PDA

View Full Version : Why do people say Federer needs a bigger racquet whenever he loses...........


BreakPoint
01-30-2011, 10:56 PM
........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer? :confused:

And a lot more people lose to Federer than beat Federer.

I mean, isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet while the loser is using the inferior racquet?

Just asking.......

Sentinel
01-30-2011, 11:20 PM
Good question. Perhaps, some people need a larger brain :)

CrackerJack
01-31-2011, 01:14 AM
Federer wins in spite of persisting with outdated equipment. That's a testament to his greatness. I, and many others believe he is capable of extracting more out of his game by using a more powerful larger headed frame. Whether we like it or not its a fact the game has evolved into big groundstrokes. Larger headed frames are better suited to the faster modern game. Everyone else from bygone eras have been able to switch since retirement. My hope is that fed does so before he retires.

RFRF
01-31-2011, 01:30 AM
That pro staff has won more grand slams than any other bat ever made. There's nothing wrong with it or rog. He has tried other frames but none can match the feel of it to him. I feel the same way about my prestige classics !And I have tried just about every new frame.

CrackerJack
01-31-2011, 02:16 AM
That pro staff has won more grand slams than any other bat ever made. There's nothing wrong with it or rog. He has tried other frames but none can match the feel of it to him. I feel the same way about my prestige classics !And I have tried just about every new frame.
I love the way those racquets feel the pro staff, prestige, max 200g, jack kramer staff....all classics. They have all won bucketloads of grand slams in bygone eras. No comparison in todays game though, even in the hands of the most skilled user. All the fundamentals of the modern game, retrieving, heavy groundstrokes, spin, are all at a disadvantage with smaller classic racquets. No doubt change is a scary proposition, often met with reluctance even cynicism but in my opinion he has more to gain by doing so.

Satch
01-31-2011, 02:18 AM
........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer? :confused:

And a lot more people lose to Federer than beat Federer.

I mean, isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet while the loser is using the inferior racquet?

Just asking.......

it's not that... just the question if he is so good with 90in how would he play with 95 (if we all know how easier it is to hit with 5in bigger frame)... and it leaves us speechless to even imagine how good he can be :D

but maybe it's stupid thinking and can lead to even worse game...

OTMPut
01-31-2011, 02:28 AM
it's not that... just the question if he is so good with 90in how would he play with 95 (if we all know how easier it is to hit with 5in bigger frame)... and it leaves us speechless to even imagine how good he can be :D

but maybe it's stupid thinking and can lead to even worse game...

There lies the fallacy.
The improvement from switching from 90 to 95 is significant for an average club player. The less accomplished, the more is the relative improvement.

At Fed's level there is little he could improve. It might reduce his shank % by say 5 to 10. He would also lose elsewhere -feel, control (esp with his whippy wristy forehand). He might put more balls into play from his backhand side. That does not mean he would automatically win those points. It is not a straightforward sweet spot math.

I am sure he is smart enough to weigh up positives & negatives. Apparently he switched from 85 to 90 once. I am sure he would again if he think that would make a positive contribution.

phnx90
01-31-2011, 02:32 AM
Can you imagine Roger playing with a Babolat tweener hitting double backhands? This is blasphemy! This is madness!

Wilander Fan
01-31-2011, 02:32 AM
Its hardly ever the racket that causes a shank. Its usually footwork and tired legs.

Satch
01-31-2011, 02:49 AM
I am sure he is smart enough to weigh up positives & negatives. Apparently he switched from 85 to 90 once. I am sure he would again if he think that would make a positive contribution.

but most people here think that he is too stubborn to do that :D

i think that he already tried 95 in private and didn't like it..

stoo
01-31-2011, 04:06 AM
but most people here think that he is too stubborn to do that :D

i think that he already tried 95 in private and didn't like it..


Exactly!

Who's to know that he hasn't practised / tested extensively with a bigger frame and just didn't like it?

The days of serve and volley may be long gone and replaced by rallies filled with baseline bashing, but I think Fed's racquet has served him well and continues to do so.

Bobby Jr
01-31-2011, 04:23 AM
.......Larger headed frames are better suited to the faster modern game. Everyone else from bygone eras have been able to switch since retirement. My hope is that fed does so before he retires.
If by "faster" you mean take bigger swings at the ball then I agree. But the game is actually slower.

