PDA

View Full Version : Fed has the world record for mishits


Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 07:57 AM
Watching todays FO final, I have never seen so many framed shots and mishits in my life. I think Roger made the world record today for framed shots.

I think its because the Kfactor is so thin that it causes so many mishits....even for Roger.

TheSnowMan
06-10-2007, 08:00 AM
It's not his racket, it's roger.

Lloyd Barcenilla
06-10-2007, 08:10 AM
I agree with ^^^ The snowman, Wouldn't it happen every match if it was the racket?

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 10:31 AM
I agree with ^^^ The snowman, Wouldn't it happen every match if it was the racket?

It kinda does...but he also hits a crapload of winners. He probably has the world record for winners as well as the world record for framed shots.

Tennis_Nickmo
06-10-2007, 10:38 AM
I'd be inclined to agree with the ridiculous amount of mishits, but I think it was probably Nadal's spin combined with some dodgey bounces, rather than the racket.

samster
06-10-2007, 10:42 AM
it's the erratic bounce on red clay coupled with massive topspin from Nadal.

vsbabolat
06-10-2007, 11:50 AM
I always thought it was Bjorn Borg that had the world record for mishits.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 12:03 PM
I'd be inclined to agree with the ridiculous amount of mishits, but I think it was probably Nadal's spin combined with some dodgey bounces, rather than the racket.


What about the fact that the the K90 has one of the smallest sweet spots on the market?

sureshs
06-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Should Federer switch to a 95 ?

slice bh compliment
06-10-2007, 12:15 PM
...I think its because the Kfactor is so thin that it causes so many mishits....even for Roger.

I would think that a thicker frame would cause more mis-hits. Maybe the small head is causing it? Maybe just the act of taking a sweeping upward swing in an effort to take a kicking ball early...on an uneven surface, sure. But I cannot see blaming it on the thinness of a frame. Sorrymate.

pow
06-10-2007, 01:02 PM
The mishits are caused by Nadal's topspin on the clay causing really high bounces that get out of a player's norm strike and comfort zone.

jamumafa
06-10-2007, 01:06 PM
You want the world record for mishits? Mate, come down my club on Sunday morning tennis.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 02:13 PM
I would think that a thicker frame would cause more mis-hits. Maybe the small head is causing it? Maybe just the act of taking a sweeping upward swing in an effort to take a kicking ball early...on an uneven surface, sure. But I cannot see blaming it on the thinness of a frame. Sorrymate.

My experience with the K90 is that if you hit the ball right then its a thing of beauty. But if you are even slightly off then you are gonna frame the ball.

nickb
06-10-2007, 04:08 PM
What about the fact that the the K90 has one of the smallest sweet spots on the market?

You think Fed has a problem with the sweetspot.....dont think so.

aznspongehead
06-10-2007, 04:31 PM
Yeah ok, so federer should obviously switch to the Gamma big bubba... lets see if he can win wimbledon with that... lol.

jackcrawford
06-10-2007, 04:43 PM
My experience with the K90 is that if you hit the ball right then its a thing of beauty. But if you are even slightly off then you are gonna frame the ball.
Nadal and Federer are in a class by themselves - Federer can beat the others like Davydenko when he has inferior equipment, but not Rafa. He might not win anyway at RG with a 95, but he'd have 1 chance in 10 instead of 1 in a 1,000.

vinnier6
06-10-2007, 04:46 PM
its not like he is using the k90 anyway....so blaming it on a racquet he isnt using to begin with is a waist of time....

TennezSport
06-10-2007, 05:52 PM
If you look at the difference in size of a 90 and 95 Sq in racquet, the difference is miniscule. It's not the racquet, it's Fed stubbornly trying to take the ball on the rise, with the heavy TS from Rafa and bad bounces on clay. Notice how he does not have so many mishits on other surfaces.

It was a bad match from both players today with more UEs than winners from both. Fed just played a bad match today and it was NOT Rafa's doing. 17 break point opportunities, converts on 1, Rafa saves 3 and Fed squandered 14. It could have been straight sets for Fed had he completed only half of his opportunities.

Very sad play.

TennezSport :cool:

Richie Rich
06-10-2007, 05:55 PM
i think i'll give fed the benefit of the doubt on his equipment choices and not recommend anything else.

khd287
06-10-2007, 06:07 PM
It's deff not his equipment
You have to give credit to Nadal as well...the amount of spin he puts on the ball is unbelievable.
Have someone at the net feeding the ball with extreme topspin and I guarantee you won't be able to hit it clean even with a Gamma Big Bubba
Roger won 10 Grand slams with a 90
I dont think its his equipment

Leave Federer and his gear alone... :mad:

kirbster123
06-10-2007, 06:14 PM
yea, also on clay the ball is a less consistent than hard, its a bit different.

BreakPoint
06-10-2007, 06:29 PM
You want the world record for mishits? Mate, come down my club on Sunday morning tennis.
Exactly! I'd say that 2.5 player with the 135 sq. in. Big Bubba probably has the world record for mishits, and not even on clay and not even playing aginst Nadal! :-o

Conclusion? It's NOT the racquet!

BreakPoint
06-10-2007, 06:36 PM
My experience with the K90 is that if you hit the ball right then its a thing of beauty. But if you are even slightly off then you are gonna frame the ball.
It's simple then. Just don't be slightly off. ;)

In any case, what you said above is pretty much true of ANY racquet since the sweetspot on ALL racquets is a point and NOT an area.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 06:45 PM
It's simple then. Just don't be slightly off. ;)

In any case, what you said above is pretty much true of ANY racquet since the sweetspot on ALL racquets is a point and NOT an area.

But some points are bigger than others.

Mr. Sean
06-10-2007, 07:05 PM
Should Federer switch to a 95 ?

I dont know about this. Some say that this would be bad for Fed because his game relies heavily on control. He paints the lines and relies heavily on precision on each shot just a couple of centimeters off and he would lose a ton a points. A 95 would be good because he might shank less shots but he would definitely be missing some shots wide or long. Also a racket wont help his mental game which he clearly had problems with at RG. I would love to see him play with a 95 though. See how much more power his shots would have.

drakulie
06-10-2007, 08:10 PM
My experience with the K90 is that if you hit the ball right then its a thing of beauty. But if you are even slightly off then you are gonna frame the ball.

I guess YOU were slightly off too much then. Keep your eye on the ball.

Fedace
06-10-2007, 08:14 PM
I guess YOU were slightly off too much then. Keep your eye on the ball.

If world #1 like roger mishits the ball so often with K90, what chance do we have ? Maybe K90 should just be discontinued, it is just too small and useless..:sad:

khd287
06-10-2007, 09:19 PM
Again, its not the racquet...

lilxjohnyy
06-10-2007, 09:27 PM
its def not racket... its foot movement

BreakPoint
06-10-2007, 10:02 PM
If world #1 like roger mishits the ball so often with K90, what chance do we have ? Maybe K90 should just be discontinued, it is just too small and useless..:sad:
Us playing with the K90 against Nadal at Roland Garros? No chance! :-(

Us playing with the K90 against a typical 4.5 player on hardcourts? We'd crush them! :D

drakulie
06-10-2007, 11:06 PM
If world #1 like roger mishits the ball so often with K90, what chance do we have ? Maybe K90 should just be discontinued, it is just too small and useless..:sad:

we don't play against nadal. Attila plays in a below 3.0 league.

SoBad
06-10-2007, 11:14 PM
Watching todays FO final, I have never seen so many framed shots and mishits in my life. I think Roger made the world record today for framed shots.

I think its because the Kfactor is so thin that it causes so many mishits....even for Roger.

If seriously, Nadal is just being wicked with his groundies. He's got more on them now than last year. I noticed it earlier in the tournament -like Djokovic would come in behind a good approadh, and the pass from Nadal just looked so widcked even coming straight at Djokovic ('s feet). Nadal should get some credit for winning the FO I think...

sureshs
06-11-2007, 08:47 AM
I dont know about this. Some say that this would be bad for Fed because his game relies heavily on control. He paints the lines and relies heavily on precision on each shot just a couple of centimeters off and he would lose a ton a points. A 95 would be good because he might shank less shots but he would definitely be missing some shots wide or long. Also a racket wont help his mental game which he clearly had problems with at RG. I would love to see him play with a 95 though. See how much more power his shots would have.

I would now agree with you that a 95 won't make any difference to Federer against Nadal, unlike what I used to believe before. Nadal is far superior to Federer and Federer's backhand will not stand up to the attack, no matter what. The scores might be closer, but he would lose anyway.

grizzly4life
06-12-2007, 10:39 PM
You think Fed has a problem with the sweetspot.....dont think so.

no, mishits would have nothing to do with the sweet spot..... LOL

slice bh compliment
06-12-2007, 10:45 PM
no, mishits would have nothing to do with the sweet spot..... LOL

Not really sure what you mean, but, it's funny, my wife keeps saying that.

grizzly4life
06-12-2007, 11:08 PM
Not really sure what you mean, but, it's funny, my wife keeps saying that.

i'm agreeing with you..... seems federer has huge problem with the sweet spot vs. nadal.... and i'm not sure it's just high bouncing balls. i think some of it is that he gets very tense and then a tiny racquet/small sweet spot is no good.

what disappoints me about roger is this.... tiger woods would do anything i.e. completely restructure his game, to win the FO if he was a golfer. roger seems happy doing this "i'm better than you" game. tiger adapts such that tons of guys are outdriving him (correct expression?? as he's often hitting 2 or 3 iron off tee) but he keeps it in the fairway. he doesn't pull the "i'm bigger and better than you". roger's attitude is more of a "phil mickelson" (even "greg norman" thing), although obviously he's had way more success than them (of course tennis is more prone to dominant winners than golf)

Attila the tennis Bum
06-13-2007, 06:32 AM
If world #1 like roger mishits the ball so often with K90, what chance do we have ? .:sad:

Maybe Fed should take some advice from Pete Sampras.

"I regret that I never tried out a racquet with a bigger head at Roland Garros," he added.

"My racquet was almost like one of the old wooden ones - it was heavy and stiff. It took a lot of effort to make the ball move on clay.

"But I was really used to it and I never dared (change). I was too stubborn. I was scared of losing control, that it would take me too long to master it." ...Pete Sampras http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4059691.stm

nickb
06-13-2007, 06:52 AM
no, mishits would have nothing to do with the sweet spot..... LOL

Attilla the bum mentioned that the sweetspot on the k90 was tiny and was trying to say that fed cant find it.....LOL

nickb
06-13-2007, 07:36 AM
I now have the price logo next to my name...happy now?

