Federer's chance to return to top 4 if not top 3 soon.

Cooooo BN, that was a lot of typing to say you like Raonic, I think we gathered that already!
Don't get so worked up about some of us not liking him as much as you do, after all we are not all Canadians
I hope he does well, too, just that I prefer more stylish players...
As for physiology/morphology....a picture paints a thousand words:

I think morphology means demeanor - his shambling and slumping make him look ready to accept defeat.  Del Potro does the same thing, drives me nuts.  Sampras would often look quite simian and moronic too.

NITB, I know you like them long and lean and stubbled, with a bit of the bad boy about them, but that's not tennis that's eye candy.  I'm just interested to see where Milos can take his game given the tools he has available and the new coaching.  You have frequently waxed poetic about what Djokovic means to Serbia; Raonic has spearheaded some wonderful things in Canada and of course I celebrate that.

bluenose wrote:I think morphology means demeanor - his shambling and slumping make him look ready to accept defeat.  Del Potro does the same thing, drives me nuts.  Sampras would often look quite simian and moronic too.

Not demeanor, natural body shape. Like Gasquet has dropping shoulders, Rao has a round back with shoulders turned inside. If you look at Becker (who I did not lke) or McEnroe, they walked straight with open shoulders.

Physiognomy and morpohology might not be perfect sicences but they give clues.

This is a discussion we need to have with a physiotherapist or trainer.  I have often noticed that natural athletes have sloped shoulders and wondered why.  Of course this depends on the sport to some extent, but I have wondered whether this shape directs more power to the core.  Then I look at Federer with his perfect straightness and Gasquet with his slope, and think it doesn't work for tennis!  Maybe I just notice it because it seems counter-intuitive.

But you haven't made a point with your observation.  Maybe you don't like the shape, but does that have meaning?

BTW, physiognomy is not a science!

It does have meaning. You might as well say that psychology is not a science either. The fact is even unconsciously we gather information from people look and appearence. Whether we read those information correctly or not is a different matter. But I think a body fits a soul like a glove fits a hand.

Spiritual tennis!  I never would have guessed.

How can you equate physiognomy and psychology?  And how can you jump from posture to psychology?  You're doing some voodoo here.

No voodooing here. Psychology is based on archetypes which are known to be the base of our psyches. Very similar to our organs and bones being the base of our bodies.
 
We express the joy of our souls with a smile and sorrow with tears all over on earth. We even see dogs showing body expression when they do something they should not have done.
 
The notions of introvert and extravert often express themselves physically. To me it is no surprise that a player like Gasquet with a known record of chocking has dropping shoulders....likewise most champions in sport have strong cheekbones.  Even if there are exceptions, stats are certainly supporting this ancient greek knowledge.

Wow.  This I will have to investigate.  Pete Sampras remains my main argument!

Sampras looked also very determined, focused, selfish and did not have the fear, culpability we could read in Agassi's eyes.

Look if conds turns in Milos favour to the point where his serve becomes the biggest weapon ever and gives him a good chance on a few majors, you see his body shape change too. Balance is a constant changing state.

This is interesting: Federer has just accepted a wild card to Monte-Carlo. I wonder what he's planning.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/04/15/Monte-Carlo-Federer-Wild-Card.aspx

This is very good news! It means he feels confident physically. He'll probably play a couple of rounds to get a good feel of clay!

I'm a little suprised by this as it prevents (as did DC) his full clay training block he likes to get in each year. Especially when he said being able to have a full normal training block at the end of the year has been a key to how well he is playing. Also- nit being able to train last year between Miami and madrid was one of major issues that hurt his game.

That being said- the prevailing thought on his fan forum is that the baby is due and going to prob interrupt Madrid or rome. So maybe he wants to make sure he gets as many points he can on case he misses some tournaments.

The good news is clearly he feels his body can take it - esp after the grueling DC weekend!

Brilliant news about Fed playing Monte Carlo, what a start to clay season!

Yes the baby arrival is probably what triggered that early commitment to clay.

I have the feeling that Federer does not like the MC organisers. I think they gave Nadal too much attention and less care to Federer.