PDA

View Full Version : Who thinks Fed would play better with a 95" racquet?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mickey Finn
05-18-2007, 02:11 AM
In this week's mailbag, Sports Illustrated writer Jon Wertheim speculates that Federer's recent troubles may be related to a switch to a smaller racquet head at the beginning of the year. Jon Wertheim has a lot of inside knowledge. Anyone know if Federer switched to a smaller-headed racquet?

austro
05-18-2007, 02:51 AM
I thought if anything he went larger...?

Mickey Finn
05-18-2007, 02:59 AM
I have am not a good judge of frame sizes myself. I am only repeating what I read. Jon Wertheim usually has inside information; this is why I mentioned this. If it is true, it would be very relevant regarding Roland Garros and Fed's chances.

NoBadMojo
05-18-2007, 06:28 AM
Here is the article in its entirety --> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_wertheim/05/15/mailbag/index.html


And here is the content --->

Federer's slide does, however, coincide with a switch to a new, smaller-headed racket he began using at the start of the year. You'd think if he were going to reassess anything, it might be the new sticks

austro
05-18-2007, 06:35 AM
But he didn't slide since the beginning of the year - remember the AO?

vsbabolat
05-18-2007, 06:38 AM
Federer's "old" racquet and "new" racquet are the same head size. If Federer really did go from the N6-1 Tour 90 to the K6-1 Tour 90 the only change was in the layup.

Craig Sheppard
05-18-2007, 06:40 AM
What does Jon Wertheim know? He's just a reporter for SI... I have no idea where he's getting this stuff from. Just a few weeks ago, Gary Thorne (reporter/commentator) was "certain" that the Boston Red Sox's Curt Schilling painted his sock was in the World Series, and it was not bloodied... turns out he was flat wrong. Unless this guy says how he knows that, it's useless information.

NoBadMojo
05-18-2007, 07:10 AM
In any case, i found it pretty funny that Wilson hypes this new racquet claiming that Federer helped to design <a racquet which nobody else on tour uses>, and then Fed immediately goes in the dumper (by his standards)...Wilson couldnt have been too happy about that.

KoreanHB
05-18-2007, 07:17 AM
From what I see. Fed did change his racquet to a smaller head. If you look at pictures of his ncode PJ and Kfactor PJ, the sizes seem different. I dunno maybe it's just me.

vsbabolat
05-18-2007, 07:18 AM
In any case, i found it pretty funny that Wilson hypes this new racquet claiming that Federer helped to design <a racquet which nobody else on tour uses>, and then Fed immediately goes in the dumper (by his standards)...Wilson couldnt have been too happy about that.

There is one other player that I can think of that uses the K6-1 Tour 90. It is Julia Vakuleno on the WTA Tour from the Ukraine.

SFrazeur
05-18-2007, 07:21 AM
Reporters report what they are told, and what they see. If the sources are wrong then so are the reports.

sureshs
05-18-2007, 08:10 AM
I have fired off a question to him now. We shall see next Wed what he says.

sureshs
05-18-2007, 08:16 AM
In any case, i found it pretty funny that Wilson hypes this new racquet claiming that Federer helped to design <a racquet which nobody else on tour uses>, and then Fed immediately goes in the dumper (by his standards)...Wilson couldnt have been too happy about that.

Federer helped design the Kompact Center in particular. That is used in several models other than the K90. So, it is not like he designed the K90 in particular.

K Factor racquets also contain other groundbreaking technologies like Kan'tFight Back err Karophite Black, Konnector wings in the K1 model meant for people over 90 who plan to enter the tour (not that there is anything wrong with that) and Komfort Bloke err Yoke.

Azzurri
05-18-2007, 08:39 AM
From what I see. Fed did change his racquet to a smaller head. If you look at pictures of his ncode PJ and Kfactor PJ, there is a big difference, clearly.

I think the SI writer meant he changed racquets (not from a large headed to smaller), but just a change and he described the racquet as a smaller headed type. You can't possible tell by pictures.;)

Craig Sheppard
05-18-2007, 10:04 AM
Federer helped design the Kompact Center in particular. That is used in several models other than the K90. So, it is not like he designed the K90 in particular.

K Factor racquets also contain other groundbreaking technologies like Kan'tFight Back err Karophite Black, Konnector wings in the K1 model meant for people over 90 who plan to enter the tour (not that there is anything wrong with that) and Komfort Bloke err Yoke.

Where'd you get this little nugget of information? Federer moonlights as a racquet designer, and for a racquet he doesn't even use? Sounds like more Wilson sales rep bs to me.

Rabbit
05-18-2007, 10:12 AM
I think the SI writer meant he changed racquets (not from a large headed to smaller), but just a change and he described the racquet as a smaller headed type. You can't possible tell by pictures.;)

I agree completely here. I think he was saying that Federer changed rackets at the beginning of the year and the smaller was just description. Smaller than he had previously or smaller in general? I think he meant the latter.

Rabbit
05-18-2007, 10:14 AM
Where'd you get this little nugget of information? Federer moonlights as a racquet designer, and for a racquet he doesn't even use? Sounds like more Wilson sales rep bs to me.

I think Wilson is referring to Federer "helping" by giving him the frame and asking if he liked it. Think back, Connors "helped" design the ProStaff, Kramer "helped" design the Auto. I'm sure they get feedback from the pros, but "helped" in the design may just be a synonym for "approved" the final product and recommended some tweaking; "too stiff", "string pattern too tight", etc.

Azzurri
05-18-2007, 10:23 AM
I agree completely here. I think he was saying that Federer changed rackets at the beginning of the year and the smaller was just description. Smaller than he had previously or smaller in general? I think he meant the latter.

I read the article again and it is just the way he worded it. :)

Azzurri
05-18-2007, 10:25 AM
I think Wilson is referring to Federer "helping" by giving him the frame and asking if he liked it. Think back, Connors "helped" design the ProStaff, Kramer "helped" design the Auto. I'm sure they get feedback from the pros, but "helped" in the design may just be a synonym for "approved" the final product and recommended some tweaking; "too stiff", "string pattern too tight", etc.

Exactly...the commercials make it seem as if he made the racquet himself...molded it and whatever else they do. They asked him what he likes and he told them. I still think its the same racquet he has been using since 2003.

BreakPoint
05-18-2007, 11:18 AM
From what I see. Fed did change his racquet to a smaller head. If you look at pictures of his ncode PJ and Kfactor PJ, there is a big difference, clearly.
Are you sure you're not just imagining things? His K90 still sure looks like a 90 sq. in. to me, just like his nCode 90 did. I think that's because its the same racquet under the paintjob.

http://i5.tinypic.com/50495cg.jpg

BreakPoint
05-18-2007, 11:25 AM
BTW, why is it that whenever Federer loses a couple of matches, everyone blames his racquet. But when any other pro loses a couple of matches, nobody blames their racquets? :confused:

Likewise, when Federer wins 3 Grand Slams in a year and over 80 matches, nobody gives his racquet any credit? :confused:

drakulie
05-18-2007, 11:51 AM
BTW, why is it that whenever Federer loses a couple of matches, everyone blames his racquet. But when any other pro loses a couple of matches, nobody blames their racquets? :confused:

Likewise, when Federer wins 3 Grand Slams in a year and over 80 matches, nobody gives his racquet any credit? :confused:

Because they are idiots who want to pat themsleves on the back and their ridiculous argument that nobody has any business playing with a frame any smaller than 110 square inches.

drakulie
05-18-2007, 11:54 AM
Oh, and I really doubt he is playing with a 85 or 80 square inch racquet.

sureshs
05-18-2007, 12:21 PM
Where'd you get this little nugget of information? Federer moonlights as a racquet designer, and for a racquet he doesn't even use? Sounds like more Wilson sales rep bs to me.

It is from Wilson of course. I think you missed the sarcasm in my post ....

sureshs
05-18-2007, 12:24 PM
BTW, why is it that whenever Federer loses a couple of matches, everyone blames his racquet. But when any other pro loses a couple of matches, nobody blames their racquets? :confused:

Likewise, when Federer wins 3 Grand Slams in a year and over 80 matches, nobody gives his racquet any credit? :confused:

Because when any other pro loses a couple of matches, no one talks about it at all, let alone his racquets.

Because Wilson made such a big deal about Federer and the K90, which was much bigger hype than Nadal and the APD.

Because no other pro uses the K90, one other uses a 90, leading to the suspicion that Fed was winning inspite of his racquet.

iplaybetter
05-18-2007, 12:34 PM
maybe he will go to pj if he is not already

vsbabolat
05-18-2007, 01:12 PM
Because no other pro uses the K90, one other uses a 90, leading to the suspicion that Fed was winning inspite of his racquet.

First off there is another pro that uses the K90 Julia Vankleno from the Ukraine on the WTA Tour. Also there are plenty of players using 90 sq.inch racquets. Off the top of my head Lleyton Hewitt uses a 90 sq.inch head size and all the players that use the Prestige Classic 600. Some of those Prestige Classic 600 players are Marat Safin, Gael Monfils, Agustin Calleri, Rainer Schuettler, Mariano Zabaleta, Mark Knowles, and Jose Acasuso.

BreakPoint
05-18-2007, 02:46 PM
Because no other pro uses the K90, one other uses a 90, leading to the suspicion that Fed was winning inspite of his racquet.
That's pretty funny. Winning "in spite" of his racquet? Isn't it more rational to say that he's winning BECAUSE of his racquet?

If he couldn't win a Grand Slam with it, I don't think he would be using it.

hoosierbr
05-18-2007, 02:46 PM
I'm pretty certain that Schuettler uses a 98 in racquet. And he switched to extended length in 2005/2006, interestingly around the same time his mega drop out of the Top 100 began.

nBladed
05-18-2007, 03:03 PM
Awhile I suggested that part of his slump may be due to change of rackets. I then was berated here for believing in some marketing hype. FU.

When someone shanks that many balls, there is something off with their timing. Feds timing is usually spot on. I attribute it to that there was a genuine change in rackets. It is one of the only variables that has truly undergone change.

If anybody does a search, you will find that Wilson and Fed went through many molds to get "it right". I personally don't believe it is the previous racket with a new pj.

jelle v
05-18-2007, 03:19 PM
Awhile I suggested that part of his slump may be due to change of rackets. I then was berated here for believing in some marketing hype. FU.

When someone shanks that many balls, there is something off with their timing. Feds timing is usually spot on. I attribute it to that there was a genuine change in rackets. It is one of the only variables that has truly undergone change.

If anybody does a search, you will find that Wilson and Fed went through many molds to get "it right". I personally don't believe it is the previous racket with a new pj.


I agree with this.. even when he was playing the AO he was shanking a lot of balls on his forehand. Ever since he started playing that k-factor (yes I do believe he is playing a genuine k-factor) his forehand has been off.. his backhand did get better, but his forehand is just off.

drakulie
05-18-2007, 03:27 PM
When someone shanks that many balls, there is something off with their timing.

I actually posted a response to all the "shank" conspiracy theories. Many people (maybe you included) went ballistic after the clay final against Nadal. Seemed like many people after watching that match, such as you are stating here, feel he was shanking too many shots .

I re-watched the match and counted how many shots Fed AND Nadal shanked. The truth is, in that final he shanked 3 shots on his backhand (2 on serve returns). Coincidentally, Nadal also shanked 3 backhands. Furthermore, they both shanked about the same amount of forehands.

So much for your "shank" theory.

drakulie
05-18-2007, 03:28 PM
I agree with this.. even when he was playing the AO he was shanking a lot of balls on his forehand. Ever since he started playing that k-factor (yes I do believe he is playing a genuine k-factor) his forehand has been off.. his backhand did get better, but his forehand is just off.

see above post.

TennezSport
05-18-2007, 03:29 PM
Having strung and measured both the N and K90's, I can tell you they are both the exact same size.

The reason that Fed has more trouble on clay vs. other surfaces is that Fed likes to take the ball early, and with a true bouncing surface his timing is perfect and he makes it look easy.

On clay however, the bounce is not true bouncing most of the time, especially when the clay gets rippled from a lot of ball bounces. This can make the ball take crazy bounces, which will put a lot of pressure on anyone trying to take the ball early.

This is why so many clay courters like Nadal, Moya, Ferrer, etc., stand so far back to give them time to line up their shots. That is not Fed's natural game which will always make it harder for Fed to win the French.

TennezSport :cool:

vsbabolat
05-18-2007, 04:02 PM
I'm pretty certain that Schuettler uses a 98 in racquet. And he switched to extended length in 2005/2006, interestingly around the same time his mega drop out of the Top 100 began.

Schuettler experimented with the Flexpoint Radical midplus for a few months in 2005 then he switched back to the Prestige Classic 600. He has used the Prestige Classic 600 ever since.

Here are some Pictures of Schuettler using the Prestige Classic 600 from the 2007 Hamburg Masters, 2007 BMW Open, 2007 Indian Wells, and 2007 Dubai.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/73433053.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/73524731.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/74037950.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/74038075.jpg
You will note that Rainer's Prestige Classic 600 has the new stencil from this year on the strings. Also Rainer's PC600 has a collar above the grip. The 630 cm2 head size racquet never had a collar and the XL version of the Prestige Classic 600 also did not have a collar.

@wright
05-18-2007, 04:46 PM
Just another big headed and mouthed member of the media trying to sound like an insider. I don't believe that he switched racquets at the beginning of the year. The head size on the k looks the same as when it was painted as an n. Good experiment, drak, I think you've got it right. I bet if you were playing against Nadal, you'd shank more balls than he would, and Fed managed to shank less! I can't wait to see what happens in the hamburg final

NoBadMojo
05-18-2007, 05:59 PM
shanks shmanks..obviously you gotta also include misshits which create opportunities for his opponents to hit either outright winners or to press the point to conclusion in their favour..of which there are many, especially on the dirt and in windy conditons like in Miami this year.

Fed is no longer so far ahead of the field that he can still give away many points by misshits and still recover and win..

bluegrasser
05-18-2007, 06:04 PM
Because when any other pro loses a couple of matches, no one talks about it at all, let alone his racquets.

Because Wilson made such a big deal about Federer and the K90, which was much bigger hype than Nadal and the APD.

Because no other pro uses the K90, one other uses a 90, leading to the suspicion that Fed was winning inspite of his racquet.

I can think of a least three tour players that come to mind - Hewitt, that up and coming American kid who is originally from Serbia I think, also saw a French player using a 90 Prestige.