Also why dont you ring Federer and tell him your amazing ideas involving bigger headsizes and how it will help him: maybe you could reccomend some frames like the Pure Drive or even an OS....

TennezSport
06-13-2007, 07:50 AM
If I may interject here....

The difference in the sweetspot on a 90 to a 100 Sq in racquet is miniscule. Even though you have a 10 sq in diffence in the racquet, it's not that much difference in the sweetspot. My question is how does the guy who watches the ball better anyone have so many mishits??? I know the bad bounces on clay can cause mis-timing but.....

With regard to the 1hbh, there is no difference in power if both are struck correctly. A 1hbh can be hit just as hard as a 2hbh and has more versitility. Where the 2hbh is stronger is in disquise, as you can hold the shot a split second longer to hide direction. It wasn't Feds BH that let him down, it was the serve and FH.

The issue with Nadal is the disquise and his speed on clay where he has time. He can stand further back and track the ball to give him the best shot selection. Fed has to move him out of that comfort zone and jerk him all over the court like Murray did at the AO. Fed is just too stubborn to do that and tries to beat Nadal at his own game.

Fed had the right strategy because he got to 17 break points. He also had lots of opportunities where Nadal was off balance or out of the point, but Fed did NOT execute. I think that's why he was so upset. Had he completed half of his opportunities, it would have been straight sets for Fed.

Just my opinion from observations, don't shoot me ;)

TennezSport :cool:

Attila the tennis Bum
06-13-2007, 08:20 AM
If I may interject here....

The difference in the sweetspot on a 90 to a 100 Sq in racquet is miniscule. Even though you have a 10 sq in diffence in the racquet, it's not that much difference in the sweetspot.

Its not only the sweet spot. A bigger frame means you have more string. Logically then you have less framed shots. You also have more power which is what fed needs against Nadal on clay.

With regard to the 1hbh, there is no difference in power if both are struck correctly.

This is incorrect. I have already quoted many experts who acknowledge that the advantage of a two hander is power and returning high balls. Scroll back.

The issue with Nadal is the disquise and his speed on clay where he has time.

Incorrect. Even Roger Federe himself acknowledged that the problem was high topspins to his backhand. Thats why he trained that exact stroke for two weeks with a French lefty junior with monster topspin.

Fed had the right strategy because he got to 17 break points.

After a record of 1-6 on clay I thinks its about time we acknowledge that Roger Federer has been using the wrong strategy.

Just my opinion from observations, don't shoot me ;)

Never would. Very good points! and quite polite. Thanks for the input.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-13-2007, 08:23 AM
I now have the price logo next to my name...happy now?

Also why dont you ring Federer and tell him your amazing ideas involving bigger headsizes.

Yes!!! At least I finally have been able to convince you of something!

As far as ringing Federer about a bigger headsize...why should I? Pete Sampras has already told him that. I think he should stop being so stubborn and listen to Pete.

nickb
06-13-2007, 08:29 AM
Its not only the sweet spot. A bigger frame means you have more string. Logically then you have less framed shots. You also have more power which is what fed needs against Nadal on clay.



This is incorrect. I have already quoted many experts who acknowledge that the advantage of a two hander is power and returning high balls. Scroll back.



Incorrect. Even Roger Federe himself acknowledged that the problem was high topspins to his backhand. Thats why he trained that exact stroke for two weeks with a French lefty junior with monster topspin.



After a record of 1-6 on clay I thinks its about time we acknowledge that Roger Federer has been using the wrong strategy.



Never would. Very good points! and quite polite. Thanks for the input.

You say he has very good points yet say they are all incorrect:confused:

All the points he made were spot on but you dont seem to be very good at accepting the truth....

bluegrasser
06-13-2007, 08:33 AM
The difference between a 90' & 100' is huge, grant it if you're a good player hitting at least five times weekly a 90 might be ok. I find the 90 lacking in those out of position shots or high top to the bkhnd side. I think Fed would mishit less with even a 95, but having said that, the rest of his game might suffer. I'm sure it comes into his mind, especially on Clay, but he probably figures the +'s outweigh the -'s.

TennezSport
06-13-2007, 09:37 AM
Its not only the sweet spot. A bigger frame means you have more string. Logically then you have less framed shots. You also have more power which is what fed needs against Nadal on clay.

This is a misconception with string as the angle of deflection can cause more errors in larger racquets. Where the larger racquet helps is in the swing path and strike zone as it's gives a larger margin for errors, but still must be hit near the sweet spot.

This is incorrect. I have already quoted many experts who acknowledge that the advantage of a two hander is power and returning high balls. Scroll back.

Another misconception as it is not power that is greater, but control. At Vic Braden's academy we learned that any ball hit at shoulder height or above will lose power due to the loss in the kinetic chain, no matter how many hands are on the racquet. A 1hbh TS or slice shot can be hit very hard but the accuracy goes down.

Incorrect. Even Roger Federer himself acknowledged that the problem was high topspins to his backhand. Thats why he trained that exact stroke for two weeks with a French lefty junior with monster topspin.

Yes, Federer does have trouble because he is trying to hit hard TS backhands, when he would have better results with mixing slice with TS shots on that side; again control and accuracy are diminished with 1hbh TS shots.

After a record of 1-6 on clay I thinks its about time we acknowledge that Roger Federer has been using the wrong strategy.

Well, you don't get 17 break point opportunities against one of the best clay courters on his best surface with the WRONG strategy. Fed just did not execute.

TennezSport :cool:

NoBadMojo
06-13-2007, 09:52 AM
If I may interject here....

The difference in the sweetspot on a 90 to a 100 Sq in racquet is miniscule. Even though you have a 10 sq in diffence in the racquet, it's not that much difference in the sweetspot. My question is how does the guy who watches the ball better anyone have so many mishits??? I know the bad bounces on clay can cause mis-timing but.....

** You're kiding right? The difference in the sweetzone of a 90 vs a 100 is often/usually enormous. Also, I would be willing to bet the courts at the FO were pristine and there really werent very many bad bounces at all..plus the weather was perfect for tennis on the day of the finals..it wasnt windy. Fed struggles even more with misshits in the wind (more than others because his racquets have such a small sweetzone)

With regard to the 1hbh, there is no difference in power if both are struck correctly. A 1hbh can be hit just as hard as a 2hbh and has more versitility. Where the 2hbh is stronger is in disquise, as you can hold the shot a split second longer to hide direction. It wasn't Feds BH that let him down, it was the serve and FH.

** Sure there is. two handers have a much easier time getting power out of a two hander on balls hit up high..it was Feds backhand that let him down, and it was clear that Nadal knew it would and thats why he fed Fed ;) an endless array of balls to the Fed backhand..it was the same pattern over and over again...enough balls to the Fed BH to break it down and either get an error, hit a winner, or open up the court and make Fed run wide for a forehand, which caused fed to hit a lot of errors off the FH wing and in general start forcing his FH


Fed had the right strategy because he got to 17 break points. He also had lots of opportunities where Nadal was off balance or out of the point, but Fed did NOT execute. I think that's why he was so upset. Had he completed half of his opportunities, it would have been straight sets for Fed.

** you are always going to get more breakpoints on clay. I dont think Fed felt he was ever really in the match. he was controlled by Nadal, who had no trouble executing his game plan

Just my opinion from observations, don't shoot me ;)

TennezSport :cool:

as above please

tlm
06-13-2007, 10:13 AM
Nadal owns fed on clay, i would think that may be obvious by now.Every year it is the same thing over+over again fed should have sliced more, he should come to the net more+ on + on.

Do you guys really think you know more of what fed should do to win than fed+ the coaches he has had Know? Nadal is a great clay court player+ taking 3 sets off him is next to impossible.If fed who has been the best player for the last 3 years cant do it that should prove something.

Everyone has a lot of unforced errors against nadal, his high jumping ball + unbelievable defence is the reason, not a big surprise here.Just get over it fed is not as good as nadal on clay period!!!!!!

Richard Pur
06-13-2007, 10:24 AM
Should Federer switch to a 95 ?

Didn't Sampras say that he wished he would have switched to a larger headed racquet for the French Open and that it may have given him a better chance at winning the FO? Someone help me out here. Anyone ever hear that?

More forgiveness in the racquet could make a difference, with the less than perfect bounces on clay.

NoBadMojo
06-13-2007, 10:28 AM
Nadal owns fed on clay, i would think that may be obvious by now.Every year it is the same thing over+over again fed should have sliced more, he should come to the net more+ on + on.

Do you guys really think you know more of what fed should do to win than fed+ the coaches he has had Know? Nadal is a great clay court player+ taking 3 sets off him is next to impossible.If fed who has been the best player for the last 3 years cant do it that should prove something.

Everyone has a lot of unforced errors against nadal, his high jumping ball + unbelievable defence is the reason, not a big surprise here.Just get over it fed is not as good as nadal on clay period!!!!!!

I would agree with this. fed is obviously one of the best of all time, but he just isnt as good as nadal on the dirt, and now i think isnt better than Nadal on any higher bounding surface

Why people would assume that when Fed loses to Nadal it is because he didnt play well or didnt execute his game plan escapes me. I'm a big Fed fan, but the reality is that Nadal makes it not possible for Fed to execute his game plan on higher bounding surfaces..he controls the points and dictates play..Nadal is simply the better player then. i dont know why that is hard to understand. If Fed could have come in more, ended the points sooner, etc etc.he would have..he's Fed!

TennezSport
06-13-2007, 10:50 AM
** You're kiding right? The difference in the sweetzone of a 90 vs a 100 is often/usually enormous. Also, I would be willing to bet the courts at the FO were pristine and there really werent very many bad bounces at all..plus the weather was perfect for tennis on the day of the finals..it wasnt windy. Fed struggles even more with misshits in the wind (more than others because his racquets have such a small sweetzone)


Actually I am not. The difference is approx 3.5 sq in in the sweet spot depending on racquet. Not very big at all. I can also tell you from experience in playing on the red crushed brick, once the ball is in play and you start running and sliding around, you will definately get bad bounces as the court get roughed up, don't care how pristine they started out. This is also why they drag them at the beginning of each set.

** Sure there is. two handers have a much easier time getting power out of a two hander on balls hit up high..it was Feds backhand that let him down, and it was clear that Nadal knew it would and thats why he fed Fed an endless array of balls to the Fed backhand..it was the same pattern over and over again...enough balls to the Fed BH to break it down and either get an error, hit a winner, or open up the court and make Fed run wide for a forehand, which caused fed to hit a lot of errors off the FH wing and in general start forcing his FH

Misconception, you can swing a 1hbh faster than a 2hbh even at head height, so power is the same due to the kinetic chain. However, control and accuracy are diminshed with the 1hbh. The 2hbh has more control due to the second hand adding stability. Nadal attacks Feds backhand because he knows Feds chances of hitting winners from that side are a lot lower, giving Nadal time to get into the point. Fed had a lot less BH errors than FH and S&V errors.