The thing that has changed most in the past few years is the courts. They've progressively made creative, shot-making tennis harder and harder so tennis hasn't got faster - it's got slower.

This slowness has allowed more players to get to and take bigger cuts at balls - getting insane spin and more balls back into play. Seeing how hard it was for anyone to hit through the court at the AO with this year's balls made me wonder what on earth they are thinking at tennis HQ.

(I'm sure there are cynics who wonder whether it has been done specifically to curb Federer's dominance. :razz:)

Rabbit
01-31-2011, 04:25 AM
That pro staff has won more grand slams than any other bat ever made. There's nothing wrong with it or rog. He has tried other frames but none can match the feel of it to him. I feel the same way about my prestige classics !And I have tried just about every new frame.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but in fact, I think the Dunlop Maxply Fort has won more majors than any other frame ever made. 2nd place might even belong to the Jack Kramer.

themitchmann
01-31-2011, 04:31 AM
Does anyone have any direct knowledge that Fed has actually tried a larger head, or more open pattern?

Bartelby
01-31-2011, 04:38 AM
Federer himself decided he needed a bigger racquet quite late in his development, so that was a decisive move for his future success.

The reality is that it does not make any sense for him to change, but the trend toward slow defensive play on slow courts is now even more prominent.

Twenty or thirty ball rallies from the baseline is quite different from the one-two punch tennis of the nineties.

Audiophile
01-31-2011, 04:38 AM
If by "faster" you mean take bigger swings at the ball then I agree. But the game is actually slower.

The thing that has changed most in the past few years is the courts. They've progressively made creative, shot-making tennis harder and harder so tennis hasn't got faster - it's got slower.

This slowness has allowed more players to get to and take bigger cuts at balls - getting insane spin and more balls back into play. Seeing how hard it was for anyone to hit through the court at the AO with this year's balls made me wonder what on earth they are thinking at tennis HQ.

(I'm sure there are cynics who wonder whether it has been done specifically to curb Federer's dominance. :razz:)


Very well said. There is no question the game is much slower.

Bobby Jr
01-31-2011, 04:41 AM
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but in fact, I think the Dunlop Maxply Fort has won more majors than any other frame ever made. 2nd place might even belong to the Jack Kramer.
Sure about that? What about the Wilson Prostaff 85?

Sampras - 14
Edberg - 6
Courier - 4
Mary Pierce - 1 (with the Prostaff I think- AO 95)
Chris Evert - 3 (with the Prostaff I think - AO 84, FO 85, FO 86)

Rabbit
01-31-2011, 04:41 AM
Does anyone have any direct knowledge that Fed has actually tried a larger head, or more open pattern?

Yes, there was an article about Serena Williams' last racquet change. It was the one during the Australian Open. She had a blacked-out frame and as it turned out, only had one racquet available for the entire tournament; which by the way she won.

The racquet was originally destined for Roger Federer to try. That racquet is now the Blade series I believe. Apparently Federer is given dozens of prototypes from Wilson to demo, some just to get his opinion on as they are not good fits for him, but Wilson values his opinion (imagine that).

To the OP.....folks around here suggest Federer use a bigger frame because they are trying to rationalize his game through their experience. Hey, if it helped them, it's got to be a help to him. The problem is, Federer et. al play a game with which none of us is familiar. Roger Federer is the best judge of what equipment works best for him <Period>.

Bartelby
01-31-2011, 04:44 AM
They did this because the serve-volley game had become a serve-serve game, but it has created a problem of another kind.

For example, it used to be interesting to see passing shot versus volley tennis, but now the passing shot almost always wins.



If by "faster" you mean take bigger swings at the ball then I agree. But the game is actually slower.

The thing that has changed most in the past few years is the courts. They've progressively made creative, shot-making tennis harder and harder so tennis hasn't got faster - it's got slower.

This slowness has allowed more players to get to and take bigger cuts at balls - getting insane spin and more balls back into play. Seeing how hard it was for anyone to hit through the court at the AO with this year's balls made me wonder what on earth they are thinking at tennis HQ.

(I'm sure there are cynics who wonder whether it has been done specifically to curb Federer's dominance. :razz:)

vsbabolat
01-31-2011, 04:53 AM
Sure about that? What about the Wilson Prostaff 85?

