensive... he hit more winners than Djokovic in the semi this year.

Anyway let's hope Tenez can reply to my post, and doesn't use your post as a diversion to avoid that.

I think you don't understand what he is saying, that's the problem.
No offence, but your questions seem to prove it every time.
Try and observe a match from the moment the ball hits the racquet, not from the post-match stats.
Tenez is a great person to learn from.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Watch the first 3 games of Djokovic-Nadal French Open 2012 perhaps, that should be a good headstart as to how Nadal operates. As for Nadal just being defensive... he hit more winners than Djokovic in the semi this year.

Anyway let's hope Tenez can reply to my post, and doesn't use your post as a diversion to avoid that.

 Told you....winners doesn't mean anything nowadays. Murray was more passive than Djoko at Wimbledon and yet hit more winners than Djoko.

The FO semi was lost by Djoko down to teh most stupid UE again not thanks to Nadal's winners.

Tenez wrote:It's not one set....it's 2 sets, nearly 2 sets, ....but no different than v PHM a few years back, or Gulbis, Klizan, Andujar, Isner, Almagro, Federer, Djoko, etc...How many times has he "come back" thanks to the opposition tiring?

Today I play a "club level" Nadal. The guy super fit running everything down...18 years younger...I made him run to exhaustion under the noon sun....61 75...I was getting really tired too though he was doing all the running. But at teh end his heavy topspin got a few shanks too...Pure delight.

It's not one set but nearly two sets? I think that makes it pretty much one set which Brands won then. That's got to be the worst response I've seen.
PHM? Can't even remember him taking a set against Nadal?
Klizan was similar to Brands, he played well while Nadal was very edgy from the start... it's not always that you come to a tournament and play you best from the start... sometimes you need time to settle in. Nadal needed 2 rounds.
Isner has a huge serve, he can be almost unbeatable when serving well, especially in a TB.
Almagro... that's more mental, he's mentally very poor.
Federer... didn't I just provide the stats- Nadal has won the first set 11/15 they have played on clay. I believe Nadal has only ever beaten Federer twice after losing the first set on clay.
Djokovic... out of 13 times Nadal has ever beaten Djokovic on clay, Nadal has only ever come back once from a set down. This is almost so bad it's embarrassing.

And you didn't even respond to my points, dear me.

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez is a great person to learn from.

Oh great, then let's see him respond to my post @11:27, and also my response on his 'Djokovic's best surface against Nadal is clay line' yesterday.

It's hard to respond to some of your questions because they all come from a false premise that Nadal does not play defensive tennis.

I think I responded already but you don't want to see it.

It's one all on clay this year....and ridiculously close to be 2/o Djoko on clay.

Now you want me to argue that Nadal is better on clay thanks to a stupid missed smash? Actually he did not even missed the smash...he just happened to touch the net in the process.

So based on that you conclude that Nadal is better on clay? What do yuo really want me argue about here?

noleisthebest wrote:It's hard to respond to some of your questions because they all come from a false premise that Nadal does not play defensive tennis.

My earlier post to Tenez (11:27) had nothing to do with that, I only mentioned that after that post as a response to you.
The main concern I had with Tenez's post is that it's a statistical rarity (Nadal losing the first set, or even being broken first).

Tenez wrote:I think I responded already but you don't want to see it.

It's one all on clay this year....and ridiculously close to be 2/o Djoko on clay.

Now you want me to argue that Nadal is better on clay thanks to a stupid missed smash? Actually he did not even missed the smash...he just happened to touch the net in the process.

So based on that you conclude that Nadal is better on clay? What do yuo really want me argue about here?

No, I'm basing the fact Nadal is better than Djokovic on clay on the fact:
a) Nadal has won 8 RG's compared to 0 from Djokovic.
b) Their overall H2H is 13-3 to Nadal on clay.
c) In the past two years it is 4-1 to Nadal.

How about that for concluding Nadal is better on clay than Djokovic?

Edit: And this was not even the issue we were discussing earlier. You were trying to tow the line that Djokovic's best surface against Nadal is clay, while I argued it was hard courts. It's the most nonsensical and ludicrous thing I've heard- even for you.

Tenez wrote:

Today I played a "club level" Nadal. The guy is super fit running everything down...18 years younger...I made him run to exhaustion under the noon sun....61 75...I was getting really tired too though he was doing all the running. But at teh end his heavy topspin got a few shanks too...Pure delight.

Well done T, that must have felt great  

Yes because the guy has a big ego and thinks a lot of his crap game.

Tenez wrote:Yes because the guy has a big ego and thinks a lot of his crap game.

That makes it even sweeter  
So many of those around, unfortunately, don't know what's worse, watching them or listening to them...they are like a new species unable to step into the court!
I had to endure a pair the other day playing on the court next to me...they were painful!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yes because the guy has a big ego and thinks a lot of his crap game.

That makes it even sweeter  
So many of those around, unfortunately, don't know what's worse, watching them or listening to them...they are like a new species unable to step into the court!

As long as they are humble it's fine  

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:I think I responded already but you don't want to see it.

It's one all on clay this year....and ridiculously close to be 2/o Djoko on clay.

Now you want me to argue that Nadal is better on clay thanks to a stupid missed smash? Actually he did not even missed the smash...he just happened to touch the net in the process.

So based on that you conclude that Nadal is better on clay? What do yuo really want me argue about here?

No, I'm basing the fact Nadal is better than Djokovic on clay on the fact:
a) Nadal has won 8 RG's compared to 0 from Djokovic.
b) Their overall H2H is 13-3 to Nadal on clay.
c) In the past two years it is 4-1 to Nadal.