With regard to the break points, as I said before you do not get 17 break point chances against the best clay courter on his surface with the wrong strategy; Fed did not execute. Nadal had a lot fewer chances to break, but he DID execute when needed. When Rafa was trying to press in the first set he was making all kinds of errors himself. Then he reverted to his human backboard discipline and allowed Fed to self distruct (at least that is how I saw it). I did not see anyone controlling the match, it was just who could make the least amount of errors. Anytime you have both players with more UEs than winners, it's a poorly played match in my book.

TennezSport :cool:

tlm
06-13-2007, 10:50 AM
Very good post nbmj, i thought that fed was trying to mix it up more, he came in, he attacked nadals weak second serve.And he has some success at it, but it is hard to do that at a high % for 4 hours.

A lot of people here see fed come in + get some points+ they say why doesnt he keep doing that? They dont notice the times when nadal is passing him on those shots.Fed has been there before+ he knows rafa can get real hot on hitting small windows for passing shots.

I thought fed did a pretty good job of mixing it up, but he knows he can only give away so many points + stay in the match with nadal who makes so few errors.

To be honest i thought nadal would have won easier with fed serving that bad, the way nadal looked against the joker man.I thought if nadal played like he did in the semis he would have beaten fed in straight sets, but it shows to feds credit he still made it tough on nadal.

NoBadMojo
06-13-2007, 11:06 AM
Actually I am not. The difference is approx 3.5 sq in in the sweet spot depending on racquet. Not very big at all. I can also tell you from experience in playing on the red crushed brick, once the ball is in play and you start running and sliding around, you will definately get bad bounces as the court get roughed up, don't care how pristine they started out. This is also why they drag them at the beginning of each set.



Misconception, you can swing a 1hbh faster than a 2hbh even at head height, so power is the same due to the kinetic chain. However, control and accuracy are diminshed with the 1hbh. The 2hbh has more control due to the second hand adding stability. Nadal attacks Feds backhand because he knows Feds chances of hitting winners from that side are a lot lower, giving Nadal time to get into the point. Fed had a lot less BH errors than FH and S&V errors.

With regard to the break points, as I said before you do not get 17 break point chances against the best clay courter on his surface with the wrong strategy; Fed did not execute. Nadal had a lot fewer chances to break, but he DID execute when needed. When Rafa was trying to press in the first set he was making all kinds of errors himself. Then he reverted to his human backboard discipline and allowed Fed to self distruct (at least that is how I saw it). I did not see anyone controlling the match, it was just who could make the least amount of errors. Anytime you have both players with more UEs than winners, it's a poorly played match in my book.

TennezSport :cool:

you're just repeating yourself and i still disagree..i have lots of experiences on different surfaces too..you're not the only experienced poster in this forum. even balls hit off the lines at the FO dont bounce as bad as most other clay surfaces because the lines are painted on rather than nailed down nylon or whatever. also, if you gave Nadal Feds 90 sized frame, people might be very surprised what the results may be as his misshits would likely be off the hook...your point about the headsizes is way of base..

Very good post nbmj, i thought that fed was trying to mix it up more, he came in, he attacked nadals weak second serve.And he has some success at it, but it is hard to do that at a high % for 4 hours.

A lot of people here see fed come in + get some points+ they say why doesnt he keep doing that? They dont notice the times when nadal is passing him on those shots.Fed has been there before+ he knows rafa can get real hot on hitting small windows for passing shots.

I thought fed did a pretty good job of mixing it up, but he knows he can only give away so many points + stay in the match with nadal who makes so few errors.

To be honest i thought nadal would have won easier with fed serving that bad, the way nadal looked against the joker man.I thought if nadal played like he did in the semis he would have beaten fed in straight sets, but it shows to feds credit he still made it tough on nadal.

thanks..i posted before the match in the forum that i thought Fed would be lucky to get a set. It really is hard/if not impossible to play high risk tennis against Nadal (or any pro baseliner) who is a wall who runs everything down and who can effortlessly hit passing shots with a 3 feet long swing..that's why hardly anyone plays that way anymore. so even if you do find a way to get to the net against someone who hits balls with so much topsoin as to keep you back in the court, you are likely to get easily passed..there's just no percentage in trying it......but.....if Fed was going to lose anyway, I think he might as well have thrown Nadal the kitchen sink, the bathtub, the dishwasher, and the shower ;)

Rabbit
06-13-2007, 12:03 PM
.
.
even balls hit off the lines at the FO dont bounce as bad as most other clay surfaces because the lines are painted on rather than nailed down nylon or whatever.
.
.

OK, someone's got to explain this one to me. How is it that the lines at the French are painted on? Are they painted on the base?

TennezSport
06-13-2007, 12:04 PM
you're just repeating yourself and i still disagree..i have lots of experiences on different surfaces too..you're not the only experienced poster in this forum. even balls hit off the lines at the FO dont bounce as bad as most other clay surfaces because the lines are painted on rather than nailed down nylon or whatever. also, if you gave Nadal Feds 90 sized frame, people might be very surprised what the results may be as his misshits would likely be off the hook...your point about the headsizes is way of base..

You are completely entitled to your opinion and I never said that I was the only one with experience on this board or any other board. I am sorry if you interpreted it that way.

All I was saying is that I have played on the courts at RG as well as other crushed brick courts and regardless of the lines crushed brick will give you loads of bad bounces as the court gets roughed up. Additionally, if you gave Nadal a K90 I do not think he would make as many misshits as he stands back further allowing the ball to drop, giving him time to properly adjust from the bad bounces and line up his shots. Fed tries to take the ball on the rise standing closer to the baseline = less time to adjust and more misshits.

With regard to the racquet headsize I suggest you look up the study done by Vic Braden and Dr. Gabriel Ariel with respect to string deflection and ball control with respect to racquet size.

We are all entitled to our opinions and I am just stating mine as I understand the mechanics and kinetic energy tranfers in stroke production. I do not know everything (far from it), and if I learn something here then I am the better for it. Don't take my word, do the research for yourself as there is a massive amount of info on the physics of stroke production. Just expressing myself, no worries mate.

TennezSport :cool:

Attila the tennis Bum
06-13-2007, 12:37 PM
With regard to the racquet headsize I suggest you look up the study done by Vic Braden and Dr. Gabriel Ariel with respect to string deflection and ball control with respect to racquet size.



Vic Braden is a psychiatrist. If you want to look up THE authority on the subject go take a look at Brodys the physics of tennis. You will find that you are completely wrong.

or take a look at www.racquetresearch.com...if interedted here are the rankings of sweetspots from 2002:


Sweet Spot Rankings - 2002

The center of percussion (COP), also known as the "sweet spot," is a point. It's not an area. This point is located along the racquet's centerline, and the higher this point, i.e. the closer to the tip, the better for reducing the resultant force from impact. See the formula for locating the sweet spot. A high sweet spot is good; a low sweet spot is bad.

The sweet spot varies according to where the racquet is held, and choking down, as for the serve under the Second and Fifth Benchmark Condition (2, 5 BC), will lower the sweet spot. A good (low) rank number means a high sweet spot. The rankings in the left column are for a forehand (1 BC), volley (3 BC), or return (4 BC) where the hand is at the 7 cm axis. For some of the long racquets (e.g. the Prince TT Hornet), you may get better accuracy if you don't choke down on the serve.