Mick
05-18-2007, 06:08 PM
maybe for Federer, 90 is as big of a headsize that he would want to use. Everybody has his limit, otherwise, we would all be using 135.

nBladed
05-18-2007, 06:32 PM
drakulie,

you didn't disprove my 'shank' theory. It was one match you are observing. And you are comparing Fed to Nadal in shanks per that match when that was never in contention.

IT APPEARS TO ME that overall Roger Federer is mishitting many more balls this year than years previous. In an age where timing and athleticism are critical and he has optimized those variables I can only ask what may be the new variable that may be mishaping his game. ... his racket may be one.

WE HAVE ALL DEMOED RACKETS. How many times have you shanked balls with a new racket. It is so easy to do. He may have won the AO with it but he may also may have been experiencing his "honeymoon" period with that racket at that time. Who knows?

This is in no way definitive, so buzz off. It is just a theory.

I am watching the Fed v. Ferrer match now and Fed just shanked another one. It's not like he hasn't played on clay before?!

Nobody truly knows what is going on with Fed. Only he does and this is all speculation. My speculation is that he HAS changed rackets and IS mishitting more often than years previous.

BreakPoint
05-18-2007, 06:40 PM
If anybody does a search, you will find that Wilson and Fed went through many molds to get "it right". I personally don't believe it is the previous racket with a new pj.
You're absolutely right. Federer did help to design his current racquet and he probably did go through many molds and prototypes. However, all of this happened in 2002 when he switched from the PS 6.0 85 to his current racquet. He's been using the same racquet ever since.

nBladed
05-18-2007, 06:42 PM
Also, another bit of speculation....

If I was Wilson and had k factor pj of pro staff rackets i would definitely have Jim Courier and Pete Sampras playing with them to enforce the marketability of my new product.

But they still play with the nCodes. Maybe because the k Factors are truly different and Jim and Pete don't like them.

or maybe because it has Roger's name on the k90 and they are too vain being former #1s.

MordredSJT
05-18-2007, 06:53 PM
Perhaps it is because senior tour players who do no real marketing work for Wilson anymore are not very high on their free racquet priority list. They are giving them all to the players actually playing on tour. I'm sure eventually you will see Sampras and Courier with K-Factor paintjobs.

nBladed
05-18-2007, 07:03 PM
You're absolutely right. Federer did help to design his current racquet and he probably did go through many molds and prototypes. However, all of this happened in 2002 when he switched from the PS 6.0 85 to his current racquet. He's been using the same racquet ever since.

2002?

Are you sure he was that spot on in the design process? Fed was still pretty much a nobody. He only had three titles in 2002.

Didn't Wilson at that time say that the PStour 90 was designed for Pete Sampras and Roger Federer?

This question is to everyone:
If you understand anything about business, it gets super expensive to keep molds and make one shots of old stock. You make money in bulk.

Why do you think Wilson tried to phase out the PS6.0 85 so many times? Not enough critical demand. But there was enough of a demand so I am sure they cost the costs somewhere.... which ended up being a different manufacturing process.

I am only approaching this from a economics standpoint of supply vs. demand.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO TRULY KNOWS WHAT RACKET COMPANIES KEEP ON HAND TO SATISFY THEIR PLAYER'S OLDER RACKET NEEDS?

I refuse to believe that Head, Wilson, etc. will just say to any player, "Oh you are using this racket from 1993 that is no longer in production but you are the only person on Earth with this special request and guess what....? we will remanufacture 15 or more of them for you for thousands of dollars (because that's how much it will cost for that limited supply) just to keep you happy and somewhere in the top 50 where your name recognition means diddly to our overall worldwide sales.

anyone in top 5 becomes a different story.

heck Prince didn't even make a special racket for James Blake. What does that say about their economics?

vsbabolat
05-18-2007, 07:28 PM
2002?

Are you sure he was that spot on in the design process? Fed was still pretty much a nobody. He only had three titles in 2002.

Didn't Wilson at that time say that the PStour 90 was designed for Pete Sampras and Roger Federer?

This question is to everyone:
If you understand anything about business, it gets super expensive to keep molds and make one shots of old stock. You make money in bulk.

Why do you think Wilson tried to phase out the PS6.0 85 so many times? Not enough critical demand. But there was enough of a demand so I am sure they cost the costs somewhere.... which ended up being a different manufacturing process.

I am only approaching this from a economics standpoint of supply vs. demand.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO TRULY KNOWS WHAT RACKET COMPANIES KEEP ON HAND TO SATISFY THEIR PLAYER'S OLDER RACKET NEEDS?

I refuse to believe that Head, Wilson, etc. will just say to any player, "Oh you are using this racket from 1993 that is no longer in production but you are the only person on Earth with this special request and guess what....? we will remanufacture 15 or more of them for you for thousands of dollars (because that's how much it will cost for that limited supply) just to keep you happy and somewhere in the top 50 where your name recognition means diddly to our overall worldwide sales.

anyone in top 5 becomes a different story.

heck Prince didn't even make a special racket for James Blake. What does that say about their economics?

HEAD is a bad example because most of the Players they sponsor use either a Pro Tour 630, LM Instinct, or Prestige Classic 600. With HEAD they still manufacture 50,000 racquets in Kennelbach, Austria for the players on Tour ONLY. While to cut cost they outsource all of the consumer production in China.

Wilson has not changed molds for a really long time. Wilson still uses the PSC 6.1 95 mold for today's K6-1 95. Also the mold for the Pro Staff Tour 90, N6-1 Tour 90, and K6-1 Tour 90 are the same. The only change for the K6-1 Tour 90 was the shorter pallet and a different drill pattern.

Federer racquets are the same mold as before. Now whether or not the layup has changed on his racquets only Federer, Nate Ferguson, and Wilson know.

drakulie
05-18-2007, 07:33 PM
drakulie,

you didn't disprove my 'shank' theory. It was one match you are observing. And you are comparing Fed to Nadal in shanks per that match when that was never in contention.

It *IS* in contention as I was referring to the final on clay Nadal and he recently played. As I stated, immediately after that match there were several threads started in which the OP and several other responding began stating Fed "shanked" many balls, and therefore concluded he needed to switch to a larger racquet. As I already pointed out>> he shanked just as many balls as his opponent.

WE HAVE ALL DEMOED RACKETS. How many times have you shanked balls with a new racket.

Lots, regardless of it is a new racquet or not. And anyone saying they never shank balls with "their old racquet" is an absolute liar. Everyone shanks balls. Even pros.

I am watching the Fed v. Ferrer match now and Fed just shanked another one. It's not like he hasn't played on clay before?!

Your point is what? Just to confirm he shanked a ball? NEWSFLASH>>> EVERYONE SHANKS BALLS.

nBladed
05-18-2007, 08:13 PM
Drakulie,

you don't get it or you are not hearing what I am saying Mr. Newsflash!

Of course you can shank balls with your old racket. But the more familiar you become with equipment, the less that possibility arises.

Y'know I don't care what your conversation is with previous people here. I was never part of your Nadal v. Fed shank match or if he should switch to a larger head "BS". I was never part of it so please leave you laundry back there.

He shanked WAY more balls than Ferrer in this match! What about that? Why don't you rewind the tape, watch it again 3x and tell me how many shanks there were?

I am shocked that you may perceive that Federer is not mishitting more than usual. That was my only opinion in MY POST.

Mick
05-18-2007, 08:16 PM
You and drakulie are quite good tennis observers. I cannot tell if a player has shranked a ball from watching it on tv.

BreakPoint
05-18-2007, 10:35 PM
2002?

Are you sure he was that spot on in the design process? Fed was still pretty much a nobody. He only had three titles in 2002.

Didn't Wilson at that time say that the PStour 90 was designed for Pete Sampras and Roger Federer?

This question is to everyone:
If you understand anything about business, it gets super expensive to keep molds and make one shots of old stock. You make money in bulk.

Why do you think Wilson tried to phase out the PS6.0 85 so many times? Not enough critical demand. But there was enough of a demand so I am sure they cost the costs somewhere.... which ended up being a different manufacturing process.

I am only approaching this from a economics standpoint of supply vs. demand.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO TRULY KNOWS WHAT RACKET COMPANIES KEEP ON HAND TO SATISFY THEIR PLAYER'S OLDER RACKET NEEDS?

I refuse to believe that Head, Wilson, etc. will just say to any player, "Oh you are using this racket from 1993 that is no longer in production but you are the only person on Earth with this special request and guess what....? we will remanufacture 15 or more of them for you for thousands of dollars (because that's how much it will cost for that limited supply) just to keep you happy and somewhere in the top 50 where your name recognition means diddly to our overall worldwide sales.

anyone in top 5 becomes a different story.

heck Prince didn't even make a special racket for James Blake. What does that say about their economics?
Wilson was already doing special things for Federer that they weren't really doing for other lower-ranked pros in 2002 because they knew that Federer was expected to be the next big thing and he had already beaten Sampras at Wimbledon, which not too many players can say they've ever done. First, Federer was the only pro to use a PS 6.0 85 with a red paintjob made to look like a HPS 6.0 95 Tour (Euro model) in early 2002. Then later in 2002, they gave him the PS Tour 90 still painted red to look like the same HPS 6.0 95 Tour. Then they custom drilled his PS Tour 90 with wider string spacing in the middle and gave him the shorter handle pallet. he's been using the same racquet ever since.

Wilson tried to phase out the PS 6.0 85 not because of the lack of demand (look at how many TW sells and how fast they sell out), but because it is the most expensive racquet for Wilson to make, thus, their margins are very low. It uses very costly graphite braiding manufacturing techniques and also contains 20% kevlar, which is very expensive. The newer racquets can be made much more cheaply because they contain much less of the good expensive stuff, but a lot of filler. That's why older racquets tend to feel so much better and smoother than most of the newer racquets.

And Prince is making a special racquet for Blake. He couldn't use any of their existing racquets nor the O-Port technology. So Prince is basically copying his current Dunlop-mold racquet and making it a Prince model. It should feel and play almost like his current racquet. This new model is due out at retail soon.

BTW, if Bosworth can make custom racquets for a few hundred dollars each, so can Wilson or Head and probably much cheaper.

jakshemash
05-18-2007, 11:17 PM
tennezsport, where did you string fed's k90

jelle v
05-19-2007, 12:17 AM
see above post.

So you're trying to prove your point based on judging one match of many? I'm not only saying that he is shanking a lot of forehands, I'm also saying that even during and since the AO his forehand has simply been off. He's is missing a lot of them. He especially has been hitting a lot of forehand long.

nBladed
05-19-2007, 12:39 AM
Breakpoint,

thanks for the explanation. I am starting to understand that their a lot about tennis manufacturing that I don't know. I keep thinking that to make a graphite racket involves braiding graphite materials that when you drill a hole into would chip like crazy and be nearly unusable.

haerdalis
05-19-2007, 03:40 AM
Federer is actually shanking less now than he was a few years ago, much less. The difference is that as of late he has been shanking forehands. We can only speculate as to why but I doubt it is because of the racquet.
I havent really looked closely at his kfactor racquet but I have noticed that kfactor 90's have a thicker beam than the tour 90's, especially so in the direction of the strings.

drakulie
05-19-2007, 10:12 AM
He shanked WAY more balls than Ferrer in this match! What about that? Why don't you rewind the tape, watch it again 3x and tell me how many shanks there were?

Didn't watch the match. Shanked balls or not >>> he won.

drakulie
05-19-2007, 10:14 AM
So you're trying to prove your point based on judging one match of many? I'm not only saying that he is shanking a lot of forehands, I'm also saying that even during and since the AO his forehand has simply been off. He's is missing a lot of them. He especially has been hitting a lot of forehand long.

You must of wathced a different AO than I did this year. He was absolutely killing the ball. If he would have been shanking so many balls, or mishitting, or hitting so many shorts balls during that tournament he would have paid the price and at minimum dropped a set. He didn't.

sureshs
05-19-2007, 11:59 AM
I can think of a least three tour players that come to mind - Hewitt, that up and coming American kid who is originally from Serbia I think, also saw a French player using a 90 Prestige.

Hewitt I already mentioned (the other 90 user). Some claim the 93 of head is a 90, I don't know. TW lists the PC600 as a 93. 93 is not the same as 90.

BreakPoint
05-19-2007, 12:20 PM
Hewitt I already mentioned (the other 90 user). Some claim the 93 of head is a 90, I don't know. TW lists the PC600 as a 93. 93 is not the same as 90.
I'm guessing that's because you've never actually held a PC600 in your hands? It is actually 89.5 sq. in. I've held one against my nCode 90 and the PC600's head was smaller.

BreakPoint
05-19-2007, 12:51 PM
BTW, that "other 90 user", Hewitt, nearly ended Nadal's 80 match winning streak on the slowest of red clay at Hamburg today. So much for 90 sq. in. racquets being useless on clay. :rolleyes:

sureshs
05-19-2007, 01:14 PM
BTW, that "other 90 user", Hewitt, nearly ended Nadal's 80 match winning streak on the slowest of red clay at Hamburg today. So much for 90 sq. in. racquets being useless on clay. :rolleyes:

How do you know he would not have won it if he had used a 95?

On Monday, you can look at this way - two 90 guys challenged Nadal, one in semifinal and one in final, but both lost.

Hopefully not. I really want Federer to pull of this one. If he gets hammered again, he might just as well skip the FO.

drakulie
05-19-2007, 01:19 PM
I'm guessing that's because you've never actually held a PC600 in your hands? It is actually 89.5 sq. in. I've held one against my nCode 90 and the PC600's head was smaller.

Agreed. No way the Prestige is 93. I hadn't realized the head was a 90 until playing with the tour for the first a few weeks back. It is actually a tiny bit smaller than the K90.

BreakPoint
05-19-2007, 01:22 PM
How do you know he would not have won it if he had used a 95?

1. Hewitt's worst surface is clay.

2. How many clay court experts with 95 or bigger racquets have beaten Nadal on clay in the past 2 years?

3. How many clay court experts with 95 or bigger racquets have even come as close as Hewitt did in beating Nadal on clay in the past 2 years?

:rolleyes:

drakulie
05-19-2007, 01:22 PM
How do you know he would not have won it if he had used a 95?

On Monday, you can look at this way - two 90 guys challenged Nadal, one in semifinal and one in final, but both lost.

Hopefully not. I really want Federer to pull of this one. If he gets hammered again, he might just as well skip the FO.

suresh, during Nadals 80+ winning streak on clay he beat many players that play with larger frames. It's not the frame that is losing these mathces>>> it's Nadal beating his opponents.