Sampras - 14
Edberg - 6
Courier - 4
Mary Pierce - 1 (with the Prostaff I think- AO 95)
Chris Evert - 3 (with the Prostaff I think - AO 84, FO 85, FO 86)

You do know that the Dunlop Maxply Fort was manufactured from 1936-1983. Think about all of those players that used durring that time period and won majors with it. Both men and women.

Bobby Jr
01-31-2011, 04:53 AM
....Apparently Federer is given dozens of prototypes from Wilson to demo, some just to get his opinion on as they are not good fits for him...
No doubt.

I imagine a really tricky aspect about testing frames is you can't just have a demo frame and play with it. He'd need stacks of the same frame all strung and weighted differently. You couldn't get a feel for a frame at all if it was strung completely wrong for you... such is the personal nature of racquet preferences.

I'd like to know just how they do these secret tests. If we're here talking about how a larger frame might help him there is no doubt Wilson have thought of it too and made a racquet based on his current one but with a larger head and with different string spacings.

Or maybe larger isn't the key, maybe longer is the key. I wonder how much more grunt a Fed custom K61 tour would have if it was 2 inches longer.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-31-2011, 04:56 AM
There lies the fallacy.
The improvement from switching from 90 to 95 is significant for an average club player. The less accomplished, the more is the relative improvement.

At Fed's level there is little he could improve. It might reduce his shank % by say 5 to 10. He would also lose elsewhere -feel, control (esp with his whippy wristy forehand). He might put more balls into play from his backhand side. That does not mean he would automatically win those points. It is not a straightforward sweet spot math.

I am sure he is smart enough to weigh up positives & negatives. Apparently he switched from 85 to 90 once. I am sure he would again if he think that would make a positive contribution.

Yes! :) BHBH

BounceHitBounceHit
01-31-2011, 04:59 AM
Yes, there was an article about Serena Williams' last racquet change. It was the one during the Australian Open. She had a blacked-out frame and as it turned out, only had one racquet available for the entire tournament; which by the way she won.

The racquet was originally destined for Roger Federer to try. That racquet is now the Blade series I believe. Apparently Federer is given dozens of prototypes from Wilson to demo, some just to get his opinion on as they are not good fits for him, but Wilson values his opinion (imagine that).

To the OP.....folks around here suggest Federer use a bigger frame because they are trying to rationalize his game through their experience. Hey, if it helped them, it's got to be a help to him. The problem is, Federer et. al play a game with which none of us is familiar. Roger Federer is the best judge of what equipment works best for him <Period>.

And we have a winner!!!!!!!!!! ;) BHBH

Don't Let It Bounce
01-31-2011, 12:10 PM
To the OP.....folks around here suggest Federer use a bigger frame because they are trying to rationalize his game through their experience. Hey, if it helped them, it's got to be a help to him. The problem is, Federer et. al play a game with which none of us is familiar. Roger Federer is the best judge of what equipment works best for him.This has to be the bottom line, and it's why it sometimes looks silly when the question keeps coming up.

But I don't think the question is silly, if for no other reason because other players at/near the top of the game have made that sort of change for that sort of reason. Federer did once already, as pointed out, and Sampras has said publicly that he regrets not having done so late in his career (maybe just on clay; don't remember the exact wording). Courier is making noise recently about moving to a 99 sq" frame, too. So I guess I wouldn't be shocked if Wilson kept trying to find a MP design that works for the guy, but I also wouldn't be shocked if they didn't succeed.

Six.One.Tour.90FAN
01-31-2011, 12:17 PM
IMHO, He doesn't need a bigger frame, not at all. Same argument that everyone is making(he's still winning right?)

However, it would benefit him with todays quicker game.
I can just imagine him playtesting the BIG BUBBA 29...

90

sureshs
01-31-2011, 12:21 PM
If the best players had the mindset that no one can play like them and hence they are the best judge of everything, they wouldn't hire coaches then. What a stupid concept. People are not infallible. Only fools who blindly admire players and use them as proxies for their own lives would say that they are.

PeterFig
01-31-2011, 02:42 PM
I posted this photo on another thread too - but it kinda fits here as well.