Rank
Sweetspot 2002
Tip to Sweet Spot (cm)
1,3,4 BC

1
Prince
Graphite Classic OS
15.5

2
Prince
Triple Threat Warrior MP
15.9

3
Prince
Triple Threat Hornet MP
16.0

4
Prince
Triple Threat Bandit MP
16.1

5
Head
I.Prestige Mid
16.3

5
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 6.3 MP
16.3

7
Babolat
VS Drive
16.4

7
Prince
Triple Threat Rebel MP
16.4

9
Prince
Triple Threat Vendetta MP
16.5

9
Weed
T-Zone
16.5

11
Babolat
VS Control
16.6

11
Blackburne
DS-107
16.6

13
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 5.3 Stretch OS
16.7

14
Prince
Triple Threat Graphite OS
16.8

14
Blackburne
Excalibur Ti 97
16.8

14
Prince
Triple Threat Graphite MP
16.8

14
Head
Classic MP
16.8

18
Prince
Triple Threat Attitude MP
16.9

18
Babolat
Pure Control
16.9

18
Cayman
Excel Comp II
16.9

21
Blackburne
Excalibur Ti 107
17.0

21
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 5.3 Stretch MP
17.0

21
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 6.3 Light MP
17.0

21
Babolat
VS Power
17.0

25
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 6.3 OS
17.1

25
Head
i.S2 MP
17.1

25
Prince
Triple Threat Scream OS
17.1

28
Yonex
Muscle Power 3i
17.2

28
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 6.3 Light OS
17.2

28
Cayman
Strike X
17.2

31
Prince
Triple Threat Bandit OS
17.3

31
Yonex
RD Ti-70 88
17.3

31
Volkl
V1 Classic
17.3

31
Pro Kennex
Ti Intensity PBT Reach
17.3

35
Prince
Triple Threat Vendetta OS
17.4

35
Prince
Triple Threat Attitude OS
17.4

37
Dunlop
300G 98
17.5

37
Gosen
Carbon Plus I
17.5

37
Prince
Triple Threat Warrior OS
17.5

37
Wilson
Hyper Pro Staff 6.5 MP
17.5

41
Volkl
Quantum Force
17.6

41
Babolat
Soft Drive
17.6

41
Babolat
Soft Power
17.6

41
Prince
More Game OS
17.6

41
Babolat
Pure Power Zylon 360
17.6

41
Wilson
Hyper Pro Staff Extreme 6.7
17.6

47
Wilson
Hyper Pro Staff Zone 7.1
17.7

47
Gosen
Carbon 15
17.7

47
Prince
Triple Threat Sovereign OS
17.7

47
Pro Kennex
Kinetic Pro 5g
17.7

51
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 2.7
17.8

51
Weed
3/4 Weed XL
17.8

51
Slazenger
Pro Braided
17.8

51
Volkl
Quantum V1 MP
17.8

51
Cayman
Pro Smash II
17.8

51
Pro Kennex
Core 1 No. 20
17.8

51
Prince
Triple Threat Graphite Mid
17.8

51
Yonex
Ultimum RQ Ti-2000 Long 120
17.8

51
Pro Kennex
Core 1 No. 24
17.8

60
Volkl
Quantum V1 OS
17.9

60
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 4.0 OS
17.9

60
Prince
More Game MP
17.9

60
Cayman
Catalyst II
17.9

60
Babolat
Pure Drive
17.9

65
Volkl
Quantum 10 RAP
18.0

65
Pro Kennex
Kinetic Pro 15g
18.0

65
Babolat
VS Nanotube Drive
18.0

65
Head
i.Speed MP
18.0

69
Head
i.S2 OS
18.1

69
Wilson
Hyper Pro Staff Surge 5.1
18.1

69
Pro Kennex
Core 1 No. 22
18.1

69
Head
i.S4 MP
18.1

69
Babolat
Pure Drive Zylon 360
18.1

69
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 6.2 MP
18.1

75
Prince
More Thunder OS
18.2

75
Yonex
Ultimum RQ Ti-2000 Long 110
18.2

75
Yonex
MP Tour-1 Mid
18.2

78
Head
I.S6 OS
18.3

78
Volkl
C10 Pro
18.3

78
Head
I.S10
18.3

78
Dunlop
Vision 110
18.3

78
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 5.2 MP
18.3

78
Head
i.S9 OS
18.3

78
Volkl
Catapult 1
18.3

85
Pro Kennex
Type S
18.4

85
Cayman
Airlite
18.4

85
Babolat
VS Nanotube Power
18.4

85
Wilson
Hyper Pro Staff 6.1 MP
18.4

85
Cayman
Pro Heat II
18.4

85
Dunlop
Vision 102
18.4

91
Pro Kennex
Kinetic Pro 7g
18.5

91
Prince
Triple Threat Scream MP
18.5

91
Prince
More Dominant OS
18.5

91
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 5.2 OS
18.5

95
Yonex
MP Tour-1 MP
18.6

95
Dunlop
Spirit 100
18.6

95
Head
I.S18
18.6

95
Cayman
Energizer II
18.6

95
Wilson
Hyper Pro Staff 6.1 MP Stretch
18.6

95
Topspin
CL 628
18.6

101
Yonex
RD Ti-70 Long 98
18.7

101
Volkl
Quantum 10 Tour
18.7

101
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 6.2 OS
18.7

101
Prince
Triple Threat Hornet OS
18.7

101
Volkl
Quantum 8 RAP
18.7

106
Babolat
Pure Control +
18.8

106
Yonex
Muscle Power 5i OS
18.8

106
Head
I.S12
18.8

106
Head
i.Prestige MP
18.8

106
Head
Classic Mid
18.8

111
Volkl
Tour 10 Mid
18.9

111
Wilson
Hyper Hammer 4.0 MP
18.9

111
Yonex
Ultimum RQ Ti-1500 Long 105
18.9

111
Yonex
Muscle Power 5i MP
18.9

111
Dunlop
Inferno 118
18.9

111
Gosen
Tri Tube 400C
18.9

111
Babolat
Pure Control Zylon 360
18.9

111
Volkl
Catapult 3
18.9

119
Head
I.Prestige MP XL
19.0

119
Dunlop
Inferno 104
19.0

119
Yonex
Ultimum RQ Ti-1700 Long 110
19.0

119
Topspin
CL 633
19.0

123
Fischer
Pro No. One
19.1

123
Yonex
Ultimum RD Ti-50
19.1

123
Wilson
Pro Staff Original 6.0 85
19.1

123
Yonex
Ultimum RD Ti-80
19.1

123
Volkl
Catapult 2
19.1

123
Fischer
GDS Spice
19.1

123
Head
i.extreme MP
19.1

130
Yonex
V-Con 20
19.2

130
Cayman
Energizer Ti
19.2

130
Cayman
Pro Talis II Long
19.2

130
Cayman
Pro Talis II
19.2

130
Cayman
Energizer II Pro
19.2

130
Yonex
Ultimum RQ Ti-1700 Long 98
19.2

136
Head
I.S6 MP
19.3

136
Weed
T-Zone Plus
19.3

136
Fischer
GDS Rally FT Titanium
19.3

136
Volkl
Quantum 5
19.3

136
Fischer
GDS Spirit
19.3

136
Cayman
Sidewinder Ti
19.3

136
Yonex
V-Con 20
19.3

136
Prince
Precision Graphite Classic MP
19.3

136
Cayman
Catalyst II Pro
19.3

145
Topspin
CL 603
19.4

145
Dunlop
Inferno 110
19.4

145
Topspin
TPC1000
19.4

148
Dunlop
200G 95
19.5

149
Fischer
GDS Take Off 710
19.6

149
Fischer
GDS Take Off 1210
19.6

149
Dunlop
Spirit 110
19.6

149
Fischer
GDS Take Off 910
19.6

153
Head
I.Radical OS
19.7

153
Wilson
Triad Pro Staff 6.0 MP
19.7

155
Head
i.S4 OS
19.8

156
Volkl
Tour 8
19.9

157
Wilson
Triad Hammer 5.0 OS
20.0

158
Wilson
Triad Hammer 4.0 OS
20.1

158
Wilson
Triad Hammer 4.0 MP
20.1

160
Yonex
Ultimum RD Ti-50 Long
20.2

160
Wilson
Triad Hammer 5.0 MP
20.2

162
Volkl
C-10 Pro OS
20.4

162
Fischer
Pro Tour FT Air Carbon Ti
20.4

164
Head
I.Radical MP
20.5

165
Fischer
Pro Extreme
20.8

166
Wilson
Triad Hammer 3.0
21.0

167
Wilson
Triad Hammer 2.0 w/Rollers
21.8

Average
18.31

Standard Deviation
1.10

Worst
21.76

Best
15.51

Median
18.35

Sakumo
06-13-2007, 12:48 PM
At least he doesn't have the world record for most *** picks in one match. ;)

NoBadMojo
06-13-2007, 01:19 PM
You are completely entitled to your opinion and I never said that I was the only one with experience on this board or any other board. I am sorry if you interpreted it that way.

All I was saying is that I have played on the courts at RG as well as other crushed brick courts and regardless of the lines crushed brick will give you loads of bad bounces as the court gets roughed up. Additionally, if you gave Nadal a K90 I do not think he would make as many misshits as he stands back further allowing the ball to drop, giving him time to properly adjust from the bad bounces and line up his shots. Fed tries to take the ball on the rise standing closer to the baseline = less time to adjust and more misshits.

With regard to the racquet headsize I suggest you look up the study done by Vic Braden and Dr. Gabriel Ariel with respect to string deflection and ball control with respect to racquet size.

We are all entitled to our opinions and I am just stating mine as I understand the mechanics and kinetic energy tranfers in stroke production. I do not know everything (far from it), and if I learn something here then I am the better for it. Don't take my word, do the research for yourself as there is a massive amount of info on the physics of stroke production. Just expressing myself, no worries mate.

TennezSport :cool:

Vic Braden also says you should throw up your ball toss on the serve exactly and only as far as you reach with the serve and i'm sure he has physics reasons for saying this too..unfortunately that just isnt very good advice and isnt very practical..i think Vic Braden is not the authority and bible of tennis...some of his stuff is good and I bet he's a very nice guy, but much of his stuff only works in theory or in the lab....i'll take real on court experiences by qualified people over lab experiments most anyday

I play and teach on the HarTru with nailed down lines and on days when the courts are properly maintained, i really cant say there are many bad bounces at all until into the 3rd set, other than off the lines of course, and as i said, the lines at the FO are painted. i think the French pride themselves on the terre batu, and for the French Open the courts are pristine, and as i said it wasnt a windy day for the finals.

you yourself said you cant understand why Fed misshits so much, given he is the best in the world...i suggest to you that he would misshit less with a racquet with a larger sweetzone, but you arent buying that simple logic either, so we have stuckage and disagree..no problemo

BreakPoint
06-13-2007, 01:25 PM
Maybe Fed should take some advice from Pete Sampras.

"I regret that I never tried out a racquet with a bigger head at Roland Garros," he added.

"My racquet was almost like one of the old wooden ones - it was heavy and stiff. It took a lot of effort to make the ball move on clay.

"But I was really used to it and I never dared (change). I was too stubborn. I was scared of losing control, that it would take me too long to master it." ...Pete Sampras http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4059691.stm
Yeah, if Sampras had actually switched to a bigger racquet just for the French Open he probably would have done even worse.

That's like Connors saying - "I regret not being able to play the French Open in 1974". But that doesn't mean he would have won it if he did.

TennezSport
06-13-2007, 01:44 PM
Vic Braden also says you should throw up your ball toss on the serve exactly and only as far as you reach with the serve and i'm sure he has physics reasons for saying this too..unfortunately that just isnt very good advice and isnt very practical..i think Vic Braden is not the authority and bible of tennis...some of his stuff is good and I bet he's a very nice guy, but much of his stuff only works in theory or in the lab....i'll take real on court experiences by qualified people over lab experiments most anyday

Actually it's execellent advise but diffucult to attain for people. If you look at the physics in the ball toss, the ball hangs for a second motionless at the apex of the toss. This gives you the best opportunity to make a clean strike at the ball (fewer things in motion = higher percentage of clean contact). It's also allows for the best spin and control since the ball is on the string for only 4 tenths of a second on average.

I play and teach on the HarTru with nailed down lines and on days when the courts are properly maintained, i really cant say there are many bad bounces at all until into the 3rd set, other than off the lines of course, and as i said, the lines at the FO are painted. i think the French pride themselves on the terre baute, and for the French Open the courts are pristine, and as i said it wasnt a windy day for the finals.

Agreed, as the FO is immaculately maintained. However, HarTru is much heavier than crushed brick and plays completely different. Terre Baute is much more slippery, with a higher and slower bounce. Because it's a much thinner powdery surface, the ball makes a divot when it lands (check out some slowmo videos on crushed brick) as does all of the footwork. This can make for some wild bounces. This is why they drag the court after each set. This is also why clay court specialists stand so far back of the baseline (more time = better adjustments). Not Feds style.

You yourself said you cant unerstand why Fed misshits so much, given he is the best in the world...i suggest to you that he would misshit less with a racquet with a larger sweetzone, but you arent buying that simple logic either, so we have stuckage and disagree..no problemo

Slightly miss-quoted. What I said was "My question is how does the guy who watches the ball better anyone have so many mishits???"

Differences of opinion are good, keeps us thinking and improving.