Jonnyf
05-19-2007, 01:23 PM
I'm guessing that's because you've never actually held a PC600 in your hands? It is actually 89.5 sq. in. I've held one against my nCode 90 and the PC600's head was smaller.



Snapped a quick pic of my PC over my SRD Tour 90

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1475/pcoversrdmo2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

sureshs
05-19-2007, 01:50 PM
suresh, during Nadals 80+ winning streak on clay he beat many players that play with larger frames. It's not the frame that is losing these mathces>>> it's Nadal beating his opponents.

Who said it wasn't?

Davydenko pushed Nadal hard too, and he doesn't use a 90 like Hewitt does.

And I am not sure how many of Nadal's opponents use a headsize > 100.

Looking at the small number of 90 users, including the world #1, none of them can beat Nadal. Yes everyone else loses to him too, but one can't help feeling that if Fed used something else, he may have an easier time.

sureshs
05-19-2007, 01:51 PM
1. Hewitt's worst surface is clay.

2. How many clay court experts with 95 or bigger racquets have beaten Nadal on clay in the past 2 years?

3. How many clay court experts with 95 or bigger racquets have even come as close as Hewitt did in beating Nadal on clay in the past 2 years?

:rolleyes:

Didn't Davydenko do exceptionally well against Nadal?

drakulie
05-19-2007, 02:32 PM
but one can't help feeling that if Fed used something else, he may have an easier time.

Sorry, but this is an extermely foolish statement in my opinion. If it was really that easy, then I'm quite certain Fed would switch to a 95?. Then, if he beats Nadal with a 95, Nadal would use the same strategy and switch to a 105. Then, Fed would switch to 110. etc, etc, etc.

Has it ever occurred to you that Nadal is just better than everyone (regardless of the frame size), on clay? Hhmmmmmm????. It's just a theory of mine, but you may want to give it some thought.

Do you go to a larger frame each and every time you lose a match? You must be playing with a 10,000 square inch frame.

@wright
05-19-2007, 03:31 PM
I love the geniuses we have around here. They must come up with some brilliant conclusions in their own life...If you have a car accident, does that mean you should drive a smaller car? If your significant other leaves you, should you go for a lower quality mate to lessen the chances of it happening again? Have you seen how often Fed hits a shot that clips the line? With a bigger frame he wouldn't have the same control.

BounceHitBounceHit
05-19-2007, 03:37 PM
Sorry, but I just can't resist saying this again................ ;)

So, am I to understand that there are people on this board who seek to counsel the World's Best Tennis Player (and perhaps the best tennis player, EVER) concerning his choice of gear?

Just want to be sure I am clear on this issue. ;)

CC

Rabbit
05-19-2007, 03:47 PM
CC, I think you've got it....

All Courts
05-19-2007, 04:09 PM
Looking at the small number of 90 users, including the world #1, none of them can beat Nadal. Yes everyone else loses to him too, but one can't help feeling that if Fed used something else, he may have an easier time.

Yes, and Itzhak Perlman should switch to cello because the larger finger spacing will make it infinitely easier for him to play higher on the neck. Silly violinists.

drakulie
05-19-2007, 05:44 PM
Yes, and Itzhak Perlman should switch to cello because the larger finger spacing will make it infinitely easier for him to play higher on the neck. Silly violinists.

Actually, he is probably better off playing the bass with a german bow. :)

BreakPoint
05-19-2007, 06:00 PM
Didn't Davydenko do exceptionally well against Nadal?
So that's one. And would have Davydenko beaten Nadal if he used a 145 sq. in. racquet? No, he would have lost even worse.

Oh, BTW, clay is Davydenko's best surface, whereas, it's Hewitt's worst surface. Yet Hewitt almost beat Nadal with a much smaller racquet than Davydenko's.

vsbabolat
05-19-2007, 06:36 PM
You guys forget that Hewitt with his 90 sq.inch racquet defeated Davydenko 6-4,2-6,6-4 in the Third Round in Hamburg this week.

WChiang
05-19-2007, 07:12 PM
Sorry, but I just can't resist saying this again................ ;)

So, am I to understand that there are people on this board who seek to counsel the World's Best Tennis Player (and perhaps the best tennis player, EVER) concerning his choice of gear?

Just want to be sure I am clear on this issue. ;)

CC

I think Fed needs to go to either a Volkl T10DNX "supermid" or maybe a Volkl 98" frame to get his game back and become good again and stop shanking balls when its windy.

Only kidding.....CC of course you are right. :)

jackcrawford
05-19-2007, 07:25 PM
Sorry, but this is an extermely foolish statement in my opinion. If it was really that easy, then I'm quite certain Fed would switch to a 95?. Then, if he beats Nadal with a 95, Nadal would use the same strategy and switch to a 105. Then, Fed would switch to 110. etc, etc, etc.

Has it ever occurred to you that Nadal is just better than everyone (regardless of the frame size), on clay? Hhmmmmmm????. It's just a theory of mine, but you may want to give it some thought.

Do you go to a larger frame each and every time you lose a match? You must be playing with a 10,000 square inch frame.
Tiger Woods had to give up the feel of his beloved small Titleist driver for the forgiveness of the big Nike one when he went a year without winning a stroke play tournament and lost his #1 ranking to Singh; he had been winning in spite of it, not because of it. If the K90 was that great a frame for top-level competition, other pros would use it - the 95 wilson in all its forms has dozens of ATP, WTA, and Challenger tour adherents while the 90 has Fed and an obscure WTAer. Fed wins tournaments, or should I say, won tournaments, in spite of it, not because of it.

BreakPoint
05-19-2007, 07:45 PM
Fed wins tournaments, or should I say, won tournaments, in spite of it, not because of it.
So do other pros like Bjorkman get spanked by Federer every time because of his 95 Wilson or in spite of it? :confused: Perhaps if Bjorkman switched to the 90 he would have a better chance against Federer? :confused:

drakulie
05-19-2007, 07:48 PM
Fed wins tournaments, or should I say, won tournaments, in spite of it, not because of it.

Your post does not only apply to Federer>>> It applies to everyone on the ATP tour.


Oh by the way, just watched the Moya/Fed match. Here are the numbers:

Shanks:
Fed: 4 FH, 3 BH= 7 total
Moya: 7 FH, 2 BH= 9 total

Winners
Fed: 23 FH, 7 BH = 30 total
Moya: 12 FH, 5 BH= 17 total

Should Moya switch from his Babolat to something larger? :roll:

flyboy1
05-19-2007, 10:05 PM
I can't believe that anyone here would think that because Federer "switched" to a new racket that he would start shanking more balls. Even if Federer is actually playing with a different racket than last year, don't you think that they would make it to be the same weight, swing weight, balance point, etc. so as to not play any different than his previous racket? And besides, going from a 88sq. in. racket to a 90 sq. in. racket should have helped him, right? It seemed to be the consensus on this forum (though hotly contested) that the nCode was 88 sq. in. So if the K90 that Fed uses is 90, wouldn't that be bigger than his alleged racket size that he used previously? I don't see how a racket that is so highly customized to a players desired specs can all of the sudden create a case of the shanks. Perhaps there is a little glitch in his swing. Sometimes shanks come as a result of lack of confidence. Sometimes, as posted earlier, shanks come on clay because Federer plays so close to the baseline and clay is prone to bad bounces. Who knows the real reason "why". But it seems less likely to be the racket than something else.

As far as Jon Wertheim is concerned.....there are way more highly informed people on this forum that have access to insider information than some SI writer.

haerdalis
05-19-2007, 10:20 PM
The most notorious shanker in recent history was Cedric Pioline. Alex Corretja shanked a few too. IMO it has to do with how the pass the contact zone and all of these players have a lot happening there.

alan-n
05-19-2007, 10:29 PM
Federer has access and has already tried every frame makeup possible. Considering his success by himself, without a coach. Its a safe bet that Federer knows whats best for his game and has access to the best people in the business in regards to what equipment he should use and at what tension. Federer is using what is best for him. Bigger racquet, Smaller Racquet, Gut, Poly, hybrids, different string spacing. Federer has already tried them all and decided whats works best. 10 Grand Slams prove it.

jetlee2k
05-20-2007, 03:09 AM
oh man, I just can't believe what I am reading this.. It is not the racquet.. and it is not the size.. I own both K90 and K95 and I used to play with 100 and more square inch racquet.. I am a no boday player but I can tell you this, I play much better and hit the ball much much cleaner on K90 than any other racquet. K95 somehow the weight balance is not the same as K90. I even added 3g @ 3,9 & 12 and 10 g in the handle. Fed needs some confidence. He seems his mental focus is not there. At some big points unlike it before, he starts shanking more b/c he's not confidence about his strokes. He also needs some patience again clay court players. I think he's already knew it and trying to fix his game plan.

djones
05-20-2007, 03:22 AM
Schuettler experimented with the Flexpoint Radical midplus for a few months in 2005 then he switched back to the Prestige Classic 600. He has used the Prestige Classic 600 ever since.

Here are some Pictures of Schuettler using the Prestige Classic 600 from the 2007 Hamburg Masters, 2007 BMW Open, 2007 Indian Wells, and 2007 Dubai.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/73433053.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/73524731.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/74037950.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/74038075.jpg
You will note that Rainer's Prestige Classic 600 has the new stencil from this year on the strings. Also Rainer's PC600 has a collar above the grip. The 630 cm2 head size racquet never had a collar and the XL version of the Prestige Classic 600 also did not have a collar.

Are you sure?
To me it looks like a 98 square inch racquet, and not the Prestige Classic 600!

laurie
05-20-2007, 03:38 AM
I've been watching Federer closely since 2001. He has always shanked balls from time to time - it's nothing unusual.

For a brief period in 2002 Federer was playing with a Pro Staff 95. In 2001 he used a Pro Staff 85. From 2003 onwards he has settled with a 90 head size.

I think Tenez Sport makes the best assessmnet so far about Federer's problems.

All Courts
05-20-2007, 07:04 AM
Actually, he is probably better off playing the bass with a german bow. :)

Hell, might as well bite the bullet and become the percussionist who bashes the gong!

vsbabolat
05-20-2007, 07:05 AM
Are you sure?
To me it looks like a 98 square inch racquet, and not the Prestige Classic 600!

I am not sure. I am Positive that Schuettler's racquet is the Prestige Classic 600!!
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/57622815.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/71847213.jpg

Azzurri
05-20-2007, 07:08 AM
You're absolutely right. Federer did help to design his current racquet and he probably did go through many molds and prototypes. However, all of this happened in 2002 when he switched from the PS 6.0 85 to his current racquet. He's been using the same racquet ever since.

BP makes sense...think about it, why would Fed switch racquets after winning 6-7 GS and countless tourneys? He has been dominate. He never switched racquets. We finally have his "type" of racquet. Fed just came back to earth..that's all. The guy has barely lost the past 2 1/2 years. That kind of winning places and extreme amount of pressure. Maybe that's why Pete was no where near as concerned with regular events as he was with major ones. Fed seems to put a lot of pressure on himself to win all tournaments. The guy could be a little burned out with all of his off-court charity and what nots. Its a phase. He will probably win Wimby and most likely the USO. Its not the racquet.

drakulie
05-20-2007, 07:11 AM
Should Nadal switch to a larger frame???

SHANKS
Fed: 1 FH, 2BH= 3 total
Nadal: 4 FH, 1 BH = 5 total

WINNERS
Fed: 15 FH, 2 BH= 17 total
Nadal: 5 FH, 5BH= 10 total

BAGELS
Fed= zero
Nadal= one

jackcrawford
05-20-2007, 07:16 AM
Should Nadal switch to a larger frame???

SHANKS
Fed: 1 FH, 2BH= 3 total
Nadal: 4 FH, 1 BH = 5 total

WINNERS
Fed: 15 FH, 2 BH= 17 total
Nadal: 5 FH, 5BH= 10 total

BAGELS
Fed= zero
Nadal= one
Becker serves with a forehand grip and lands on his right foot - he serves well despite it, or to put it another way, it suits him and no other top pro. Fed is the same way - the racquet still suits him, but not other pros. There is no reason it can't also suit you and other high-level club players. My only point is that it is not necessarily a good idea to model yourself on an exception.

jackcrawford
05-20-2007, 07:19 AM
You're absolutely right. Federer did help to design his current racquet and he probably did go through many molds and prototypes. However, all of this happened in 2002 when he switched from the PS 6.0 85 to his current racquet. He's been using the same racquet ever since.
So you've dropped the "artart" Tony Roche PS85 story, which you once believed despite its obvious implausibility?

NoBadMojo
05-20-2007, 08:39 AM
Tiger Woods had to give up the feel of his beloved small Titleist driver for the forgiveness of the big Nike one when he went a year without winning a stroke play tournament and lost his #1 ranking to Singh; he had been winning in spite of it, not because of it. If the K90 was that great a frame for top-level competition, other pros would use it - the 95 wilson in all its forms has dozens of ATP, WTA, and Challenger tour adherents while the 90 has Fed and an obscure WTAer. Fed wins tournaments, or should I say, won tournaments, in spite of it, not because of it.

nice post..unfortunately in threads like these, your sound logic is lost

drakulie
05-20-2007, 09:28 AM
Anyway you "experts" want to cut it, Fed beat one of the best clay courters of all time today on CLAY, with a smaller frame than Nadal. Additionally, Nadal with a larger frame had more shanks, more errors, and less winners. Fed also absolutely destroyed Nadal in the 3rd set 6-0. So much for demanding frames, and not being able to swing them late in matches during "adverse" conditions. Bye, Bye!

BreakPoint
05-20-2007, 07:05 PM
So you've dropped the "artart" Tony Roche PS85 story, which you once believed despite its obvious implausibility?
Huh? Not at all. Roche said that the racquet that Federer is using is essentially a ProStaff but with a bigger head, which is what the K90 is pretty close to. Roche never claimed that Federer was using a PS 6.0 85 (while he was coaching him). Please check your facts.

In fact, I just found ART ART's original post:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=777638&postcount=1

Excerpt:
"About the nCode of Roger, when I ask him about the composition of the rackett, he told me:" ... this his a copy of the legendary ProStaff 85 but with a larger head size, nothing else, because Roger plays with that racket since he was 15 or 16 years old, but because of clay courts 4 or 5 years ago, Roger have asked Wilson to make the same racket but with a bigger head size."