You guys do know that he's actually not using a real 90sq in frame. It's actually a paintjob of a much smaller headsized frame - and that's why he loses all these matches. Here is proof positive - it's a photo of Federer's own racquet provided to me by the paint technician at Wilson before the paintjob - and after. So if he actually switched to the real BLX 90 he'd for sure win every slam for the next 5 years.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1482789/blxwood.jpg

sunof tennis
01-31-2011, 02:44 PM
You guys realize that the difference is size between a 90 sq. inch head and a 95 is truly small, right? As anyone who has hit the K90/BLX90 as opposed to the K95 or BLX95 will tell you, these are very different racquets. So, it is not like Roger could just use a normal Wilson 95. I understand they are pros playing with a box Wilson 95, but who knows how close it would be to the feel of Roger's current stick.
Look, Roger may shank a few more balls than other top ten players, but I don't think his racquet choice plays a big part in that. I think he shanks because, one, he plays closer to the baseline to take time away from his opponent more than many other players do which obviously reduces his preparation time and two, he brushes up very quickly on the ball to impart top spin. This means there is less surface string area to strike the ball and more chance for the frame to make contact with the ball. Agassi also took the ball early (he was the best ever at it), but his strokes were flatter which reduced the possibility of his framing the shot.
As others have said, I think Roger is the best judge of what racquet works for him.

1970CRBase
02-05-2011, 03:08 AM
Anybody remember how Lendl's transition to 90 in Mizuno from his 70 in Adidas in summer 1990 to win Wim went? (seems he did use the 90 in, big racquet face back then, for playing on grass but went back the Adidas, sometimes with the Mizuno paintjob, for US hc :rolleyes: )

Get my point?

Wilander Fan
02-05-2011, 03:11 AM
Federer wins in spite of persisting with outdated equipment. That's a testament to his greatness. I, and many others believe he is capable of extracting more out of his game by using a more powerful larger headed frame. Whether we like it or not its a fact the game has evolved into big groundstrokes. Larger headed frames are better suited to the faster modern game. Everyone else from bygone eras have been able to switch since retirement. My hope is that fed does so before he retires.

Modern game is slower.

Pioneer
02-05-2011, 03:16 AM
IMO Berdych would play better with a mid if he can adjust in time.

Pioneer
02-05-2011, 03:17 AM
Well you said it. It was manufactured for 50 years. The PS85 won more majors in it's 20 year life than all other racquets in their 50 year lives ;)

You do know that the Dunlop Maxply Fort was manufactured from 1936-1983. Think about all of those players that used durring that time period and won majors with it. Both men and women.

Wilander Fan
02-05-2011, 03:20 AM
I posted this photo on another thread too - but it kinda fits here as well.

You guys do know that he's actually not using a real 90sq in frame. It's actually a paintjob of a much smaller headsized frame - and that's why he loses all these matches. Here is proof positive - it's a photo of Federer's own racquet provided to me by the paint technician at Wilson before the paintjob - and after. So if he actually switched to the real BLX 90 he'd for sure win every slam for the next 5 years.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1482789/blxwood.jpg

Well played sir.

gplracer
02-07-2011, 01:20 PM
Maybe if Wilson would make a box beam 95" racket Federer would switch. Right now theh do not have a racket he could switch to.

big bang
02-07-2011, 01:29 PM
Maybe if Wilson would make a box beam 95" racket Federer would switch. Right now theh do not have a racket he could switch to.
they do make a boxy 95", same stick as Dolgopolov uses! got a few myself..

Dreamcastin
02-07-2011, 03:22 PM
they do make a boxy 95", same stick as Dolgopolov uses! got a few myself..

besides, im sure if fed wanted a racquet shaped like a monkey, wilson would make it for him.

gplracer
02-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Big Bang, Where did you get those? Is it from that place in Europe that everyone is getting them from? I heard they were out now. I would get on if I could.

Ripster
02-08-2011, 02:39 PM
Sampras was using a big powerful babolat racquet in the exo against Monfils last night :)

jeremy45
02-09-2011, 05:49 AM
why not roger with the new blx balde tour ?

It wouldn't be a good compromise between his actual blx90 and and a 95 size?

big bang
02-09-2011, 06:41 AM
why not roger with the new blx balde tour ?