TennezSport :cool:

TennezSport
06-13-2007, 02:05 PM
Vic Braden is a psychiatrist. If you want to look up THE authority on the subject go take a look at Brodys the physics of tennis. You will find that you are completely wrong.

or take a look at www.racquetresearch.com...if interedted here are the rankings of sweetspots from 2002:


Sweet Spot Rankings - 2002

The center of percussion (COP), also known as the "sweet spot," is a point. It's not an area. This point is located along the racquet's centerline, and the higher this point, i.e. the closer to the tip, the better for reducing the resultant force from impact. See the formula for locating the sweet spot. A high sweet spot is good; a low sweet spot is bad.

The sweet spot varies according to where the racquet is held, and choking down, as for the serve under the Second and Fifth Benchmark Condition (2, 5 BC), will lower the sweet spot. A good (low) rank number means a high sweet spot. The rankings in the left column are for a forehand (1 BC), volley (3 BC), or return (4 BC) where the hand is at the 7 cm axis. For some of the long racquets (e.g. the Prince TT Hornet), you may get better accuracy if you don't choke down on the serve.



I have read it and it's a good source but those tests were done with static measurements (they do not mention string tension, which has a big impact in those numbers) as a function of the racquet and do not look at PASS (Path, Angle, Swing and Strike Zone). Whereas, Dr. Ariels and Vics tests were done with real human subjects and mechanical tests, including racquet size, string tensions and swing types. Once you add the Hu element all of those numbers change immensly.

All I am saying is at the pro level the difference in sweetspot size is not as big a factor as control. Because of the larger stringbed in bigger racquets the angle of deflection rises and control goes down. Increasing string tension in the larger racquet shrinks the sweetspot (catch 22). So players like Fed and Sampras (in his younger years) really want the control as they can provide ample power.

TennezSport :cool:

skraggle
06-13-2007, 02:37 PM
Disagree. Nadal saved himself on far more break points than you give him credit for by serving harder and deeper into the box. And there's no way Fed takes him at RG in straights.

If you look at the difference in size of a 90 and 95 Sq in racquet, the difference is miniscule. It's not the racquet, it's Fed stubbornly trying to take the ball on the rise, with the heavy TS from Rafa and bad bounces on clay. Notice how he does not have so many mishits on other surfaces.

It was a bad match from both players today with more UEs than winners from both. Fed just played a bad match today and it was NOT Rafa's doing. 17 break point opportunities, converts on 1, Rafa saves 3 and Fed squandered 14. It could have been straight sets for Fed had he completed only half of his opportunities.

Very sad play.

TennezSport :cool:

NoBadMojo
06-13-2007, 03:04 PM
Actually it's execellent advise but diffucult to attain for people.

**News...it aint good avice if people cant do it


Agreed, as the FO is immaculately maintained. However, HarTru is much heavier than crushed brick and plays completely different. Terre Baute is much more slippery, with a higher and slower bounce. Because it's a much thinner powdery surface, the ball makes a divot when it lands (check out some slowmo videos on crushed brick) as does all of the footwork. This can make for some wild bounces. This is why they drag the court after each set. This is also why clay court specialists stand so far back of the baseline (more time = better adjustments). Not Feds style.

** way off base.


Slightly miss-quoted. What I said was "My question is how does the guy who watches the ball better anyone have so many mishits???"

** i've already exlained this to you by saying that he misshits so much because he is using a racquet with a sweetzone which is too small for him





i'm really not interested in doing this back and forth. you just keep saying the same things..so i would like to move on please. you may have the last word if you wish

drakulie
06-13-2007, 04:21 PM
** Sure there is. two handers have a much easier time getting power out of a two hander on balls hit up high..it was Feds backhand that let him down, and it was clear that Nadal knew it would and thats why he fed Fed an endless array of balls to the Fed backhand..it was the same pattern over and over again...enough balls to the Fed BH to break it down and either get an error, hit a winner, or open up the court and make Fed run wide for a forehand, which caused fed to hit a lot of errors off the FH wing and in general start forcing his FH

as above please


As usual, your posts are filled with "opinion" rather than fact.

Fed had more misses (unforced errors, forced errors, whatever) on his forehand than on his backhand>> 52 -46. And this, with WAY more shots directed to his BH. So, he had a way higher percentage of missed FH's than BH's.

Here ar the facts:

351 backhands and missed 52 (14.8%).
229 forehands and missed 46 (20.1%).

His first two sets were clearly his best tennis, with a ton of breakpoint opportunities lost in the first, and winning the second.

In the first set he hit 113 backhands to 70 forehands.
In the second set he hit 106 backhands to 60 forehands.

In the first two sets he clearly played his best tennis, and received most of his break chances >>> They were provided by way of his backhand, and were lost by way of his forehand. He had 17 break opportunities, and broke once. This leaves 16. Of those 16, 3 were erased by way of an ace, and 2 clean backhand winners by Nadal. Of those 13, 7 were erased by missed forehands, and 6 by missed backhands. Additionally, his only "break of serve" came by way of a backhand.

In the third set he hit more forehands than backhands >>>54 to 52.

Furthermore, Nadal only hit 11 clean winners from short replies that came by way of backhand, vs 9 off the forehand. So again, the facts go against your argument. 3.13% (bh) vs. 3.93 (fh). So, in actuality >> Nadal hit more winners off of short replies from Fed's forehand.


We could clearly conclude that his forehand was the shot that let him down>>> not his backhand.

Of course, this is not subjective dribble or rhetoric.

Povl Carstensen
06-14-2007, 09:20 AM
Well, only a few weeks ago in Hamburg, Nadal did not "own" Federer. At RG it was different, maybe due to the players form on the the day, psychological factors, the conditions they played in, and a lot of other things. I just wish that people would not generalize so much and be so agressive in their rethorics here. Maybe just cut down a bit on caffeine (sorry..).

sureshs
06-14-2007, 12:15 PM
Why people would assume that when Fed loses to Nadal it is because he didnt play well or didnt execute his game plan escapes me.

People forget that Fed is the only one to take a set off Nadal at the FO!

Noveson
06-14-2007, 12:54 PM
As usual, your posts are filled with "opinion" rather than fact.

Fed had more misses (unforced errors, forced errors, whatever) on his forehand than on his backhand>> 52 -46. And this, with WAY more shots directed to his BH. So, he had a way higher percentage of missed FH's than BH's.

Here ar the facts:

351 backhands and missed 52 (14.8%).
229 forehands and missed 46 (20.1%).

His first two sets were clearly his best tennis, with a ton of breakpoint opportunities lost in the first, and winning the second.

In the first set he hit 113 backhands to 70 forehands.
In the second set he hit 106 backhands to 60 forehands.

In the first two sets he clearly played his best tennis, and received most of his break chances >>> They were provided by way of his backhand, and were lost by way of his forehand. He had 17 break opportunities, and broke once. This leaves 16. Of those 16, 3 were erased by way of an ace, and 2 clean backhand winners by Nadal. Of those 13, 7 were erased by missed forehands, and 6 by missed backhands. Additionally, his only "break of serve" came by way of a backhand.

In the third set he hit more forehands than backhands >>>54 to 52.

Furthermore, Nadal only hit 11 clean winners from short replies that came by way of backhand, vs 9 off the forehand. So again, the facts go against your argument. 3.13% (bh) vs. 3.93 (fh). So, in actuality >> Nadal hit more winners off of short replies from Fed's forehand.


We could clearly conclude that his forehand was the shot that let him down>>> not his backhand.

Of course, this is not subjective dribble or rhetoric.

:lol: Drakulie knows how to end an arguement.

TennezSport
06-14-2007, 04:24 PM
As usual, your posts are filled with "opinion" rather than fact.

Fed had more misses (unforced errors, forced errors, whatever) on his forehand than on his backhand>> 52 -46. And this, with WAY more shots directed to his BH. So, he had a way higher percentage of missed FH's than BH's.

Here ar the facts:

351 backhands and missed 52 (14.8%).
229 forehands and missed 46 (20.1%).

His first two sets were clearly his best tennis, with a ton of breakpoint opportunities lost in the first, and winning the second.

In the first set he hit 113 backhands to 70 forehands.
In the second set he hit 106 backhands to 60 forehands.

In the first two sets he clearly played his best tennis, and received most of his break chances >>> They were provided by way of his backhand, and were lost by way of his forehand. He had 17 break opportunities, and broke once. This leaves 16. Of those 16, 3 were erased by way of an ace, and 2 clean backhand winners by Nadal. Of those 13, 7 were erased by missed forehands, and 6 by missed backhands. Additionally, his only "break of serve" came by way of a backhand.

In the third set he hit more forehands than backhands >>>54 to 52.

Furthermore, Nadal only hit 11 clean winners from short replies that came by way of backhand, vs 9 off the forehand. So again, the facts go against your argument. 3.13% (bh) vs. 3.93 (fh). So, in actuality >> Nadal hit more winners off of short replies from Fed's forehand.


We could clearly conclude that his forehand was the shot that let him down>>> not his backhand.

Of course, this is not subjective dribble or rhetoric.

You said what I was trying to say all along (and did a much better job). AND, It wasn't the racquet, it was Feds Serve and FH errors that lost him that match and he knows it.

Thanks sir

TennezSport :cool:

xtremerunnerars
06-15-2007, 01:53 PM
I was thinking about this the other day:

If they kept a stat for most mishits or shanks, fed probably WOULD be near the top of that list.


Want to know why? He knocks everyone else out of the tournaments he enters! Nobody is alive in the same tournaments as fed long enough to hit as many shanks!

JMS
06-15-2007, 06:13 PM
Should Federer switch to a 95 ?

yes he should, how can it hurt him, but he is too full of himself

Richie Rich
06-16-2007, 07:11 PM
I was thinking about this the other day:

If they kept a stat for most mishits or shanks, fed probably WOULD be near the top of that list.


Want to know why? He knocks everyone else out of the tournaments he enters! Nobody is alive in the same tournaments as fed long enough to hit as many shanks!

kind of like ace leaders - karlovic is ace leader until the second round - then he loses.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-20-2007, 01:58 PM
yes he should, how can it hurt him, but he is too full of himself

or stubborn.

Roger_Federer.
06-20-2007, 02:35 PM
Most posters here are both, full of themselves, and the latter, stubborn.

BreakPoint
06-21-2007, 02:20 PM
yes he should, how can it hurt him, but he is too full of himself
Huh? He's won 10 of the last 15 Grand Slams with a 90 and you're aksing how switching to a 95 could hurt him? :confused: How about losing the next 10 of 15 Grand Slams?

If a bigger racquet is always better, why isn't everyone using 200 sq. in. racquets?