WChiang
05-21-2007, 02:48 AM
Anyway you "experts" want to cut it, Fed beat one of the best clay courters of all time today on CLAY, with a smaller frame than Nadal. Additionally, Nadal with a larger frame had more shanks, more errors, and less winners. Fed also absolutely destroyed Nadal in the 3rd set 6-0. So much for demanding frames, and not being able to swing them late in matches during "adverse" conditions. Bye, Bye!

Nice post..unfortunately in threads like these, your sound logic is lost.;)

John Galt
05-21-2007, 03:15 AM
I think it is now obvious that Nadal is using too big a headsize for his skillset.

drakulie
05-21-2007, 05:47 AM
Nice post..unfortunately in threads like these, your sound logic is lost.;)

Yes, it does get lost. Unfortunately, all the "experts" on this board don't know what sound logic is, much less know what is actually coming out of their mouths/keyboard.

I think it is now obvious that Nadal is using too big a headsize for his skillset.

Absolutely. Glad to see some people using sound logic. ;)

sureshs
05-21-2007, 05:57 AM
Everyone remember that no pro, including Federer, uses a PS 85. Not even Sampras any more. Federer said in his interview that he was missing balls in the first set and was too early on his shots. This seems to indicate he was swinging too fast and early, which is needed with an unwieldy racquet. He lost 2-6. In Rolland Garros, the ball is going to bounce even higher and with more topspin to his backhand. He better be careful because Nadal is not going to be too tired to let him comeback from a first set thrashing.

bluetrain4
05-21-2007, 06:22 AM
I don't know if I'd trust Wertheim. Yeah, he's got more info than I do, but I don't think he's a very good or resourceful tennis writer. I mean, he never writes anything, just his weekly ad-in, ad-out, and the mailbag. Rarely any substantive articles.

Of course, the blame probably lies with SI, which doesn't devote much space to tennis. We (in America) need real tennis columnists like in Europe.

I won't hold my breath.

tennis_hand
05-21-2007, 06:59 AM
From what I see. Fed did change his racquet to a smaller head. If you look at pictures of his ncode PJ and Kfactor PJ, the sizes seem different. I dunno maybe it's just me.

It is the color effect.

N90 with that white near PWS will look bigger.
Imagine if he has his rackets painted entirely black, you might say it is a 85 again.

drakulie
05-21-2007, 09:26 AM
He better be careful because Nadal is not going to be too tired to let him comeback from a first set thrashing.

The one who needs to be "careful" and consider a frame change is Nadal. He is the one who had more shanks, errors, and less winners. Additionally, the one who was "exhausted" (as you pointed out) at the end of the match. Perhaps from weilding such a "heavy and demanding" frame?? LMAO!

Perhaps he should switch to a 125 square inch 5 ounce racquet?


SHANKS
Fed: 1 FH, 2BH= 3 total
Nadal: 4 FH, 1 BH = 5 total

WINNERS
Fed: 15 FH, 2 BH= 17 total
Nadal: 5 FH, 5BH= 10 total

BAGELS
Fed= zero
Nadal= one[/QUOTE]

BreakPoint
05-21-2007, 11:37 AM
It is the color effect.

N90 with that white near PWS will look bigger.
Imagine if he has his rackets painted entirely black, you might say it is a 85 again.
That is totally true. When I look at my all black Vantage 90 next to my red/white nCode 90, the Vantage's head looks much smaller than the head on the nCode 90. But when I put one on top of the other, it turns out that the Vantage 90 is actually slightly bigger than the nCode 90. It's all just an optical illusion as the paintjob makes a big difference in how big or small a racquet looks.

christo
07-08-2007, 12:09 AM
God knows he wouldn't shank as many balls.

PackardDell
07-08-2007, 02:27 AM
I think for Rolland Garos a bigger frame would help him against Nadal. at the moment he uses 90 sq in and for RG he should use about 93 - 95 sq in.

RoarTT
07-08-2007, 10:04 AM
95 sq in wouldent make a big difference with federer's sometimes direct frame hits. The ball is either spot on sweet spot ore in the frame with that guy, if you ask me.

Ripper
07-08-2007, 10:17 AM
I've always stated that, contrary to the old myth, Mid size racquets are not good for a 1hbh... at least, not for the type of backhand Federer has (aggressive low to high topspin swing). The constant shanking of the best player in the world just makes me believe it more and more.

Edit: You're wrong Roar; a couple of milimeters is all it takes...

soyizgood
07-08-2007, 10:36 AM
Federer knows what works best for him. 11 GS titles is proof of that. If he doesn't panic, he'll do fine for the FO. Even without the FO he can get 15 GS titles. Nobody has dominated tennis in a 4 year span like Federer has. 11 GS titles in the last 17 GS played. 9 STRAIGHT GS finals appearances! UNREAL!

I have a feeling Nadal won't make it to the FO Finals next year there as there are countless clay court specialists that can analyze Nadal's game down to the butt-picking. And Fed's the 2nd best clay-court guy around.

Jules
07-08-2007, 10:37 AM
I think he should at least test one...maybe he already has, who knows...but Sampras himself has stated that he wished he had been more willing to experiment with larger head sizes during his career (then playing 85 sq inches / now playing 90 sq inches)...Maybe the same story for Fed!? Not that his results is that dissapointing, lol...but who knows, that RG title could turn out to mean everything in eyes of history.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 01:34 PM
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet? :confused:

Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?

Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone? :confused:

Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.

Jules
07-08-2007, 02:10 PM
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet?

Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?

Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone?

Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.

In my opinion I think Federers game would benifit from slightly more power and spin...even if it was at the expense of a little precision, specially on clay. A slightly bigger headsize would probably also reduce the number of mishits, mainly on clay as well. Anyway, it's just a theory and I don't know if he WOULD actually play better with a bigger racquet, but in my totally subjective opinion there COULD be some benefits at the expense of others...

PimpMyGame
07-08-2007, 02:20 PM
The right advice, support team and build-up to the FO would be far more beneficial than changing rackets IMO.

How many people on this forum would think "yeah, ok" if some nugget handed them a different racket and said "you'll play better with this".

I always thought Sampras was having a bit of fun with his comments. He didn't change and we should really be asking why he would make a pointless comment like that.

Too Poor for Grass
07-08-2007, 02:47 PM
Now, in the wake of Federer's fith consecutive Wimbledon, it may appear somewhat curious to question his racquet choice, but I can't help but notice that Federer commits a truly extraordinary number of mishits. I watch a good deal of tennis and can confidently say that Federer mishits far more balls than any other player in the top 10. Has anyone else noticed this?

Granted, his overwhelming talent and dedication have proved more than sufficient to overcome this tendency on most courts and against most opponents, but I can't help but wonder whether a slightly larger headsize might help him recover the considerable number of points that he loses on mishits.

This has been Federer's least-dominant year since 2003, and although he's still #1, I think we might be seeing the margin between him and the rest of the field eroding---even if by only a small margin.

Does anyone think Federer might be better served against Nadal at both Wimbledon and the French by a slightly large frame?

PimpMyGame
07-08-2007, 02:51 PM
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Wimby number 5 suggests to me that it ain't broke...yet.

herosol
07-08-2007, 02:56 PM
um btw:
the only change in ranks would be nadal and federer

they play on planet "we are way too good for the other atp people"

their level is beyond anyone below them. even just by 1 or 2 ranks.

i promise you it will still be them 2 at the top.

Jlocke
07-08-2007, 03:06 PM
I don't think the tennis world really NEEDS him to be better. In this way I don't care if he uses a junior's racquet from Target, I just want to see someone else in a Grand Slam final.

Too Poor for Grass
07-08-2007, 03:06 PM
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Wimby number 5 suggests to me that it ain't broke...yet.

Fair enough, but sometimes I think you have to read the writing on the wall rather than bask in the deceptive comfort of a near miss.

Let's face it: Federer came very close to losing today's match, and even if you don't believe that, you have to accept that he was pushed as far as he's been pushed at Wimbledon in many years. Then, there's the matter of his rather apparent regression at the French. Apparently, Federer began preparing for the French the day after he won the Aussie, but in the final, he showed no improvement at all. Add on the fact that his 2007 winning percentage is lower than at any time since 2003, and you have to wonder whether he might be slipping just a tad. Now Federer is so good that he can slip a little and still be a favorite in grand slams, but it seems that the margin is closing.

I think it's now apparent that Nadal is closer to winning Wimbledon than Federer is to winning the French. That said, Federer tends to give away a significant number of points with mishits, and it seems to me that some of that might be attributable to using such a small frame.

Too Poor for Grass
07-08-2007, 03:13 PM
um btw:
the only change in ranks would be nadal and federer

Even if that's true, shouldn't that be more than enough to concern him? After all, it's about winning, right? Were second place good enough, he'd be thrilled about his performance at the French. Federer has made no progress whatever against Nadal at the French and now appears to have lost ground to Nadal at Wimbledon.

He just seems to make more errors than someone of his talent and precision should, and many of these are caused by mishits that might be due to using such a small frame.

AAAA
07-08-2007, 03:18 PM
Federer has made no progress whatever against Nadal at the French


I disagree. This year Federer had so many more breakpoints he was far closer to winning two sets against Nadal compared to last year.

Too Poor for Grass
07-08-2007, 04:06 PM
I disagree. This year Federer had so many more breakpoints he was far closer to winning two sets against Nadal compared to last year.

Even if we grant your point, wouldn't you agree that nadal is closer to winning Wimbledon than federer is to winning the French? If that's true, then Nadal is gaining on Federer.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 04:40 PM
I've said this a million times but I'll say it again.

A bigger racquet will NOT make Federer mishit less! He mishits because of his incredible racquet head speed and NOT because of the size of his racquet. When he mishits he usually hits the ball off of the edge of his frame. He would be doing the same thing with a 95, perhaps even more since I don't know of any 95 frames that are as thin as his 90, as most have even wider beams. And any shots near the frame with a 90 will still be near the frame on a 95 and still be a mishit.

The only way for him to mishit less would be to slow down his swing but then that would take away the awesome spin, power, and control he gets from his shots. His fast swing speed obviously works for him. His 11 Grand Slam titles prove that. Why does he need to change?

foetz
07-08-2007, 05:06 PM
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet? :confused:

Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?

Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone? :confused:


exactly. in fact a small head size has a unique direct feeling and much more more or less subjective features.

Duzza
07-08-2007, 05:08 PM
No, his technique is not suited for a bigger frame.

NoBadMojo
07-08-2007, 05:15 PM
Even if that's true, shouldn't that be more than enough to concern him? After all, it's about winning, right? Were second place good enough, he'd be thrilled about his performance at the French. Federer has made no progress whatever against Nadal at the French and now appears to have lost ground to Nadal at Wimbledon.

He just seems to make more errors than someone of his talent and precision should, and many of these are caused by mishits that might be due to using such a small frame.

Your posting something like this wont get you much love on the forum. why? because it makes sense

It's a tribute to how good Fed really is that he can donate so many free points to his opponents by frame balls and misshits from using the frame he uses and still beat most everyone. I can understand how he would be reticent about making a racquet change in light of his success, but really do think he would be an even better player if he didnt give away so many points...a larger headed frame would cause him to misshit less provided the sweetzone is larger..that's not even disputable and has little to do with him having batspeed....ALL the pros operate w. high batspeed and relatively very few of them use mids anymore, and almost none use a k90 (not that Fed really uses a k90 anyway). If the k90 was all that, more pros woul be using one. I would say Nadals batspeed is higher than Feds, Blakes def is, Gonzo, etc..all use 98 or 100 headsizes and none seem to have the 'donate a bunch of free points thru misshitting' syndrome that Fed has

There is nothing that you can do with a Mid which cant be one with a MP, plus none of the disadvantages..thats why most of the really good and smart players choose MP's

AAAA
07-08-2007, 05:24 PM
Even if we grant your point, wouldn't you agree that nadal is closer to winning Wimbledon than federer is to winning the French? If that's true, then Nadal is gaining on Federer.

No need to grant me anything because it's fact Federer had more break points this year than last year at the FO against Nadal. The rest of what you wrote isn't relevant to the point I was making.

lethalfang
07-08-2007, 05:25 PM
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet? :confused:

Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?

Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone? :confused:

Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.

No one has asked if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet, because he had played with a smaller racquet already: PS85.

DonBot
07-08-2007, 05:31 PM
The only problem with the whole k90 = Fed mishits argument is that Fed played some of the best tennis of his career at the Austalian open this year. I even have it on my tivo and watch it back every once in a while as it is about as close to perfect tennis as I have seen in probably my life. And he was playing with the k90 at that time (or for those who think it is a pj the pj of the k90). I think he has just been a bit of a slump since the australian open, probably a little too complacent about being so great and little too much mirka. (although I probably should not use the word little and mirka in the same sentence). As every poster knows, you don't play your best tennis every time you hit the court and sometimes you can get in a slump that lasts a couple months, it happens to the best players as well as the rest of us mortals. Well that and Nadal is playing some of the best tennis of his career :)

Richie Rich
07-08-2007, 05:33 PM
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet? :confused:

Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?

Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone? :confused:

Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.

then why do the pro's, the best of the best, play with 95-105 sq inch frames for the most part? these guys will use whatever headsize produces the results. other than fed who uses a 90 sq inch or less frame?

BodegaBay
07-08-2007, 05:36 PM
Agreed with BP. The raquet ain't broken. Don't fix it. The only thing that can help Fed's inconsistencies (if it can be called that) is a coach.

foetz
07-08-2007, 05:37 PM
No, his technique is not suited for a bigger frame.

that makes no sense. only vice versa.

Mad iX
07-08-2007, 05:37 PM
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.

Federer is simply not as dominant as he used to be. His footwork for the most of the 2nd week of Wimbledon was sloppy (for his standards). He isn't setting up as well and obviously a bigger racket will not fix this.

herosol
07-08-2007, 05:45 PM
oh yea. and i when i play with huge *** 100 sq inch babolats.
i dont play better.

but heck. im not federer, so he must be able to play the 95s or 100s

stevekim8
07-08-2007, 05:49 PM
i'm sure he already "demoed" 95'' racquet and all the other racquets. i'm pretty sure he chose 90'' over 95'' because he plays better.

JW10S
07-08-2007, 05:58 PM
Amazing how many people are presumptuous enough to think they know better than the #1 player in the world and holder of 11 Grand Slams what is best for him. Why not call him up and offer your coaching services while you're at it.