It wouldn't be a good compromise between his actual blx90 and and a 95 size?
because hes not going "bald" yet:)
Maybe Dunlop should make a "balde tour" for Davydenko:confused:

Djokolate
02-12-2011, 01:53 PM
because hes not going "bald" yet:)
Maybe Dunlop should make a "balde tour" for Davydenko:confused:

i do not have a clue why but i laughed silly at that like a 4yr old laughs when someone says poo.

tennisnoob3
02-12-2011, 02:01 PM
i do not have a clue why but i laughed silly at that like a 4yr old laughs when someone says poo.

because you're 4 years old?

lendlmac
06-08-2012, 01:01 PM
it's not that... just the question if he is so good with 90in how would he play with 95 (if we all know how easier it is to hit with 5in bigger frame)... and it leaves us speechless to even imagine how good he can be :D

but maybe it's stupid thinking and can lead to even worse game...

true he may now have to accept the fact, given his old age, playing with yougner kids with more powerful groundstrokes, to keep up in top 5, just switch to a larger racquet, and join the club...

BreakPoint
06-08-2012, 09:37 PM
Imagine how many more times Roddick would have beaten Federer if only he had used a smaller racquet. :shock:

Funbun
06-09-2012, 10:02 AM
^^lol can't tell if BreakPoint is joking or is serious.

I mean, Federer can beat out the rest of the ATP below him, and they use smaller racquets.

Headsize doesn't mean crap. Federer's number 3, for god's sake! Beating Nadal and Djokovic is more than ever a matter of strategy, tactics, than anything else.

Praetorian
06-09-2012, 12:25 PM
It's simple really. People look to their own flawed experiences, and foolishly think what they go through applies to the champions. For instance, a 1.0-wannabe 5.0 hacker who lacks power, blames the racket. A champion blames fitness, technique, timing. By the logic on this board, you would think that for every ranking pt, the player should use a racket 1 sq in larger, and they would play just as well as the person above them. Remember, it's the bad carpenter that blames his tools.

For instance, Djokovic uses a 98 sq in head.
Nadal - 99 sq in to beat him
Federer - 100 to beat nadal
player #100 - 198 sq in to beat #99 who's using a 197 sq in racket.

Ridiculous isn't it.

Imagine of Roger was to say to all his critics, "OK, I'll play you, and everytime you lose, you need play with a racket 5 sq inches larger. If you eventually get to a size that's illegal for tennis. JUST QUIT TENNIS". ALL of the know-it-alls on this boards would be picking up another sports in less than a week.

lendlmac
06-10-2012, 04:41 PM
^^lol can't tell if BreakPoint is joking or is serious.

I mean, Federer can beat out the rest of the ATP below him, and they use smaller racquets.

Headsize doesn't mean crap. Federer's number 3, for god's sake! Beating Nadal and Djokovic is more than ever a matter of strategy, tactics, than anything else.

Yet federer continues o lose now with that same 90 racquet as everyone else is more powerful than he is

preacha89
06-10-2012, 05:54 PM
^^lol can't tell if BreakPoint is joking or is serious.

I mean, Federer can beat out the rest of the ATP below him, and they use smaller racquets.

Headsize doesn't mean crap. Federer's number 3, for god's sake! Beating Nadal and Djokovic is more than ever a matter of strategy, tactics, than anything else.

Totally agree. I mean I look at Federer playing today and it doesn't seem that Federer lacks power by any means, particularly off the forehand. Let's be clear, there are serious matchup problems with Fed vs Djoko and Rafa. I just think that vs the top two, Fed has to go for more because of their defensive skills. Therefore, he has to try to take the ball earlier and perhaps hit with more racquet head speed, especially off the backhand. So with that, clearly your going have more mishits. You see it on the slow motion replays sometimes when Fed is trying to pronate the wrist before contact with the ball, leading to shanks. I just feel that with Fed's game based so much on precision and timing, a larger racquet head would not help because ultimately, with Fed's technique, you still have to time the ball incredibly well, despite the racquet head size, and it is just downright hard to consistently do that.

BreakPoint
06-10-2012, 11:06 PM
Yet federer continues to lose now with that same 90 racquet as everyone else is more powerful than he is
Really? Federer has won more tournaments and has the best win-loss record of anyone on tour in the past 9 months using his 90 sq. in. racquet.