Attila the tennis Bum
06-21-2007, 02:42 PM
Huh? He's won 10 of the last 15 Grand Slams with a 90 and you're aksing how switching to a 95 could hurt him? :confused:


ahhh...yes....but as Bob Dyaln said :

"the times they are a changing"

The question is how will federer respond to the changes?

BreakPoint
06-21-2007, 03:02 PM
ahhh...yes....but as Bob Dyaln said :

"the times they are a changing"

The question is how will federer respond to the changes?
As far as I recall, everyone that he beat in his 10 Grand Slam finals that he won used a racquet bigger than his already. Are his opponent's racquets getting even bigger? I don't think so.

(OK, I guess you can argue that Safin's and Philippoussis' racquets are actually paintjobs of a PC600 Mid and that it's actually a 90, not a 93 as listed.)

BreakPoint
06-21-2007, 03:15 PM
Hewitt used a 90 incher too I believe.
True, I forgot about the '04 US Open final. I kept thinking that Federer keeps beating Hewitt in the semis of Grand Slams but not in a final. My mistake.

stormholloway
06-21-2007, 03:52 PM
Those matches with Hewitt seem more like quarterfinals the way Federer plays.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-21-2007, 07:28 PM
As far as I recall, everyone that he beat in his 10 Grand Slam finals that he won used a racquet bigger than his already. Are his opponent's racquets getting even bigger? I don't think so.

(OK, I guess you can argue that Safin's and Philippoussis' racquets are actually paintjobs of a PC600 Mid and that it's actually a 90, not a 93 as listed.)

still stuck in the past huh? Like I said the times they are changing. Every great champion arrives at the point where Federer is now.

Borg was beating everyone until Mcenroe came along.

Mcenroe was beating everyone until Lendl came around.

Lendl was beating everyone until guys like Edberg ,Becker , Wilander came on the scene

i think if Sampras had stayed around he would have had to deal with Federer.

So now its Rogers turn.....nadal has come on the scene....the question is what is he going to do?

kuyoungj
06-21-2007, 08:15 PM
i just read the whole post... wow it took me 30 minutes but pretty interesting
but i guess you guys are saying he should change it but why not? i mean its not like you can confirm that he hasnt tried a 95 before. He obviously has "private" practices. We only know he uses different racquets on the public. My guess is he tries various racquets when he practices alone (as in not practices available for public viewing) and its his decision and his decision only. If he did not like the 95 so be it.

BreakPoint
06-21-2007, 10:09 PM
still stuck in the past huh? Like I said the times they are changing. Every great champion arrives at the point where Federer is now.

Borg was beating everyone until Mcenroe came along.

Mcenroe was beating everyone until Lendl came around.

Lendl was beating everyone until guys like Edberg ,Becker , Wilander came on the scene

i think if Sampras had stayed around he would have had to deal with Federer.

So now its Rogers turn.....nadal has come on the scene....the question is what is he going to do?
What's he going to do? Reduce his unforced errors, raise his serving percentage, and play a better match. That's what he's going to do.

None of these other pros you named switched to a bigger racquet just to beat their rival.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-22-2007, 05:23 AM
None of these other pros you named switched to a bigger racquet just to beat their rival.

Bigger= more power. Fed needs generate more pace off his backhand to defeat Nadal...as Mcenroe pointed put.

I don't know about the Pros and switching racquets...but your idol John Mcenroe surely did.
I am not even talking about him switching to the Dunlop because that was from wood to graphite. Rather I am talking about a few years ago.

Mcenroe actually plays quite often at my club in NYC....the tennisport. I have talked to him on the court and the locker rooms. He is actually pretty approachable.

Anyway take a wild guess what he pulled out of his bag to play with.....it was a VOLKL.

He was playing a very good pro at the club (whom he actually lost to...dudes on the tour). During a break in the match I asked him about it and he said "yeah I am playing with this now".

Funny moment on the court though....you know how he always yells and curses......well on this particular day his daughter was on the court. he missed a ball and he yells....."AWWWWW FIDDLESTICKS". It was really funny...he just looked at his daughter smiling with so much love. It was nice to see.

But I digress.....I think Serena just switched to a new model Wilson to win the Australian and thanked Wislon for their new technology. Also during Venus' loss at the FO she switched to a different model Wilson right in the middle of the match. . Navratilova doesnt need the money so she threw Yonex aside and plays with a Bosworth. By the way hewitt used Bosworth to change his racquet big time and so do most pros.

I am not up on the history of pros switching racquets to improve their games.....but I suspect that due to endorsements if they ever did switch racquets then you would probably never even know about it.

Fedace
06-22-2007, 05:25 AM
Wimbledon draw is out and fed is facing a dangerous unknown player in the first round.

BreakPoint
06-22-2007, 01:49 PM
I don't know about the Pros and switching racquets...but your idol John Mcenroe surely did.
I am not even talking about him switching to the Dunlop because that was from wood to graphite. Rather I am talking about a few years ago.

Mcenroe actually plays quite often at my club in NYC....the tennisport. I have talked to him on the court and the locker rooms. He is actually pretty approachable.

Anyway take a wild guess what he pulled out of his bag to play with.....it was a VOLKL.

Yeah, and when was the last time that McEnroe played against his rival Lendl on the ATP Tour, and what racquet was he using? Did he switch racquets just to beat Lendl?

BTW, as a side note, McEnroe switched from his wood racquet to graphite mostly to alleviate his tennis elbow. The Max 200G is a very flexy and comfortable racquet that absorbs almost all the shock and vibration from impact. It's only 82 sq. in. anyway, and it was around the time when many pros were also switching to graphite from wood. He did NOT make the switch just to beat a certain rival.

stormholloway
06-22-2007, 01:58 PM
Yeah, McEnroe was the top player during the wood to graphite transition. Of course he switched racquets.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-22-2007, 02:20 PM
BTW, as a side note, McEnroe switched from his wood racquet to graphite mostly to alleviate his tennis elbow. The Max 200G is a very flexy and comfortable racquet that absorbs almost all the shock and vibration from impact. It's only 82 sq. in. anyway, and it was around the time when many pros were also switching to graphite from wood. He did NOT make the switch just to beat a certain rival.

You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all wood is far more forgiving than any graphite racquet. Nothing beats a wood racquet for tennis elbow.

Secondly Mcenroe would have gotten smoked if he did not switch to graphite. It revolutionized the sport. Graphite is sooo much stiffer and more powerful than wood.

Third...Pete sampras has said that he wished he was not so stubborn and switched to a larger racquet while he was on the tour.

BreakPoint
06-22-2007, 02:31 PM
You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all wood is far more forgiving than any graphite racquet. Nothing beats a wood racquet for tennis elbow.
Read McEnroe's own book if you dont' believe me.

BTW, how long have you played with a wood racquet to know this? And how long have you played with a Max 200G to know this? Me? I used McEnroe's Dunlop Maxply Fort woodie for 10 years and then his Max 200G for 13 years, and you're telling ME that I don't know what I'm talking about? :roll:

Secondly Mcenroe would have gotten smoked if he did not switch to graphite. It revolutionized the sport. Graphite is sooo much stiffer and more powerful than wood.
But specifcally beating Lendl was NOT the reason why he switched. He had already beaten Lendl multiple times with his wood racquet while Lendl was using his graphite Adidas racquet.

Third...Pete sampras has said that he wished he was not so stubborn and switched to a larger racquet while he was on the tour.
Oh, because he was getting his *** kicked at Wimbledon? :roll:

He won 14 Grand Slams. Name another male player that won more Grand Slam singles titles with a larger racquet. :roll:

Attila the tennis Bum
06-23-2007, 10:50 AM
Read McEnroe's own book if you dont' believe me.

BTW, how long have you played with a wood racquet to know this? And how long have you played with a Max 200G to know this? Me? I used McEnroe's Dunlop Maxply Fort woodie for 10 years and then his Max 200G for 13 years, and you're telling ME that I don't know what I'm talking about? :roll:

But specifcally beating Lendl was NOT the reason why he switched. He had already beaten Lendl multiple times with his wood racquet while Lendl was using his graphite Adidas racquet.

Oh, because he was getting his *** kicked at Wimbledon? :roll:

He won 14 Grand Slams. Name another male player that won more Grand Slam singles titles with a larger racquet. :roll:

Ok so let me get this straight....are you suggesting that Mcenroe would have continued to play with a wood racquet while every other pro switched to graphite?

You do realize that mcenroe is the biggest proponent for the proposition that the game should go back to wood because graphite created the power game and changed everything. In fact part of Mcenroes downfall was graphite!

Now as far as which is more forgiving wood or graphite.......is that even a debate? Are you kidding? Do I really need to discuss that as well? Come on man...do you know anything at all?

Finally, I don't care why Pete sampras said he wanted to switch to a bigger racquet. Thats not the point.....the point is that he said he wished he played with a bigger racquet but that he was too stubborn to change his ways.

BreakPoint
06-23-2007, 12:38 PM
Ok so let me get this straight....are you suggesting that Mcenroe would have continued to play with a wood racquet while every other pro switched to graphite?

You do realize that mcenroe is the biggest proponent for the proposition that the game should go back to wood because graphite created the power game and changed everything. In fact part of Mcenroes downfall was graphite!

Now as far as which is more forgiving wood or graphite.......is that even a debate? Are you kidding? Do I really need to discuss that as well? Come on man...do you know anything at all?

Finally, I don't care why Pete sampras said he wanted to switch to a bigger racquet. Thats not the point.....the point is that he said he wished he played with a bigger racquet but that he was too stubborn to change his ways.
Of course, McEnroe would have eventually switched to graphite since they eventually stopped making wood racquets, but at the time that he switched, he was looking for a racquet that alleviated his tennis elbow.

BTW, some pros, like Mecir, continued to use wood racquets well into the late-80's and even the early 90's.

How can you say that McEnroe's downfall was graphite when he had the greatest year of any pro in history in 1984 using a graphite racquet? Even fewer losses than each of Federer's past 3 years.

Have you played with either the Maxply McEnroe woodie and the Max 200G for an extended period of time? No? Then what the heck do you know? And aren't you the one that keeps saying that Federer and Sampras should switch to bigger racquets because they're more forgiving? Well, guess what? Graphite racquets ARE BIGGER than wood racquets. Maxply McEnroe = 65 sq. in., Max 200G = 82 sq. in.

You have no clue and the more you post, the more pathetic you become.

saram
06-23-2007, 01:39 PM
another thread that starts with one topic and ends in personal attacks about something completely off the original topic. Somewhat pathetic, actually...