Big Fed
07-08-2007, 05:58 PM
i'm sure he already "demoed" 95'' racquet and all the other racquets. i'm pretty sure he chose 90'' over 95'' because he plays better.

Right on my fellow brotha:p

Richie Rich
07-08-2007, 06:08 PM
fed should switch to the big bubba.... or the ergonom

xtennisloverx
07-08-2007, 06:14 PM
did sampras have this many mishits?

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 07:21 PM
then why do the pro's, the best of the best, play with 95-105 sq inch frames for the most part? these guys will use whatever headsize produces the results. other than fed who uses a 90 sq inch or less frame?
The last time I looked, the "best of the best" is Federer and he uses a 90 sq. in. frame. So I'd say it's all the other pros that are missing out and would probably also play better if they all also switched to 90 sq. in. frames. If they want to beat Federer, they'd better all switch to 90's, right?

I think the better question is: Why aren't all the other pros using 90's? Because that's what logic would dictate (if everyone here is assuming it's only the racquet that makes a pro play better).

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 07:33 PM
No one has asked if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet, because he had played with a smaller racquet already: PS85.
To tell you the truth, if you watched his 2001 Wimbledon match against Sampras, I thought he played better with his PS 6.0 85 than he does today with his K90, especially his serves and his volleys. He was acing Sampras left and right and actually out-aced Sampras during the match (almost unheard of at Wimbledon). He also came to the net on just about every serve and volleyed even better than Sampras, and also hit tons of screaming backhand passing shots. So I think both his serving and his volleying were better with the PS 6.0 85 than with the K90. Perhaps that's why he almost never serves and volleys anymore, even at Wimbledon. His bigger racquet just does not allow him to do it as well anymore. I can't imagine how much further going to an even bigger racquet would negatively impact his game.

OK, I know people are going to say he's winning more with his 90 than he did with his 85. Well, I think most of that has to do with his mental toughness, focus, experience, stronger desire to win, and ability to now control his emotions and frustrations on court, and less do do with his strokes.

couch
07-08-2007, 07:35 PM
God knows he wouldn't shank as many balls.

This is a pointless thread. The guy just won Wimbledon, how much better does he need to be?

When the hardcourt season rolls around I bet he doesn't shank as many balls. It's called clay and grass.

I bet if you went up to a 120 sq. in. frame you'd be a lot better.

BreakPoint
07-08-2007, 07:41 PM
did sampras have this many mishits?
No he didn't, and even though he used an even smaller racquet at 85 sq. in.

However, Sampras' racquet was weighted up much heavier so he used more of the weight (as well as full gut strings) to generate the power rather than super-high racquet head speed. Sampras also hit a bit flatter than Federer does so it's easier not to mis-hit.

quest01
07-08-2007, 08:34 PM
oh yea. and i when i play with huge *** 100 sq inch babolats.
i dont play better.

but heck. im not federer, so he must be able to play the 95s or 100s

Thats true because there isnt many people that can get away with using a 90 sq inch tennis racket especially among recreational and club level players.

quest01
07-08-2007, 08:39 PM
I think Feds game would slightly improve if he used a 95 or 100 sq inch racket especially on clay. Actually i hope Fed doesnt switch rackets so he can at least give his opponents a chance.

tennis_hand
07-09-2007, 12:08 AM
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.

Federer is simply not as dominant as he used to be. His footwork for the most of the 2nd week of Wimbledon was sloppy (for his standards). He isn't setting up as well and obviously a bigger racket will not fix this.

agree. sometimes he is just lunging for balls. but of course he usually does that to maintain his balance.

Duzza
07-09-2007, 01:22 AM
that makes no sense. only vice versa.

Ok then

No, a bigger frame is not suited for his technique. Most of his best shots come from the whip of the small thin frame IMO.

warreng
07-09-2007, 06:02 AM
Imagine the marketing and gimmicking money Wilson could receive if Fed actually switched to a larger head just for Clay? It'd be ridiculous.

Wilson K-factor Tour 95 Clay edition... :D

In truth, Fed has a stigma around other players by which they kind of "fear" him. If he switched racquets, it'd just be a chink in the armour. Why would he admit to a weakness? I mean he's gotten to the finals twice using the same size stick...

Richie Rich
07-09-2007, 06:44 AM
So I'd say it's all the other pros that are missing out and would probably also play better if they all also switched to 90 sq. in. frames. If they want to beat Federer, they'd better all switch to 90's, right?


all the pro's would probably play better with a 90? you can't really be serious :rolleyes:

Wannabe
07-09-2007, 09:45 AM
Federer's forehand is more prone to error than that of many of the other top players, and yet it's still the greatest forehand in the world. Why? Because he has probably the best ratio of winners to unforced errors. In my view, the error comes from the way he rolls the racquet over the top of the ball on impact to give great topspin without having to whip the ball up. If you look at the trajectory of the ball after leaving the racquet it seems to fly flat and then suddenly dip as the topspin kicks in. It's almost like a table tennis shot. I don't know whether anyone else was watching the BBC's coverage yesterday but, putting footage of the two side by side, they showed how similar the stroke mechanics of Federer's forehand are to Borg's forehand. Looking at the shot in slow motion, I wonder how he ever gets one in, since, if he's early by the smallest fraction of a second, he's going frame first into the ball (and would be with any size head); if he's late, he'll get no topspin.

As for the backhand; well, perhaps he should just try to avoid getting into crosscourt rallies with a lefty forehand.

BreakPoint
07-09-2007, 10:52 AM
all the pro's would probably play better with a 90? you can't really be serious :rolleyes:
Well, people here seem to think it's all about the racquet and not about the pro so that Federer would instantly get better by switching racquets. If so, then since Federer is the best player in the world with his 90, wouldn't logic dictate that switching to a 90 would also make other pros better?

If everyone else in the world is worse than Federer, why would he want to switch to a racquet that makes all these other pros play worse than him? It's not logical. Logic says all these other pros should switch to the racquet that makes Federer play better than them. I mean because it's all about the racquet and not the pro, right? :roll:

lacostetennis3
07-09-2007, 12:02 PM
You also have to consider the incredible amount of outright winners Fed hits. I'm sure he would have less misshits with a slightly larger frame, but he might also have a little bit less control for those countless line-touching winners

Richie Rich
07-09-2007, 12:12 PM
Well, people here seem to think it's all about the racquet and not about the pro so that Federer would instantly get better by switching racquets. If so, then since Federer is the best player in the world with his 90, wouldn't logic dictate that switching to a 90 would also make other pros better?

If everyone else in the world is worse than Federer, why would he want to switch to a racquet that makes all these other pros play worse than him? It's not logical. Logic says all these other pros should switch to the racquet that makes Federer play better than them. I mean because it's all about the racquet and not the pro, right? :roll:

as usual, you've twisted things around. point was that pro's use what is best for THEM. they decide what they use to get the most out their games. i'm sure if using a 90 sq inch frame resulted in a benefit to them they would change. the fact that only a handful of pro's use such small headsizes should tell you something. but you're missing the point

BTW, I'm agreeing with what you wrote in post #7. frame size shouldn't be a debate. pro's use what works for them and only them.

LafayetteHitter
07-09-2007, 12:17 PM
I agree with Breakpoint, that is what Roddick and Nadal need to do. They should both switch to an 85" Pro Staff 6.0 so they can catch up with Federer. Wouldn't the logic of competition be that the lower ranked players tend to mimic the #1. I mean in drag racing the World Champion Top Fuel dragster driver surely isn't sitting on the finish line thinking I definately need to switch to what the other guys are using?

drakulie
07-09-2007, 12:24 PM
Does anyone think Federer might be better served against Nadal at both Wimbledon and the French by a slightly large frame?

No.

By the way, I've done stats on several Fed matches where people are "assuming" the same thing you are stating here>>> that Fed has a lof of mishits, and although he does have mishits, so do his opponents. Of all the macthes I've done, there is only one where he had more mishits than his opponent, and that was the French Open Final this year against Nadal.

I haven't done the stats for this Wimbledon final, but I would venture to say nadal and fed were about equal. Additionally, nadal had a mishit in the last game of the match that gave Fed a match point.

Your posting something like this wont get you much love on the forum. why? because it makes sense

Unfortunatley, it doesn't make sense. Why?? Because you are convenitently forgetting his oponents also haver many mishits.

It's a tribute to how good Fed really is that he can donate so many free points to his opponents by frame balls and misshits from using the frame he uses and still beat most everyone. I can understand how he would be reticent about making a racquet change in light of his success, but really do think he would be an even better player if he didnt give away so many points...a larger headed frame would cause him to misshit less provided the sweetzone is larger..that's not even disputable and has little to do with him having batspeed....

Again, not true. If this were the case, then his opponents would be using 105 square inch frames to make them better players as well.


I would say Nadals batspeed is higher than Feds, Blakes def is, Gonzo, etc..all use 98 or 100 headsizes and none seem to have the 'donate a bunch of free points thru misshitting' syndrome that Fed has

They may not "seem" to but the fact of the matter is>>>> they do have as many, if not more mishits than Fed, and I have proven this with fact, rather than rhetoric.

There is nothing that you can do with a Mid which cant be one with a MP, plus none of the disadvantages..thats why most of the really good and smart players choose MP's

I guess that eliminates Federer and Sampras :roll:. (25 Grand Slam Victories)

drakulie
07-09-2007, 12:30 PM
then why do the pro's, the best of the best, play with 95-105 sq inch frames for the most part? these guys will use whatever headsize produces the results. other than fed who uses a 90 sq inch or less frame?

Well, this ain't saying much becaue other than Fed and Nadal>>> none of these other pros you are speaking about using these larger frames are doing much on tour. Perhaps they should go to a larger frame??? :roll:

Like you said, pros are going to use the headsize that produces the best result. Fed is using a 90 and I would say with 11 slams under his belt (which blows away all current pros and many past pros), it is pretty good.

the fact that only a handful of pro's use such small headsizes should tell you something. but you're missing the point



Not too many pros are using 105-110 square inch frames either. And I can't remeber the last one to win a slam with one. I think the 90 is doing much better.

BreakPoint
07-09-2007, 12:32 PM
i'm sure if using a 90 sq inch frame resulted in a benefit to them they would change.
Exactly, and the same with Federer, right? If a larger racquet benefited him, he would switch, right?

I agree with you that it's not about the racquet and each pro should use what's best for their own games.

However, I disagree with the overriding presumption here that a bigger racquet must always be better than a smaller racquet for everyone.

Richie Rich
07-09-2007, 12:33 PM
Exactly, and the same with Federer, right? If a larger racquet benefited him, he would switch, right?

I agree with you that it's not about the racquet and each pro should use what's best for their own games.

However, I disagree with the overriding presumption here that a bigger racquet must always be better than a smaller racquet for everyone.

agree with you 110%.

Soundbyte
07-09-2007, 12:43 PM
Go hold up a 100 sq. inch racket behind an 85 sq. inch pro staff. You'll notice the difference isn't that much. If you're telling me that would turn Fed's mishits into clean shots...you're crazy.

BreakPoint is right. It has everything to do with the racket speed.

I just hate how everyone on this forum uses the most recent match to make conclusions about a player's career or where they're headed. Thats like saying if someone has a bad serving day, I should go make a thread about how his/her serve is going downhill and will never be as good as it once was. Can you say 'hasty generalization'? It's a fallacy you know.

godprint
07-09-2007, 05:50 PM
i think the only reason is, federer is just not taking his opponents seriously.

he seems really relaxed at times... which i really don't like as it kinda makes me think that he is just too good for anyone, which isn't a healthy behavior in my opinion that is.

but i agree, he is really too good for anyone even nadal, nadal has to give 110% while federer seems like he is giving a fraction of that effort to win points.

NoBadMojo
07-09-2007, 06:24 PM
Go hold up a 100 sq. inch racket behind an 85 sq. inch pro staff. You'll notice the difference isn't that much. If you're telling me that would turn Fed's mishits into clean shots...you're crazy.

.

Holding up one racquet to another really doesnt tell you very much at all.

BounceHitBounceHit
07-09-2007, 06:46 PM
Uh-hum..........hummmm...............just a quick reminder:

1. Federer just won his fifth CONSECUTIVE Wimbledon title (despite conditions that seemingly favor other players' games over his own).

2. Federer now has 11 Grand Slam titles and shows no (REAL) signs of slowing down anytime soon. He could easily end his career with 15 GS titles, or more, shattering a record I (for one) thought would stand for a VERY long time just a few short years ago.

3. He has been absolutely destroying the rest of the competition on the ATP Tour for years, with the exception of Nadal on the slowest of clay courts. And oh yes, frankly Nadal may well be the best clay court player of all time.

Federer has the option of playing ANY frame he likes, including custom-made frames from ANY manufacturer. Yet he takes the time and expends the energy to play test and (help?) tweak the Wilson PS series to his liking.

I have to shake my head at this stuff. The man is very likely THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME. He does NOT need your advice on his choice of tennis equipment. He is a human being, and not perfect. He makes errors. So do all his opponents, only TYPICALLY MANY MORE THAN HE!!!!

By this logic, everyone else on the ATP Tour, including the butt picking Nadal, should go IMMEDIATELY and get a new frame, because obviously FedEx has continued to kick their butt with their current choice.

:)

CC

AJK1
07-09-2007, 06:55 PM
I wouldn't swap a few mishits for all the winners and aces he does.

ollinger
07-09-2007, 06:57 PM
Craig
Speaking of errors, I notice your third point, about the "slowest of clay courts." What is Federer's record against Nadal on cement?

BounceHitBounceHit
07-09-2007, 06:59 PM
I wouldn't swap a few mishits for all the winners and aces he does.

Who would? This is a GREAT point, because if the frame is responsible for the mishits, must it not also be responsible for the winners and aces??? ;) CC

pow
07-09-2007, 07:02 PM
I've said this a million times but I'll say it again.

A bigger racquet will NOT make Federer mishit less! He mishits because of his incredible racquet head speed and NOT because of the size of his racquet. When he mishits he usually hits the ball off of the edge of his frame. He would be doing the same thing with a 95, perhaps even more since I don't know of any 95 frames that are as thin as his 90, as most have even wider beams. And any shots near the frame with a 90 will still be near the frame on a 95 and still be a mishit.

The only way for him to mishit less would be to slow down his swing but then that would take away the awesome spin, power, and control he gets from his shots. His fast swing speed obviously works for him. His 11 Grand Slam titles prove that. Why does he need to change?