How about that for concluding Nadal is better on clay than Djokovic?

Edit: And this was not even the issue we were discussing earlier. You were trying to tow the line that Djokovic's best surface against Nadal is clay, while I argued it was hard courts. It's the most nonsensical and ludicrous thing I've heard- even for you.

The record is one thing....being better is another matter. Having a year difference makes a whole difference record wise. It helps build a record. But again this year I did not see Nadal play better than Djoko....not when they were facing each other. I know one has 8 FO the other none. I can count but it doesn;t give the whole picture.

Gay and Powell run fast...very fast...are they really better than others? Not sure...you see.

I'm not entirely sure a year difference can count for 8 FO's Tenez, unless they manage to fit in 8 FOs in a year.

And Djokovic can last as long if not longer than Nadal (as you have said before yourself), he has incredible stamina (AO 2012?) as well as a more energy efficient game compared to Nadal.
I have also showed how out of the 13 times Nadal has won, he's only had to come back from a set down once. In both FO 2012 and FO 2013 Nadal has broken first each time and won the first set each time.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yes because the guy has a big ego and thinks a lot of his crap game.

That makes it even sweeter  
So many of those around, unfortunately, don't know what's worse, watching them or listening to them...they are like a new species unable to step into the court!

As long as they are humble it's fine  

The problem is, they are totally ignorant , not even aware there's anything wrong with their tennis.
OK, maybe I am harsh and too critical, but it annoys me to see young people play like that.
There is a 70+ old guy who kills them all with his FH slice followed by the most cheeky glint in his eye!

noleisthebest wrote:

The problem is, they are totally ignorant , not even aware there's anything wrong with their tennis.

Or maybe you're the one getting your opinion confused with what everyone else should follow?
Club level players can play any type of tennis they want.

Julia Santamaria wrote:I'm not entirely sure a year difference can count for 8 FO's Tenez, unless they manage to fit in 8 FOs in a year.

And Djokovic can last as long if not longer than Nadal (as you have said before yourself), he has incredible stamina (AO 2012?) as well as a more energy efficient game compared to Nadal.
I have also showed how out of the 13 times Nadal has won, he's only had to come back from a set down once. In both FO 2012 and FO 2013 Nadal has broken first each time and won the first set each time.

OK then, since you said you played the other day: what do you think goes through Nadal's brain when he starts a match?
What is his gameplan?
With what weapons does he beat the opposition?

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

The problem is, they are totally ignorant , not even aware there's anything wrong with their tennis.

Or maybe you're the one getting your opinion confused with what everyone else should follow?
Club level players can play any type of tennis they want.

You don't get it, again!
Why play the bland, unimaginative tennis on a club level?
Where's the thrill and fun in that?

Same when watching tennis, do we all get out of bed at 3 AM to watch Granollers vs Andreev?
If not, why not?

It's got nothing to do with following my or anyone else's opinion, just the most obvious and natural choice.
It's like me saying it's better to spend summer holiday locked in the house with curtains drawn across windows then lying on a beach listening to seagulls and waves....

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:I'm not entirely sure a year difference can count for 8 FO's Tenez, unless they manage to fit in 8 FOs in a year.

And Djokovic can last as long if not longer than Nadal (as you have said before yourself), he has incredible stamina (AO 2012?) as well as a more energy efficient game compared to Nadal.
I have also showed how out of the 13 times Nadal has won, he's only had to come back from a set down once. In both FO 2012 and FO 2013 Nadal has broken first each time and won the first set each time.

OK then, since you said you played the other day: what do you think goes through Nadal's brain when he starts a match?
What is his gameplan?
With what weapons does he beat the opposition?

K I can write a thread on that- frankly the response to this question deserves a thread of its own.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

The problem is, they are totally ignorant , not even aware there's anything wrong with their tennis.

Or maybe you're the one getting your opinion confused with what everyone else should follow?
Club level players can play any type of tennis they want.

You don't get it, again!
Why play the bland, unimaginative tennis on a club level?

What you perceive to be bland and unimaginative... may not appear that way to others.

truffin1 wrote:Well, adding the two clay tournies certainly stumped me, but now to the big news! Fed is in Hamburg and is practicing with what looks to be a Wilson Blade BLX...  My guess is the 93 version.
I've played with the Blade and it will give him more power, but it's going to be a transition..  Esp if it's the 98 version.   

What do you think?  We've all pushed for a racquet change but this close to the US Open?   any of these guys can switch and play with other racquets, but I think where it comes into play is in the crunch moments... Serving in pressure moments, facing break point-- the guys at top are creatures of habit... just a little difference in feeling or just thinking about how the new racquet will perform can screw things up............  

I hope it's a good move if he sticks with it.. Long term I am sure it will be.

He needs to try something, he is being overpowerd by the other top guys. He needs to compensate for his slower speed and reflexes and his less than ideal footwork with something. We'll see if it works. He needs a boost from some place.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Watch the first 3 games of Djokovic-Nadal French Open 2012 perhaps, that should be a good headstart as to how Nadal operates. As for Nadal just being defensive... he hit more winners than Djokovic in the semi this year.

Anyway let's hope Tenez can reply to my post, and doesn't use your post as a diversion to avoid that.

I think you don't understand what he is saying, that's the problem.
No offence, but your questions seem to prove it every time.
Try and observe a match from the moment the ball hits the racquet, not from the post-match stats.
Tenez is a great person to learn from.

In which subject? Not tennis that is for sure.  Does he play a mean chess or checkers game that you know about?