Attila the tennis Bum
06-23-2007, 01:42 PM
Of course, McEnroe would have eventually switched to graphite since they eventually stopped making wood racquets, but at the time that he switched, he was looking for a racquet that alleviated his tennis elbow.

BTW, some pros, like Mecir, continued to use wood racquets well into the late-80's and even the early 90's.

How can you say that McEnroe's downfall was graphite when he had the greatest year of any pro in history in 1984 using a graphite racquet? Even fewer losses than each of Federer's past 3 years.

Have you played with either the Maxply McEnroe woodie and the Max 200G for an extended period of time? No? Then what the heck do you know? And aren't you the one that keeps saying that Federer and Sampras should switch to bigger racquets because they're more forgiving? Well, guess what? Graphite racquets ARE BIGGER than wood racquets. Maxply McEnroe = 65 sq. in., Max 200G = 82 sq. in.

You have no clue and the more you post, the more pathetic you become.

OMG...I cannot believe that I am even having this discussion. I mean this is basic stuff. Its so basic I don't even know where to start....but i will try.

Lets discuss the first issue of tennis elbow and wood.

Wood is the softest material a racquet can be made of. There is nothing more forgiving than wood. Graphite racquets are very stiff and powerful. Wood is so soft that it warps and people actually had to put these little brace devices on the head of the frame to stop them from warping.

In fact remember the Pro Kennex core technology? Well pro kennex put wood in the core of the racquet for a softer more arm friendly feel.

Come on man.....this is really lame. Stop this ....you are really embarassing yourself now. Do you really still think that graphite is more forgiving than wood??? Come on....you are the G.O.A.T poster......you have got to be kidding me.

Mcenroe switching to graphite because they stopped making wood (utter nonsense)

Again...this is really basic. Graphite revolutionized tennis. It was a far superior material than wood. You could enlarge the size of the racquet and change the shape while still being light weight. It was also far stiffer and far more powerful. The serves all became bigger, the return of serves became bigger, the strokes bigger ......everything changed.

To suggest that Mcenroe changed to wood because they stopped making wood is simply idiotic. Mcenroe had to change to graphite or he would have been destroyed.

Mcenroes downfall was graphite

Now this is a real discussion. This is simply my opinion. It is true that Mcenroes greatest year was with a graphite racquet; however it was only the beginning of graphite and the modern power game.

lendls racquet was at first the same size and dimension as any wood racquet....but then with the advent of prince everything changed. The heads started to increase as did the technology and the strokes. Power tennis was now ushered in.

After Mcenroes greatest year he was basically blown off the courts. Unlike Borg who left the game on his own accord....Mcenroe had the door slammed in his face. He never won a grand slam again and was lucky to even be in the top 10. You think that was a coincidence???

Why is then that mcenroe is the biggest proponet for changing the game back to wood? The answer is because thats really the only way he could still keep winning. The graphite power game signaled the end of an era.

Mcenroe did not want to change to graphite...he had to change or he would have been blown off the courts.

Wood tennis is all about feel and touch....graphite is power. This is so basic....come on!!!!

slice bh compliment
06-23-2007, 02:20 PM
....Wood tennis is all about feel and touch....graphite is power....

Wow, you used to be a one-trick pony. Now you have two tricks.

Dude, have you ever actually played a good level of tennis, or do you just regurgitate what you've gotten from the commentators, the books and the friends?

Attila the tennis Bum
06-23-2007, 07:04 PM
Wow, you used to be a one-trick pony. Now you have two tricks.

Dude, have you ever actually played a good level of tennis, or do you just regurgitate what you've gotten from the commentators, the books and the friends?


This is some sort of a joke right? You do not even raise an eyebrow at the craziness BP has said but you get on my case?:confused:

This guy breakpoint is supposedly the GOAT poster and he has said things like slice works better on clay than on hardcourts.

He says that Mcenroe have only eventually switched to a graphite racquet because they stopped making wood.

He says that wood is less forgiving than graphite.

I am pretty new to these boards but if this guy is the GOAT then I must say that this tennis board is sorely lacking in knowledge. WOW!

I am injured right now and bored to tears.....I cant wait till I am healthy because this is even more boring than watching paint dry. Is there anyone on these boards who knows anything?

BreakPoint
06-23-2007, 07:19 PM
This is some sort of a joke right? You do not even raise an eyebrow at the craziness BP has said but you get on my case?:confused:

This guy breakpoint is supposedly the GOAT poster and he has said things like slice works better on clay than on hardcourts.

He says that Mcenroe have only eventually switched to a graphite racquet because they stopped making wood.

He says that wood is less forgiving than graphite.

I am pretty new to these boards but if this guy is the GOAT then I must say that this tennis board is sorely lacking in knowledge. WOW!

I am injured right now and bored to tears.....I cant wait till I am healthy because this is even more boring than watching paint dry. Is there anyone on these boards who knows anything.
Stop LYING!!!

I said McEnroe switched to the Max 200G because of tennis elbow. If you knew how to read, maybe you could actually read his book in which he clearly explains what led him to switch from his wood racquet to the Max 200G.

Where did I say wood was less forgiving than graphite? :confused: I said switching to the Max 200G alleviated McEnroe's tennis elbow. What does that have to do with "forgiving"? And aren't graphite racquets bigger than wood racquet? Doesn't that make them more "forgiving" in your book? If not, then why do you keep harping that Federer and Sampras should switch to larger, more "forgiving" racquets? :confused:

BTW, you've never even used a wood racquet nor the Max 200G so what the heck do you know?

Mods, please ban Attila ASAP!

Attila the tennis Bum
06-24-2007, 04:17 AM
breakpoint,

I now finally realize what an utter waste of time this was.

If you are the GOAT of this board then thats a really sad statement about the wealth of knowledge here.

I am injured and at home now so I thought I would pass the time discussing tennis with knowledgeable people.

But after sizing you up I find you sorely lacking. I think I would rather watch paint dry then discuss anything even remotely related to tennis with you.

Don't worry...until i find someone worthy enough to have a discussion with, you wont be hearing from me again....and if your the GOAT of this board then I think i will be silent for a VERY long time.

saram
06-24-2007, 11:02 AM
breakpoint,

I now finally realize what an utter waste of time this was.

If you are the GOAT of this board then thats a really sad statement about the wealth of knowledge here.

I am injured and at home now so I thought I would pass the time discussing tennis with knowledgeable people.

But after sizing you up I find you sorely lacking. I think I would rather watch paint dry then discuss anything even remotely related to tennis with you.

Don't worry...until i find someone worthy enough to have a discussion with, you wont be hearing from me again....and if your the GOAT of this board then I think i will be silent for a VERY long time.


Not trying to bait you into an argument here, but I think you need to look at an analyze the facts prior to saying that the GOAT is not worthy enough for you to debate with.

You are 21. I assume the GOAT watched Bjorg, Connors, Mac and many more live and in his prime while you only have witnessed these icons via taped coverage. I imagine he devoted hours upon hours watching these icons develop, their games and lives change--while you take in what you can get instantly via the internet and forums and spit it back out.

Maybe people are not taking you serious because you keep telling or suggesting that the greatest player (arguably) should change to a two-handed backhand, change his racket, etc.

If I had won 10 slams, numerous titles, and held the number one spot for so many years with so much distance between msyelf and number two and had someone tell me to change my game, my racket, etc....and they were my coach--I'd fire them.

I'm not picking sides here, but I see an individual that has been around the tennis block and speaks knowledgably about the game and the past and a young man attacking him with thoughts and comments that just do not continually stand up.

Again--not attacking you--just that sometimes we need to step back and analyze everything and ourselves as well prior to getting into debates. And as well-when in a debate--ensure our comments are solid and sound and cannot be scruitinized and torn apart so instnatly....

stevekim8
06-24-2007, 12:09 PM
it's not federer nor his racquet
it's nadal :D
did you see how much SPIN he puts on the ball??
mannn lol

BreakPoint
06-24-2007, 12:22 PM
Don't worry...until i find someone worthy enough to have a discussion with, you wont be hearing from me again....and if your the GOAT of this board then I think i will be silent for a VERY long time.
I certainly hope you're a man (I mean boy) of your word because nobody here takes anything you say seriously anyway.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-25-2007, 06:35 AM
I certainly hope you're a man (I mean boy) of your word because nobody here takes anything you say seriously anyway.

well coming from people who think and actually argue that the slice is more effective on clay than on a hardcourt, I am actually honored.

as mac said:

You cannot be serious!"

Attila the tennis Bum
06-25-2007, 06:37 AM
Not trying to bait you into an argument here, but I think you need to look at an analyze the facts prior to saying that the GOAT is not worthy enough for you to debate with.

..

anyone who says that the slice is more effective on clay than on a hardcourt really does not know what he is talking about. Whats even more shocking he actually is still trying to defend that statement! sad.

BreakPoint
06-25-2007, 09:20 AM
well coming from people who think and actually argue that the slice is more effective on clay than on a hardcourt, I am actually honored.

Once again, ANOTHER LIE!! Show me where I said that "slice is more effective on clay than on hardcourts"? Please show me my quote. You can't because I NEVER said it! :roll:

I cited Steffi Graf's 6 French Open titles to show that slice CAN indeed work on clay, just as it can work on other surfaces. Something that you continue to dispute as if, if you're going to slice on clay you might as well just forfeit the match up front and not bother playing as you're going to get killed anyway. Well, go tell that to Steffi Graf and Ken Rosewall as they somehow forgot they were supposed to forfeit their matches at the French Open. :roll:

So STOP putting words in my mouth! I know you have trouble with reading comprehension but this is ridiculous!

Attila the tennis Bum
07-01-2007, 01:27 PM
yawn. you said it and you knwo did; however my string has mysteriously disappeared so now I cant prove it. Isn't that just so convenient. I guess thats what happens when you suck the censors butts.

BigServer1
07-01-2007, 02:10 PM
yawn. you said it and you knwo did; however my string has mysteriously disappeared so now I cant prove it. Isn't that just so convenient. I guess thats what happens when you suck the censors butts.

Let...It...Go. Seriously, stop twisting things that people say and switching up your arguments to (desperately) try to make your self look good. You are a troll, plain and simple. Maybe if you stopped making the most asinine threads you would be able to garner some credibility.

By the way, the title GOAT does not mean best poster on the board, it means he has 10,000+ posts. Breakpoint is no more the GOAT than I am a professional. I really hope that you knew that and you were just making a sad attempt at not only slamming BP, but the boards as well. If you're so disappointed with the content here, take off. Go sulk about your injury somewhere else.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-01-2007, 08:22 PM
i did. just responding.