I second this, I went from a 98 sq. to a 93 sq. and if I swing and mishit on my 93 sq. I know that the ball would have died anyways on my 98 because even if you hit the strings off center on bigger head sizes, they will often be erratic and impossible to control if it doesn't just die on the string bed. Simply just a different form of a mishit.

NoBadMojo
07-09-2007, 07:08 PM
Craig
Speaking of errors, I notice your third point, about the "slowest of clay courts." What is Federer's record against Nadal on cement?

Fed is 5-8 vs Nadal

They've played 4x on hard court and are 2-2

Fed is 2-0 on grass

So that makes him 1-6 vs Nadal on Clay

Fed is 5 years older

BounceHitBounceHit
07-09-2007, 07:10 PM
Craig
Speaking of errors, I notice your third point, about the "slowest of clay courts." What is Federer's record against Nadal on cement?

I am guessing that it must be a losing one? ;)

Seriously, I don't Google search every match. However, do you disagree with the remaining 98% of my post?

Best,

CC

BounceHitBounceHit
07-09-2007, 07:13 PM
Fed is 5-8 vs Nadal

They've played 4x on hard court and are 2-2

Fed is 2-0 on grass

So that makes him 1-6 vs Nadal on Clay

Fed is 5 years older

Thanks for that Mojo! :)

CC

BounceHitBounceHit
07-09-2007, 07:15 PM
Fed is 5-8 vs Nadal

They've played 4x on hard court and are 2-2

Fed is 2-0 on grass

So that makes him 1-6 vs Nadal on Clay

Fed is 5 years older

Mongo,

How is the BB frame treating you?

After re-reading your post I concluded this also means that in all fairness, and to remain consistent with my own internal logic, Rafa gets to keep his current frame. ;)

CC

BreakPoint
07-09-2007, 07:27 PM
What is Federer's record against Nadal on cement?
Federer and Nadal are 2-2 on hardcourts.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=federer&player2=nadal

NoBadMojo
07-09-2007, 07:50 PM
Mongo,

How is the BB frame treating you?

After re-reading your post I concluded this also means that in all fairness, and to remain consistent with my own internal logic, Rafa gets to keep his current frame. ;)

CC

Hey Craig,
The Becker11 is really nice. I have a seed frame and it is heavier than target specs, so am waiting to hit a mainstream one...If it comes out to be 315 swingweight as they say, I'd be happy to switch. If not, I really like the dnx10mp I've been using, and there is always the option of having the Becker11 Lite setup to swing exactly like the dnx9's which was ideal for me just with a leather grip. I think I have the opposite problem of many TW posters...I have trouble picking amongst several frames I really like.....these frames exceed my 5.0 capacity to use them.
Still enjoying the Mojo string setup? I had a brief stint with a teflon coated poly cross which played amazingly well....but only for about 1.5 sessions and then it crapped out on me..
As to your own internal logic, it aint for me to say how you should parse that....;)

jackcrawford
07-09-2007, 08:23 PM
2. Federer now has 11 Grand Slam titles and shows no (REAL) signs of slowing down anytime soon.

CC
Actually, many signs - looked like a last hurrah to me. Nadal a likely grand slam winner next year. It was a good run, but it's over. Can't see Fed beating Gonzalez or Budge if they had graphite frames, either; he's been lucky to have Roddick as a whipping boy. Let's not hear the modern day players are always better nonsense - Oakmont this year was set up exactly like in '53 when Hogan shot one shot better than this year's winner with persimmon woods and real irons, not titanium cavity-backs. That's about 4 shots a round disadvantage, so he really would have destroyed the field.

jkonecne
07-09-2007, 08:32 PM
Every racket has a downfall. His small head may cause a number of miss hits, as any small headed racket would, but it helps him do other things better than a racket with a bigger head would. Pros and Cons.

eldoop
07-09-2007, 08:54 PM
My understanding was that a smaller headsize provided an advantage because it deformed the ball causing more topspin. And I think this can only be compensated for a little bit by changing the flex of the racquet as it has more to do with the size of the stringbed. If any of ya'll have a better understanding of the physics please chime in, but I think I am correct. Although Sampras hit his groundstrokes flatter than most pros his serves had incredible amounts of spin. Likewise, Federer can hit a forehand with as much topspin as a typical male pros kickserve. That is incredible. I also think that although it is easier to mishit using a smaller head it is also easier to handle a large amount of pace and spin with the smaller head (in terms of getting good topspin, pace, and control on your next groundstroke).

My personal guess is that it makes little difference, but that if there is an advantage to using a larger head it goes to players who use more Western grips (unlike Fed or Sampras). Actually I think in modern times this holds pretty true, that players with more extreme grips use larger heads. The only real counterexample I can think of is Courier (perhaps Keurten or some of the clay courters of the early 90s, but I don't remember what they played with in comparison to their competitors). Also I don't know if the impact angle for a player with a western grip is substantially different than that of Federer, it might be just that it is easier to hit highballs with a western (which it definitely is).

So what I am saying is that by switching to a larger racquet Fed would be giving up topspin. He would gain a larger sweet spot. I'm sure he has tested out larger racquets and feels he has made the best set of tradeoffs. I think most of his mishits are due to lazy footwork but I don't have proof.

Please feel free to refute me if you have a good physical argument

NoBadMojo
07-09-2007, 08:56 PM
Actually, many signs - looked like a last hurrah to me. Nadal a likely grand slam winner next year. It was a good run, but it's over. Can't see Fed beating Gonzalez or Budge if they had graphite frames, either; he's been lucky to have Roddick as a whipping boy. Let's not hear the modern day players are always better nonsense - Oakmont this year was set up exactly like in '53 when Hogan shot one shot better than this year's winner with persimmon woods and real irons, not titanium cavity-backs. That's about 4 shots a round disadvantage, so he really would have destroyed the field.

sure, other than removing several hundred trees from Oakmont and turning it into a links types course, narrowing undulating fairways down to nothing, making the rough impossible to negotiate, adding a whole bunch of bunkers including another church pew or so, drainage ditch hazzards, changing a par4 into a par3 <or was it a par5 to a 4..i think that was it>, adding a few hundred yards to the course, etc and etc, Oakmont somewhat resembles the Oakmont CC of 53

drakulie
07-09-2007, 09:30 PM
Uh-hum..........hummmm...............just a quick reminder:

1. Federer just won his fifth CONSECUTIVE Wimbledon title (despite conditions that seemingly favor other players' games over his own).

2. Federer now has 11 Grand Slam titles and shows no (REAL) signs of slowing down anytime soon. He could easily end his career with 15 GS titles, or more, shattering a record I (for one) thought would stand for a VERY long time just a few short years ago.

3. He has been absolutely destroying the rest of the competition on the ATP Tour for years, with the exception of Nadal on the slowest of clay courts. And oh yes, frankly Nadal may well be the best clay court player of all time.

Federer has the option of playing ANY frame he likes, including custom-made frames from ANY manufacturer. Yet he takes the time and expends the energy to play test and (help?) tweak the Wilson PS series to his liking.

I have to shake my head at this stuff. The man is very likely THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME. He does NOT need your advice on his choice of tennis equipment. He is a human being, and not perfect. He makes errors. So do all his opponents, only TYPICALLY MANY MORE THAN HE!!!!

By this logic, everyone else on the ATP Tour, including the butt picking Nadal, should go IMMEDIATELY and get a new frame, because obviously FedEx has continued to kick their butt with their current choice.

:)

CC

Great post. Unfortunately, I just had to do it>>> I had to go back, and count all the mishits in this match. Here are the numbers:

Errors: These include any time the player misses a shot (long/net/shank/return/etc)

Federer: 58 backhands, 38 forehands= 96 total.
Nadal: 52 backhands, 49 forehands= 101 total.

Shanks
Federer: 5 backhands, 8 forehands= 13
Nadal: 5 backhands, 9 forehands= 14

Hmmmm :roll:, Being that Nadal misses so many more forehands than Fed, and shanks more, should Nadal switch racquets?? Pehaps to a larger head size??

Perhaps if he discontinued swinging with such a severe uppercut/topspin on that forehand he wouldn't shank so much???

bad_call
07-10-2007, 05:28 AM
Great post. Unfortunately, I just had to do it>>> I had to go back, and count all the mishits in this match. Here are the numbers:

Errors: These include any time the player misses a shot (long/net/shank/return/etc)

Federer: 58 backhands, 38 forehands= 96 total.
Nadal: 52 backhands, 49 forehands= 101 total.

Shanks
Federer: 5 backhands, 8 forehands= 13
Nadal: 5 backhands, 9 forehands= 14

Hmmmm :roll:, Being that Nadal misses so many more forehands than Fed, and shanks more, should Nadal switch racquets?? Pehaps to a larger head size??

Perhaps if he discontinued swinging with such a severe uppercut/topspin on that forehand he wouldn't shank so much???

perhaps each should slow down their game and not go so big as to decrease number of shanks ? ...NOT...then winners would go down as well and where's the fun in that. :p

baseliner87
07-10-2007, 05:56 AM
um btw:
the only change in ranks would be nadal and federer

they play on planet "we are way too good for the other atp people"

their level is beyond anyone below them. even just by 1 or 2 ranks.

i promise you it will still be them 2 at the top.

ha ha ha ha

BounceHitBounceHit
07-10-2007, 07:53 AM
Hey Craig,
The Becker11 is really nice. I have a seed frame and it is heavier than target specs, so am waiting to hit a mainstream one...If it comes out to be 315 swingweight as they say, I'd be happy to switch. If not, I really like the dnx10mp I've been using, and there is always the option of having the Becker11 Lite setup to swing exactly like the dnx9's which was ideal for me just with a leather grip. I think I have the opposite problem of many TW posters...I have trouble picking amongst several frames I really like.....these frames exceed my 5.0 capacity to use them.
Still enjoying the Mojo string setup? I had a brief stint with a teflon coated poly cross which played amazingly well....but only for about 1.5 sessions and then it crapped out on me..
As to your own internal logic, it aint for me to say how you should parse that....;)


Mojo,

I posted elsewhere on this forum yesterday my 'Top 5' frames, reflecting an almost three year journey through demo-land before finally settling in this spring with the K90. I too seem to like too many frames! ;) Seriously, I could play with any one of those five I listed and be a very, very happy man.

As for the string set up I am VERY pleased. Great power, feel, AND comfort. Love it!!

Since I am no longer demoing, I will have to live vicariously through your (and others here) experience with the BB11.

Best,

CC

BounceHitBounceHit
07-10-2007, 08:04 AM
Actually, many signs - looked like a last hurrah to me. Nadal a likely grand slam winner next year. It was a good run, but it's over. Can't see Fed beating Gonzalez or Budge if they had graphite frames, either; he's been lucky to have Roddick as a whipping boy. Let's not hear the modern day players are always better nonsense - Oakmont this year was set up exactly like in '53 when Hogan shot one shot better than this year's winner with persimmon woods and real irons, not titanium cavity-backs. That's about 4 shots a round disadvantage, so he really would have destroyed the field.

Can you please elaborate? What signs of slowing down do you see? :confused: CC

TennezSport
07-10-2007, 08:27 AM
I've said this a million times but I'll say it again.

A bigger racquet will NOT make Federer mishit less! He mishits because of his incredible racquet head speed and NOT because of the size of his racquet. When he mishits he usually hits the ball off of the edge of his frame. He would be doing the same thing with a 95, perhaps even more since I don't know of any 95 frames that are as thin as his 90, as most have even wider beams. And any shots near the frame with a 90 will still be near the frame on a 95 and still be a mishit.

The only way for him to mishit less would be to slow down his swing but then that would take away the awesome spin, power, and control he gets from his shots. His fast swing speed obviously works for him. His 11 Grand Slam titles prove that. Why does he need to change?

After all these years of developing tennis and kenetic studies, it still gets to me when people think that the racquet makes the player.

Fed has been using this racquet all of his adult life and started with the 85 Sampras model before that. If you watch him throughout the year, you will notice that he has more mishits at the French and Wimbly, because of the errant bounces and his fast swing speeds on those surfaces. Breakpoints statements are absolutely correct, as the 95 or even a 100 sq in racquet would make not difference or cause more mishits. Adding to that is that Fed likes to take the ball on the rise, making it even more difficult to time the ball.

However, at the AO and USO he has far less mishits as the bounce is very true which accentuates his eye hand coordination and high swing speed. This is why he looks so great that those two tourneys and a little shakey at the FO and Wimbly.

To me all this says that we are seeing one of the greatest Tennis ball strikers to have ever played the game, so if he shanks a few then I say shank you very much (sorry I had to).

TennezSport :cool:

TennezSport
07-10-2007, 08:32 AM
Great post. Unfortunately, I just had to do it>>> I had to go back, and count all the mishits in this match. Here are the numbers:

Errors: These include any time the player misses a shot (long/net/shank/return/etc)

Federer: 58 backhands, 38 forehands= 96 total.
Nadal: 52 backhands, 49 forehands= 101 total.

Shanks
Federer: 5 backhands, 8 forehands= 13
Nadal: 5 backhands, 9 forehands= 14

Hmmmm :roll:, Being that Nadal misses so many more forehands than Fed, and shanks more, should Nadal switch racquets?? Pehaps to a larger head size??

Perhaps if he discontinued swinging with such a severe uppercut/topspin on that forehand he wouldn't shank so much???

Drakulie,

Once again I like the way you post, just the facts, just the facts.

Thanks,

TennezSport :cool:

Pete.Sampras.
07-10-2007, 08:33 AM
Federer knows best! If he plays with the small head then this will give him what he wants or needs. But I admit that I have thought about a "larger headsize for Fed" a few times in the past...

I know that I have less mishits with my K95 now than I had in the eleven years with my PS85, but I'm not Federer nor do I have his talent. With this talent, I would have probably stayed with the smaller headsize as well...

NoBadMojo
07-10-2007, 08:38 AM
Mojo,

I posted elsewhere on this forum yesterday my 'Top 5' frames, reflecting an almost three year journey through demo-land before finally settling in this spring with the K90. I too seem to like too many frames! ;) Seriously, I could play with any one of those five I listed and be a very, very happy man.

As for the string set up I am VERY pleased. Great power, feel, AND comfort. Love it!!

Since I am no longer demoing, I will have to live vicariously through your (and others here) experience with the BB11.

Best,

CC

Craig,
If I was still playing tourney T, I wouldnt be hitting all these diff fames either. It really can mess up your game as you know. (especially the serve). The dnx10mp is a natural for me as they come from the same tool as the Gen1 which I used for 5 years, and they come stock about the same way I had my Gen1's tricked up. The string setup is a no brainer..no reason to fool aound with that.
You know you are dying to try the Becker11..fess up ;)

BounceHitBounceHit
07-10-2007, 09:04 AM
After all these years of developing tennis and kenetic studies, it still gets to me when people think that the racquet makes the player.

Fed has been using this racquet all of his adult life and started with the 85 Sampras model before that. If you watch him throughout the year, you will notice that he has more mishits at the French and Wimbly, because of the errant bounces and his fast swing speeds on those surfaces. Breakpoints statements are absolutely correct, as the 95 or even a 100 sq in racquet would make not difference or cause more mishits. Adding to that is that Fed likes to take the ball on the rise, making it even more difficult to time the ball.

However, at the AO and USO he has far less mishits as the bounce is very true which accentuates his eye hand coordination and high swing speed. This is why he looks so great that those two tourneys and a little shakey at the FO and Wimbly.

To me all this says that we are seeing one of the greatest Tennis ball strikers to have ever played the game, so if he shanks a few then I say shank you very much (sorry I had to).

TennezSport :cool:

Right on. One of the, if not THE, greatest ball strikers of all time. CC

drakulie
07-10-2007, 07:21 PM
Drakulie,

Once again I like the way you post, just the facts, just the facts.

Thanks,

TennezSport :cool:

Back at you! >>I also enjoyed your posts in this thread.

____
07-10-2007, 09:26 PM
It's not the racquet!
In the 70s - 80s most of the player use wood racquets with 80 - 85 sq inches head size and they still hit the ball solidly.

BreakPoint
07-10-2007, 10:53 PM
It's not the racquet!
In the 70s - 80s most of the player use wood racquets with 80 - 85 sq inches head size and they still hit the ball solidly.
Actually, standard wood racquets were typically only around 65 sq. in. That's why the ProStaff at 85 sq. in. was considered a "Midsize" because 65 sq. in. was considered "Standard" size and a Prince at 107 sq. in. was considered "Oversize". Of course, today, an 85 is considered even smaller than "standard". :-(

BounceHitBounceHit
07-11-2007, 02:52 PM
Glad to see the silliness about folks making recommendations to Fed for a new frame is dying down................... ;) CC

A.T.S.
07-11-2007, 03:11 PM
Wouldnt a larger racket head mean a heavier racket? In turn it would slow down his racket head speed that let's him produce that topspin. With his style a small racket head means greater head speed and leads to heavy topspin. So even with a larger head size he wouldnt have the speed so for topspin so he wouldnt find the court anyways.

BounceHitBounceHit
07-11-2007, 05:06 PM
Craig,
If I was still playing tourney T, I wouldnt be hitting all these diff fames either. It really can mess up your game as you know. (especially the serve)...........
You know you are dying to try the Becker11..fess up ;)

Yes, so true. Too much demo=no consistency. :(

As for the BB 11.............I don't want to demo! I don't want to demo! I don't want to demo!! I DON'T WANT TO DEMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

CC

BounceHitBounceHit
07-11-2007, 05:07 PM
Yes, so true. Too much demo=no consistency. :(

As for the BB 11.............I don't want to demo! I don't want to demo! I don't want to demo!! I DON'T WANT TO DEMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

CC


Maybe I can convince myself if I keep saying it............... ;) CC

schadenfreude
07-12-2007, 01:57 PM
The only reason why Nadal is coming closer to Federer is age. This is Federer's last year to dominate tennis. 25 is the "magic number" in tennis. Federer's body is simply aging-out. Nadal is younger and will only get stronger and tougher in the coming years.

Federer will still be in the Top10 in the next 3 years (injuries excepted) but his best days are behind him, starting next season.

I agree that Federer might want to try a different frame later on. But right now..why would he change?

The better question is what steps does Nadal need to take to get a real threatening serve?

BounceHitBounceHit
07-12-2007, 01:59 PM
The only reason why Nadal is coming closer to Federer is age. This is Federer's last year to dominate tennis. 25 is the "magic number" in tennis. Federer's body is simply aging-out. Nadal is younger and will only get stronger and tougher in the coming years.

Federer will still be in the Top10 in the next 3 years (injuries excepted) but his best days are behind him, starting next season.

I agree that Federer might want to try a different frame later on. But right now..why would he change?

The better question is what steps does Nadal need to take to get a real threatening serve?

I respectfully disagree, but only time will tell. Best, CC

BounceHitBounceHit
07-12-2007, 02:04 PM
I disagree because I think the WAY that FedEx plays the game, he can stay VERY strongly competitive for years to come. Not only is Roger preternaturally smooth, with classic strokes that do not incorporate ballistic, joint jarring movements, he is blessed with the virtue of being a 'true' all court player. As such, Roger doesn't rely to excess on one shot, or even a particular series of shots. Thus fewer injuries, and a longer competitive career at a VERY high level. ;) CC

NoBadMojo
07-12-2007, 02:18 PM
I think it is Nadal who will be the earlier burnout agewise. He's got to go at every ball 100%, and gets in longer points than Federer. Federer seems to play typically more within himself as evidenced by pulling out bigger serves and other shots at critical times in matches...much like Sampras. Nadal will likely be more injured..I think he's already been injured as much as Fed and is 5 years younger
I dont think Fed will ever win the French however. It's just too much of a grind, and if Nadal doesnt get him, someone else always could because, other then Nadal, there have been some real one trick ponies winning the French. He's just too vulnerable up high to his one hander

BounceHitBounceHit
07-12-2007, 02:42 PM
I think it is Nadal who will be the earlier burnout agewise. He's got to go at every ball 100%, and gets in longer points than Federer. Federer seems to play typically more within himself as evidenced by pulling out bigger serves and other shots at critical times in matches...much like Sampras. Nadal will likely be more injured..I think he's already been injured as much as Fed and is 5 years younger
I dont think Fed will ever win the French however. It's just too much of a grind, and if Nadal doesnt get him, someone else always could because, other then Nadal, there have been some real one trick ponies winning the French. He's just too vulnerable up high to his one hander

Well said Mongo.

I think Fed CAN win the French Open, but agree circumstances will need to conspire in his favor.

Best,

CC

sureshs
07-12-2007, 02:57 PM
Nadal has the mental and physical energy to fully focus on every stroke. Other players, including Federer, tend to retreat into their comfort zone, hitting relaxed shots, till an opportunity opens up. The reason that Nadal is #2 is that other players are fundamentally lazy. They do what feels good, instead of treating every shot as an opportunity to attack. When pushed, they don't try to get to every ball. Basically, they are bigger, faster and more talented versions of club players. Mentally, they are about the same - hit a couple of good ones, then throw some easy ones into the net and make irritating sounds as if they can't believe what happened. Roddick is a prime example.

As long as Nadal can keep this up, he will keep winning. He already pushed Fed at Wimbledon, despite playing 7 days in a row, while Fed had a 5 day break. Let us see what happens in the hard court season.

quest01
07-15-2007, 08:28 PM
I think Federers racket is a solid racket. I know i couldnt get away with using a 90 sq inch racket consistently. I havent used the kfed racket 90 but i have used the ncode 90 and i would have to say this is the most demanding racket i ever used. I mean this racket is designed and recommended for 5.0+ players and i felt using this racket only made my game worse. I dont know why anyone would want to use a 90 sq inch racket unless your at least a 5.0

Mick
07-15-2007, 08:41 PM
I like Pete's racquet choice better haha :)

I wonder how fast his serve was with this racquet.

http://i10.tinypic.com/4qiu0rt.jpg

BreakPoint
07-16-2007, 01:01 AM
I like Pete's racquet choice better haha :)

I wonder how fast his serve was with this racquet.

http://i10.tinypic.com/4qiu0rt.jpg

It wouldn't surprise me if Sampras beat Todd Martin, 7-5 using that Dunlop Maxply Fort woodie and Martin used his regular graphite racquet, especially on grass, as the PS 6.0 85 plays about as close to a wood racquet as you'll find today. ;)

Mick
07-16-2007, 04:21 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if Sampras beat Todd Martin, 7-5 using that Dunlop Maxply Fort woodie and Martin used his regular graphite racquet, especially on grass, as the PS 6.0 85 plays about as close to a wood racquet as you'll find today. ;)

I viewed more pictures and it turns out Sampras only used the Dunlop in one point during the match . I can't make out what racquet Sampras is using now. The paint job doesn't look like either the nCode or the KFactor. There seems to be no red color in it or maybe it's the angle that hides the red color.

http://i15.tinypic.com/6gcjqm0.jpg

FEDEX1
07-16-2007, 04:54 AM
^^^i'm pretty sure its painted red its just the angle is hard to tell

BounceHitBounceHit
07-16-2007, 08:10 AM
I like Pete's racquet choice better haha :)

I wonder how fast his serve was with this racquet.

http://i10.tinypic.com/4qiu0rt.jpg


I recall that Flipper served within all his attempts within a few MPH's of one another when using a wood frame and his preferred Dunlop graphite of the time.

sureshs
07-16-2007, 08:26 AM
I disagree because I think the WAY that FedEx plays the game, he can stay VERY strongly competitive for years to come. Not only is Roger preternaturally smooth, with classic strokes that do not incorporate ballistic, joint jarring movements, he is blessed with the virtue of being a 'true' all court player. As such, Roger doesn't rely to excess on one shot, or even a particular series of shots. Thus fewer injuries, and a longer competitive career at a VERY high level. ;) CC

Moderators, please ban poster for using advanced vocabulary. He should be asked to stick to the following to conform to the level of the board: OMG, LOL, ROTFLMAO, dude.

BounceHitBounceHit
07-16-2007, 08:41 AM
Moderators, please ban poster for using advanced vocabulary. He should be asked to stick to the following to conform to the level of the board: OMG, LOL, ROTFLMAO, dude.

:)

BTW, what is 'ROTFLMAO'??? :confused:

CC

sureshs
07-16-2007, 09:15 AM
:)

BTW, what is 'ROTFLMAO'??? :confused:

CC

rolling on the floor laughing my *** off.

Keifers
07-16-2007, 09:16 AM
Moderators, please ban poster for using advanced vocabulary. He should be asked to stick to the following to conform to the level of the board: OMG, LOL, ROTFLMAO, dude.
OMG, dude! LOL and ROTFLMAO!... :D

BreakPoint
07-16-2007, 12:21 PM
I viewed more pictures and it turns out Sampras only used the Dunlop in one point during the match . I can't make out what racquet Sampras is using now. The paint job doesn't look like either the nCode or the KFactor. There seems to be no red color in it or maybe it's the angle that hides the red color.

I'm pretty sure that Sampras is still using the nCode 90 paintjob. BTW, his racquets are exactly the same ones that Federer used when Federer had the nCode 90 paintjob. Sampras just asked Wilson to send him some of "Federer's racquets", which they did. So most likely he is still using the same racquet as Federer, as Federer's K90 is likely just a new paintjob of whatever he's been using for many years.

crosscourt
07-17-2007, 07:21 AM
Federer's forehand is more prone to error than that of many of the other top players, and yet it's still the greatest forehand in the world.


Is it really still the best forehand in the world. Maybe Nadal's is now the best.

cc

crosscourt
07-17-2007, 07:32 AM
By the way, I've done stats on several Fed matches where people are "assuming" the same thing you are stating here>>> that Fed has a lof of mishits, and although he does have mishits, so do his opponents.

I saw Federer play Safin at Wimbledon this year, and one of the striking things about Federer was how many mishits/false shots he played. He may have had an off day and the weather conditions didn't help. But he had more mishits than Safin by quite a long way.

BounceHitBounceHit
07-17-2007, 07:53 AM
Is it really still the best forehand in the world. Maybe Nadal's is now the best.

cc

I am curious if there are any statistics available to clarify this issue? I know that subjectively it sure seems Fed's is the best if by best one means most effective. CC

chaz_233
07-17-2007, 08:40 AM
Yes, Fed needs another racket, he hits horribly with that thing. His "performance" at RG against buttpicker was pathetic. Out of 10 shots, what, 9 were UEs.

crosscourt
07-17-2007, 10:53 AM
I am curious if there are any statistics available to clarify this issue? I know that subjectively it sure seems Fed's is the best if by best one means most effective. CC

I'm curious about this. What are the factors that make you say Federer's forehand is the most effective?

cc

BounceHitBounceHit
07-17-2007, 11:13 AM
I'm curious about this. What are the factors that make you say Federer's forehand is the most effective?

cc

Because he not only hits so many outright winners (which he does) but in addition uses it so effectively to FORCE ERRORS and set up other shots.

At the highest levels of play, it is all about FORCING errors from your opponent.

Best,

CC

crosscourt
07-18-2007, 01:04 AM
I agree about the importance of forcing errors -- particularly on clay. Do you think that in the FO final Federer's f/h forced more errors from Nadal than Nadal's f/h forced from Federer.

My feeling is that it's hard to say because whether you force an error depends on things like footwork as well as the quality of the shot. One player may have the better f/h but if his footwork isn't good enough to get him consistently to the oppos f/h then he is going to make errors that are not solely the consequence of the shot to be returned. And it also depends on the quality of the shot off the other wing. If my b/h is better than the oppos, my f/h to his b/h may make my f/h look better than his f/h because his f/h can do less damage to my b/h.

Overall, who is best is about who has the best game overall and that any one stroke -- technically -- is only a part of that. Footwork, strength of mind, technique, variety of shot and prevalence of different surfaces, are all in there.

cc

BreakPoint
07-18-2007, 10:28 AM
I'd say Federer has more variety on his forehand than Nadal does. He can hit with tremendous spin but he can also really flatten it out to go for the outright clean winner. To me, that makes for a better forehand.

BounceHitBounceHit
07-18-2007, 10:30 AM
I agree about the importance of forcing errors -- particularly on clay. Do you think that in the FO final Federer's f/h forced more errors from Nadal than Nadal's f/h forced from Federer.

My feeling is that it's hard to say because whether you force an error depends on things like footwork as well as the quality of the shot. One player may have the better f/h but if his footwork isn't good enough to get him consistently to the oppos f/h then he is going to make errors that are not solely the consequence of the shot to be returned. And it also depends on the quality of the shot off the other wing. If my b/h is better than the oppos, my f/h to his b/h may make my f/h look better than his f/h because his f/h can do less damage to my b/h.