Wannabe
07-04-2007, 04:16 AM
This is a potentially interesting thread: it's just a pity it seems to have descended into ad hominem attacks on other posters rather than simply discussion of the merits of arguments. To try and get things back on track I have two observations:

- I have never seen anyone use as much wrist snap on his forehand as Federer. This means that, when it comes off, it is the greatest forehand in the world. When he's fractionally early with his wrist, he's going frame first into the ball. I agree that Federer's forehand is less reliable than some other pro's, but surely it's the ratio of winners to unforced errors that matters. I bet mant other pro's would happily make more errors if they could have Federer's forehand.

- I have heard on another thread that Sampras is now using the same basic racquet as Federer. Surely you can't argue that, since Sampras regrets he didn't move away from an 85 to a 90 square inch head during his pro career (at least on clay), Fed should "take Sampras advice" and go from a 90 to a 95?

Povl Carstensen
07-04-2007, 05:34 AM
Federer took Sampras advice and moved from a 85 to a 90 inch racket.

sureshs
07-04-2007, 10:46 AM
Surely you can't argue that, since Sampras regrets he didn't move away from an 85 to a 90 square inch head during his pro career (at least on clay), Fed should "take Sampras advice" and go from a 90 to a 95?

That was my advice, not Sampras' advice.

drakulie
07-04-2007, 04:41 PM
- I have never seen anyone use as much wrist snap on his forehand as Federer.

Fed doesn't purposely snap his wrist thru contact.

Federer took Sampras advice and moved from a 85 to a 90 inch racket.

Huh????

Povl Carstensen
07-05-2007, 09:29 AM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen
Federer took Sampras advice and moved from a 85 to a 90 inch racket.

Huh????"

Wannabe posted that Federer should take Sampras advice and move from 90 to 95, but in a way one could say that Federer already took Sampras advice in moving from 85 to 90.

Wannabe
07-07-2007, 10:19 AM
Actually I didn't: I said "you can't argue that Federer should take Sampras advice and move from a 90 to a 95" since Sampras is playing with a 90.

BreakPoint
07-07-2007, 12:11 PM
Actually I didn't: I said "you can't argue that Federer should take Sampras advice and move from a 90 to a 95" since Sampras is playing with a 90.
Huh? Sampras never advised Federer to switch from a 90 to a 95. Why would he when Sampras uses a 90 himself? :confused: That would be like Sampras advising Federer to switch to a two-handed backhand.

LafayetteHitter
07-07-2007, 03:34 PM
Federer is Number one in the world, why in the world would he change racquets? Simply amazing.

iambt21
07-11-2007, 05:54 PM
typically people frame more with thicker frames not thin frames. secondly, he was dealing with alot of spin and a few wild bounces. 3rd, he is not going to ease up on his strokes because mishits. he has to go for his fullshot without holding back. It may be more frames than before, but its within the normal standard deviation of mishits.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-31-2007, 04:33 PM
typically people frame more with thicker frames not thin frames.


wow then Fed really is good because he is able to hit more mishits with only a thin frame.;)

BreakPoint
07-31-2007, 05:37 PM
wow then Fed really is good because he is able to hit more mishits with only a thin frame.;)
That's right. If Federer used a thicker frame, every shot would be a mishit. ;) LOL

Voltron
07-31-2007, 05:40 PM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen
Federer took Sampras advice and moved from a 85 to a 90 inch racket.

Huh????"

Wannabe posted that Federer should take Sampras advice and move from 90 to 95, but in a way one could say that Federer already took Sampras advice in moving from 85 to 90. First of all, quoting is done with [quote] to start, and [(slash)quote] to finish, second of all, I don't understand what the hell you're talking about.

ubel
07-31-2007, 06:08 PM
typically people frame more with thicker frames not thin frames. secondly, he was dealing with alot of spin and a few wild bounces. 3rd, he is not going to ease up on his strokes because mishits. he has to go for his fullshot without holding back. It may be more frames than before, but its within the normal standard deviation of mishits.
That's the thing about people who use babolat racquets that amazes me: I rarely see Roddick frame a ball, even with all the topspin his quick windshield wiper forehand produces. In my mind, that's absolutely incredible. Crap, I frame balls just trying to bounce them up off the ground with a thicker-framed racquet, and they're not even moving.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 06:37 AM
That's right. If Federer used a thicker frame, every shot would be a mishit. ;) LOL

LOL....seriously though....it may make logical sense that there are more mis hits with a thicker frame. The difference however is that with a thicker frame the mishit is not as bad as with a thinner frame and the ball will still actually go over the net.

sakabatou
08-01-2007, 09:18 AM
Hmm an interesting thread turned into a personal attack one. One note though attlia please stop your nonsense. If you wan to prove somebody wrong, prove it nicely and politely with good reason of your own. Dont just make up something just for the sake of getting back in somebody elses face. Clearly it can be seen at the end of your arguement, you are just making "excuses" to save your face. I shouldnt be telling you this because im not very old myself but grow up and the world will be a better place for u.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 10:58 AM
Hmm an interesting thread turned into a personal attack one. One note though attlia please stop your nonsense. If you wan to prove somebody wrong, prove it nicely and politely with good reason of your own. Dont just make up something just for the sake of getting back in somebody elses face. Clearly it can be seen at the end of your arguement, you are just making "excuses" to save your face. I shouldnt be telling you this because im not very old myself but grow up and the world will be a better place for u.

I dont know what you are smoking but where did I attack anyone or say anything derogatory.

What have I made up? What excuses have I given? Dude you are hallucinating,

BreakPoint
08-01-2007, 12:28 PM
LOL....seriously though....it may make logical sense that there are more mis hits with a thicker frame. The difference however is that with a thicker frame the mishit is not as bad as with a thinner frame and the ball will still actually go over the net.
Yes, go over the net as well as all the way over the fence. With a thinner beam racquet, at least the mishits will stay inside the court. :D

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 12:50 PM
Yes, go over the net as well as all the way over the fence. With a thinner beam racquet, at least the mishits will stay inside the court. :D

Hmmmm....and you use a wilson.

BreakPoint
08-01-2007, 12:59 PM
Hmmmm....and you use a wilson.
Yes, a thin beamed one (nCode 90), which is maybe why I never hit any balls over the fence. :D

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 01:37 PM
Yes, a thin beamed one (nCode 90), which is maybe why I never hit any balls over the fence. :D

or over the net..;) ...just kidding...couldnt resist.

adlis
01-14-2008, 11:02 AM
his mishits have been improved now he uses the more stable K90

iambt21
03-04-2008, 06:34 PM
i'm agreeing with you..... seems federer has huge problem with the sweet spot vs. nadal.... and i'm not sure it's just high bouncing balls. i think some of it is that he gets very tense and then a tiny racquet/small sweet spot is no good.

what disappoints me about roger is this.... tiger woods would do anything i.e. completely restructure his game, to win the FO if he was a golfer. roger seems happy doing this "i'm better than you" game. tiger adapts such that tons of guys are outdriving him (correct expression?? as he's often hitting 2 or 3 iron off tee) but he keeps it in the fairway. he doesn't pull the "i'm bigger and better than you". roger's attitude is more of a "phil mickelson" (even "greg norman" thing), although obviously he's had way more success than them (of course tennis is more prone to dominant winners than golf)

he is still one of hte hardest working pros on the tour without a doubt. He works very hard.

Causes for some of federers mishits:

-smaller racket head
-swings faster than most(proven)
-hits with almost the least amount of spin required.
-goes for "great" shots always and thats part of his game.
(compares this to a homerun hitter that leads the league in homeruns and strikeouts. No one cares if they strike out if they are able to carry the team with the homerun average they hold)
-he tries to pick up his groundstrokes closer to the ground rather than letting them rise so the ball is moving faster and harder to see/time. Nadal is waiting and the ball slows down as it gets to him.


I could also create a list for the causes for his great shots, but we are just looking at why he mishits.

CAM178
03-04-2008, 07:00 PM
I'v said it before, I'll say it again: I could give a rat's *** if I shanked all over the place if I was #1 in the world and had $100M in my bank account.

jjrl2004
03-04-2008, 08:34 PM
Well the mishits aren't really making a big difference, overall he is still very good.

downdaline
03-04-2008, 08:47 PM
he is still one of hte hardest working pros on the tour without a doubt. He works very hard.

Causes for some of federers mishits:

-smaller racket head
-swings faster than most(proven)
-hits with almost the least amount of spin required.
-goes for "great" shots always and thats part of his game.
(compares this to a homerun hitter that leads the league in homeruns and strikeouts. No one cares if they strike out if they are able to carry the team with the homerun average they hold)
-he tries to pick up his groundstrokes closer to the ground rather than letting them rise so the ball is moving faster and harder to see/time. Nadal is waiting and the ball slows down as it gets to him.


I could also create a list for the causes for his great shots, but we are just looking at why he mishits.

Disagree with this. He hits a very heavy ball - lots and lots of spin. And trying to hit with so much spin obviously counts towards the mishits.

In fact, with the way fed plays, im surprised that he doesnt mishit even MORE.

BreakPoint
03-04-2008, 09:06 PM
Disagree with this. He hits a very heavy ball - lots and lots of spin. And trying to hit with so much spin obviously counts towards the mishits.

In fact, with the way fed plays, im surprised that he doesnt mishit even MORE.
My sentiment exactly!

The MAIN reason for his mishits is the incredible racquet head speed with which he swings at the ball. When you swing that fast, and at the racquet face angles that he uses, you're going to get a lot of mishits regardless of the size of your racquet.

iambt21
03-05-2008, 01:15 AM
Disagree with this. He hits a very heavy ball - lots and lots of spin. And trying to hit with so much spin obviously counts towards the mishits.

In fact, with the way fed plays, im surprised that he doesnt mishit even MORE.

he hits a heavy ball when he goe for a heavy ball, but he trys for a flatter ball as often as possible. i guarantee this. im not saying he does not hit any spin, he does.

bsandy
03-05-2008, 06:17 PM
Disagree with this. He hits a very heavy ball - lots and lots of spin. And trying to hit with so much spin obviously counts towards the mishits.

In fact, with the way fed plays, im surprised that he doesnt mishit even MORE.

This is why he's never won the French and loses to a guy with a bigger headsize.

. . . Bud

Lotto
03-16-2008, 03:48 PM
www.tennisplayer.net (http://www.tennisplayer.net)

That site takes apart Roger's serve completely and John Yandell, the world class coach who took it apart thinks that his head position may cause his mishits, not footwork or movement, not timing, just his head position on some of the shots.