Overall, who is best is about who has the best game overall and that any one stroke -- technically -- is only a part of that. Footwork, strength of mind, technique, variety of shot and prevalence of different surfaces, are all in there.

cc


If we are looking for the most complete player (maybe ever) we need look no further than FedEx. ;) CC

BounceHitBounceHit
07-18-2007, 10:31 AM
I'd say Federer has more variety on his forehand than Nadal does. He can hit with tremendous spin but he can also really flatten it out to go for the outright clean winner. To me, that makes for a better forehand.

I agree. CC

crosscourt
07-18-2007, 10:52 AM
If we are looking for the most complete player (maybe ever) we need look no further than FedEx. ;) CC

But do you say that he has the best forehand for forcing errors?

cc

BounceHitBounceHit
07-18-2007, 11:06 AM
But do you say that he has the best forehand for forcing errors?

cc

Yes, because of his variety on the FH wing and (as you correctly pointed out) the ability to play a true 'all court' game that keeps opponents off balance (ie there is no single stroke that exists in isolation from the others, nor from movement, concentration, 'will', etc-all these factors are 'inter-dependent' variables the sum of which can produce, on rare occasions, true greatness) ;)

CC

tennis_hand
07-18-2007, 09:11 PM
he grows up with that and he is used to it. so why change now?

and probably the OP only looked at the mishits but didn't look at the winners or error-forcing shots?

u can't compare Fed mishit to Sampras either. Sampras' games are short without long rallies. this certainly means he mishit a lot less. and those guys at his game mostly are flat hitters. U mishit less if you hit flat and you hit like him.

so, it really might benefit Fed if he changes to a 95. or it might make him average because his shot making will be gone with a 95. u never know what is gonna happen. And the usual strategy is, why change when u are successful with a racket. He'd rather improve on his skills rather than experiment another racket. U don't wanna induce another variable into your game.

samrocksmyshire
07-19-2007, 01:36 AM
people, please. Big Bubba is the solution.

BigGriff
07-19-2007, 02:55 AM
Why would a club player like myself have an opinion on the racquet of most dominant player in this era? :confused:

Maybe I'll teach Lebron James how to dunk a basketball.

Wawa
07-19-2007, 04:47 AM
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.

Federer is simply not as dominant as he used to be. His footwork for the most of the 2nd week of Wimbledon was sloppy (for his standards). He isn't setting up as well and obviously a bigger racket will not fix this.

i agree!!!!!!

Wawa
07-19-2007, 05:10 AM
federer's kfactor doesn't help him to much .
Is his style! ;)

BounceHitBounceHit
07-19-2007, 07:26 AM
i agree!!!!!!


I agree too. It is DEFINITELY NOT THE RACQUET!! ;) CC

Kingbipa
07-19-2007, 10:02 PM
Why even argue about this? Roger plays with the racquet that HE believes produces the best results for him. HE KNOWS which racquet will help him win better than ANY OF US. End of story.

Regarding whether 2007 is his final dominant year, that's not necessarily true. We all know Roger plays very efficiently and takes painstaking care not to injure himself. Who else would skip a warm up tournament to Wimbledon to avoid injury prior to the main event? The vast majority of his matches are 3-setters so from a "mileage" perspective he is doing just fine for someone his age. The question now is can he hold off the young guns for 3-4 more years and really end all debate about whether he is the GOAT by winning 17 or more Grand Slams (yes he needs to win that many to silence the doubters).

I'm not that worried about Nadal. Unless he changes his style of play, he is going to break down in the next 2 years. He's already having knee trouble and without a great serve he's going to remain a grinding baseliner (albeit the best one in the world) and continue accumulating wear and tear.

Roger just needs to hold off Nadal, Djokovic, Gasquet and maybe Murray. Doesn't sound that difficult if you ask me. He just needs to stay healthy and dedicated and let his talent do the talking.

jetlee2k
07-19-2007, 10:42 PM
I've said this a million times but I'll say it again.

A bigger racquet will NOT make Federer mishit less! He mishits because of his incredible racquet head speed and NOT because of the size of his racquet. When he mishits he usually hits the ball off of the edge of his frame. He would be doing the same thing with a 95, perhaps even more since I don't know of any 95 frames that are as thin as his 90, as most have even wider beams. And any shots near the frame with a 90 will still be near the frame on a 95 and still be a mishit.

The only way for him to mishit less would be to slow down his swing but then that would take away the awesome spin, power, and control he gets from his shots. His fast swing speed obviously works for him. His 11 Grand Slam titles prove that. Why does he need to change?

Well said.. I agree with Breakpoint 100%.. Forget about Federer, just for an open level player, I play much much better with the smaller head size 90 and then 85 and sometimes I used the old Dunlop Max 200g or Adidas GTX Pro-T Ivan Lendl to play.. It's not the racket head size.. Just the timing and focus on the ball under pressure. If you take PS 85, KFactor 90, and some other mid plus 98 square inch stack them up, the difference is very minimal.. but the control, the feel is huge. I don't know why, my racket feel unstable and tend twisted, mishit more with a midplus racket than a mid 90 or below..

crosscourt
07-19-2007, 11:30 PM
Yes, because of his variety on the FH wing and (as you correctly pointed out) the ability to play a true 'all court' game that keeps opponents off balance (ie there is no single stroke that exists in isolation from the others, nor from movement, concentration, 'will', etc-all these factors are 'inter-dependent' variables the sum of which can produce, on rare occasions, true greatness) ;)

CC

I see what you mean, but my feeling is that on a clay or slow court Nadal has the best forehand. The spin/depth/angle capabilities that he has are too good.

cc

TennisFrkJC92
07-22-2007, 06:30 PM
He's been using small headed racquets his entire life. I'm sure he tried bigger headed racquets. If he played better with them, he would've switched already.

tennis_hand
07-22-2007, 07:15 PM
well, i don't see why he can't and shouldn't use a 95 inch racket, and he can ask Wilson pro room to modify to his liking of weight and balance, etc. He can use a 90, and he can certainly use a 95.

some of you are exaggerating the change by asking him to use a 100 or 120. lol. well, 90 to 95 is not as radical as that.

but I can understand the difficulty to change. When he switched from 85 to 90, he hadn't won anything big. but now he had won 11 Slams with a 90. Anyone will hesitate to change at this moment. Probably he will experiment to change once he can't win a Slam in a whole year.

Michelangelo
07-22-2007, 07:17 PM
I wish Wilson will re-release the ProStaff 110 oversize soon and Fed plays with it!

BkK_b0y14
07-22-2007, 07:36 PM
isnt there already a thread on this, with the exact same name that was posted a while ago? like after FO 07.

BounceHitBounceHit
07-22-2007, 07:52 PM
Let's see................

Federer is the best player in the world.
Federer has won 11 Grand Slam titles.
Federer has dominated men's tennis for the past 3-4 years like NOONE before him.
Federer routinely kicks the butt(s), individually and collectively, of dozens of other world class tennis players, who (as SO many on this board have pointed out) ALL use larger frames.

I must admit I am feeling a bit confused: Is it just me, or is the better question, should the rest of the ATP change to a SMALLER frame? Perhaps the K90??? ;)

CC

BreakPoint
07-22-2007, 09:58 PM
I must admit I am feeling a bit confused: Is it just me, or is the better question, should the rest of the ATP change to a SMALLER frame? Perhaps the K90??? ;)

I'm with you on that, Craig. But when I said the same thing earlier in this thread, I got flak for it.

The last time I looked, the "best of the best" is Federer and he uses a 90 sq. in. frame. So I'd say it's all the other pros that are missing out and would probably also play better if they all also switched to 90 sq. in. frames. If they want to beat Federer, they'd better all switch to 90's, right?

I think the better question is: Why aren't all the other pros using 90's? Because that's what logic would dictate (if everyone here is assuming it's only the racquet that makes a pro play better).

all the pro's would probably play better with a 90? you can't really be serious :rolleyes:

Bottle Rocket
07-22-2007, 10:17 PM
I think both his serving and his volleying were better with the PS 6.0 85 than with the K90. Perhaps that's why he almost never serves and volleys anymore, even at Wimbledon. His bigger racquet just does not allow him to do it as well anymore. I can't imagine how much further going to an even bigger racquet would negatively impact his game.

OK, I know people are going to say he's winning more with his 90 than he did with his 85. Well, I think most of that has to do with his mental toughness, focus, experience, stronger desire to win, and ability to now control his emotions and frustrations on court, and less do do with his strokes.

The things that you have convinced yourself of are absolutely incredible. You're just so out there. For a while there, I didn't realize how serious you were about Federer, yourself, and these frames, but now I realize. You're dead serious about this stuff. Unbelievable.

I can't believe that not only are you fully convinced that the things you're saying are truth, but you actually feel like you need to convince others of those beliefs.

Do you have to come onto this board because your hitting partners just don't care about what you have to say, because they think you're full of it?

BreakPoint
07-22-2007, 10:40 PM
The things that you have convinced yourself of are absolutely incredible. You're just so out there. For a while there, I didn't realize how serious you were about Federer, yourself, and these frames, but now I realize. You're dead serious about this stuff. Unbelievable.

I can't believe that not only are you fully convinced that the things you're saying are truth, but you actually feel like you need to convince others of those beliefs.

Do you have to come onto this board because your hitting partners just don't care about what you have to say, because they think you're full of it?
Uh...did you even watch the complete 5-set 2001 Wimbledon match between Federer and Sampras?? :rolleyes:

How many people can out-ace Sampras at Wimbledon, (which Federer did with his PS 6.0 85)? And Federer is not even known for a big serve like Sampras was.

Federer also served and volleyed on every first serve and even most second serves. Does he do that now? I see him miss routine volleys all the time now as if he was afraid of going to the net or volleying. Back then with his 85, he was volleying like a maniac and made Sampras look helpless when Federer was at the net.

Why don't you think about that before you open your mouth again?

BreakPoint
07-22-2007, 10:44 PM
The things that you have convinced yourself of are absolutely incredible. You're just so out there. For a while there, I didn't realize how serious you were about Federer, yourself, and these frames, but now I realize. You're dead serious about this stuff. Unbelievable.

I can't believe that not only are you fully convinced that the things you're saying are truth, but you actually feel like you need to convince others of those beliefs.

Do you have to come onto this board because your hitting partners just don't care about what you have to say, because they think you're full of it?

BTW, just because you're unable to play with a small headed racquet and have to depend on your monstrosity of a racquet to hit the ball, doesn't mean that Federer can't either.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Federer is a slightly better tennis player than you are.

counterpunchingrules
07-27-2007, 10:49 PM
Amazing how many people are presumptuous enough to think they know better than the #1 player in the world and holder of 11 Grand Slams what is best for him. Why not call him up and offer your coaching services while you're at it.

haha seriously

rosenstar
07-28-2007, 04:51 AM
I think for Rolland Garos a bigger frame would help him against Nadal. at the moment he uses 90 sq in and for RG he should use about 93 - 95 sq in.

do you really think 3-5 inches with make a noticeable difference?

The Gorilla
07-28-2007, 07:04 AM
the sweet spot would be in a dramatically different place though

dragonxking
08-01-2007, 11:15 AM
would fed play better with a 95?
hell no he won't. the k90 and k95 are completely different racquets.

federer envies me
08-03-2007, 01:50 PM
yeah if he changed to 95, he would get less errors

LafayetteHitter
08-03-2007, 01:59 PM
I doubt anyone here has the knowledge to give Federer viable feedback. Not knocking anyone but let's be serious. Federer half asleep drugged on Valium wearing flip flops could take just about anyone that shoots off about his racquet being a problem.

BreakPoint
08-03-2007, 05:16 PM
yeah if he changed to 95, he would get less errors
But he would also hit far fewer winners so it's not a good trade-off for him.

Rafa freak
08-03-2007, 05:27 PM
I don't think he will ever switch.

The Gorilla
08-03-2007, 08:26 PM
But he would also hit far fewer winners so it's not a good trade-off for him.

why ?

BreakPoint
08-03-2007, 08:34 PM
why ?
Because he wouldn't have the same control to take those huge swings and go for winners as he'll be afraid of hitting the ball out.

dragonxking
08-04-2007, 02:51 AM
because we have never seen federer play with anything larger than a 90(or whatever size racquet he's using now), it's pointless to decide whether or not he would play better with anything other than what he's already using.

although regarding the topic question, id assume federer won't play better with a 95+ because in the end, he chose his k90

Fries-N-Gravy
08-04-2007, 10:49 AM
has anyone though about the fact that if he's shanking a ball on an 85 or 90, he'd still be shanking it on a 95-100? how much wider do you think a slightly bigger racquet is?

really, the previous dominant player used 85, the current dominant player who is seemingly even more dominant than sampras went from 85 to a 90. and yet everyone thinks having a superoversize sledgehammer 1.0 will improve his game.

LafayetteHitter
08-04-2007, 11:21 AM
You are correct, it would not make much of a difference at all.

Hollywood3
08-05-2007, 10:55 PM
After reading these posts it's obvious that many of you have not demo both racquets the 90 and 95.

The 90 is a clear favorite all you need to do is take them both out and just playing against the wall you will notice if you have proper technique that the 90 racquet hits more in the center box than the 95.

The 90 in a nutshell is deadly accurate and a much better feel than the 95. Also the beam width of the 90 is smaller allowing for better aerodynamics with your swing. It's not even a comparison. Federer will never use a 95 racquet.

nBladed
08-05-2007, 11:11 PM
After reading these posts it's obvious that many of you have not demo both racquets the 90 and 95.

The 90 is a clear favorite all you need to do is take them both out and just playing against the wall you will notice if you have proper technique that the 90 racquet hits more in the center box than the 95.

The 90 in a nutshell is deadly accurate and a much better feel than the 95. Also the beam width of the 90 is smaller allowing for better aerodynamics with your swing. It's not even a comparison. Federer will never use a 95 racquet.

SO RIGHT!

Isn't mis-hitting a result of not getting in position to clearly be prepared to hit the ball? I've played with a nBlade for over a year (98 sq in.). I have been playing with the k90 and I am much more accurate on all my shots! The k90 is much more stable.

In the years past, I feel that Fed was more accurate. i.e. Wimbledon playing Sampras, etc. Fed was much more hungry back then. Since he has been on top for awhile I assume that he has become accustomed to his own intimidation factor and some matches being handed to him. Thus, becoming somewhat (not much) lazy in what he has to do to win. Thus the mishits.