I find it a bit ironic that someone with the screen name "lendlmac" would advocate Federer switching to a 95 sq. in. + racquet when Lend himself dominated the tour using a 75 sq. in. racquet and McEnroe dominated the tour first with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet and then with an 82 sq. in. graphite racquet.

lendlmac
06-11-2012, 01:42 PM
Really? Federer has won more tournaments and has the best win-loss record of anyone on tour in the past 9 months using his 90 sq. in. racquet.

I find it a bit ironic that someone with the screen name "lendlmac" would advocate Federer switching to a 95 sq. in. + racquet when Lend himself dominated the tour using a 75 sq. in. racquet and McEnroe dominated the tour first with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet and then with an 82 sq. in. graphite racquet.

yes in 1991, he switched to a 90sq Mizuno, and played pretty consistently, but for his severe ongoing back issues...he retired but he made the switch, no EGO....ala Federer and Sampras

I'm all for small racquets, I play with my Dunlop Max 200G to this day and blow locals here off the court, in fun...but playing onthe Tour, against fast young kids, with larger racquets and more powerful kids in general, Federer has gotta make the switch to have a chance...he can win all the little tournaments he wants to..

Lend won 94 titles, but no one talks about that, only his 8 GS, using his 75 in sq Adidas GTX Pro racquet....

Federer can win all thel ittle tournaments he wants to, but he still wants GS, No? so he needs to switch...if he doesn't fine...only he CANNOT complain when he loses in GS against these younger guys... he CAN'T complain... he does though, everytime...

Praetorian
06-11-2012, 02:23 PM
yes in 1991, he switched to a 90sq Mizuno, and played pretty consistently, but for his severe ongoing back issues...he retired but he made the switch, no EGO....ala Federer and Sampras

I'm all for small racquets, I play with my Dunlop Max 200G to this day and blow locals here off the court, in fun...but playing onthe Tour, against fast young kids, with larger racquets and more powerful kids in general, Federer has gotta make the switch to have a chance...he can win all the little tournaments he wants to..

Lend won 94 titles, but no one talks about that, only his 8 GS, using his 75 in sq Adidas GTX Pro racquet....

Federer can win all thel ittle tournaments he wants to, but he still wants GS, No? so he needs to switch...if he doesn't fine...only he CANNOT complain when he loses in GS against these younger guys... he CAN'T complain... he does though, everytime...

And if he does, and doesn't win, what will YOU do for Federer. I'm sure if you make an enticing enough offer, he'll take you up. You know, something along the lines of you'll pay him the difference in prize money if he doesn't win the GS. Not trying to be a Dick, but it's easy to take that "I know what's best stance" when it's not your career or money on the line.

lendlmac
06-11-2012, 03:54 PM
And if he does, and doesn't win, what will YOU do for Federer. I'm sure if you make an enticing enough offer, he'll take you up. You know, something along the lines of you'll pay him the difference in prize money if he doesn't win the GS. Not trying to be a Dick, but it's easy to take that "I know what's best stance" when it's not your career or money on the line.

all we agree is, Federer, can't cry and complain when he loses to the top guns and younger players, , when he knows they are all faster, healthier, stronger, using bigger equipemtn, larger racquets, etc...and he still "thinks and believes" he will win another salm using the 90 frame..

it's been 3 years now? 365 days a year x 3? LOL nver mind the little tournaments...his endorsement deals pay more that prize money....if hes playing for fun, done...enough said...but he wants to win another slam, and he wont with the 90 frame anymore...4 years ago, 3 years go, yes...not anymore....he's older and weaker, not younger or stronger or faster...

not arguing with you...just a fan's observation...play for fun and enjoy losing, "good match" you're playing for your fans, etc.... but if you're playing to WIN WIN WIN, and you lose, lose lose aginst the BIG BOYS, you wonce OWNED 5 years ago...then something has gotta change...

Bobby Jr
06-11-2012, 04:11 PM
yes in 1991, he switched to a 90sq Mizuno, and played pretty consistently, but for his severe ongoing back issues...he retired but he made the switch, no EGO......
I think you'll find he used the 90sq frame at Queens and Wimbledon in 1990 and otherwise continued to use his normal frame.

OTMPut
06-12-2012, 04:40 AM
...
the top guns and younger players, , when he knows they are all faster, healthier, stronger, using bigger equipemtn, larger racquets, etc...

in other words equipment is one of the several factors?

in any case, the only guy who consistenty beats fed with a bigger more powerful racquet is Nadal. djoker's frame is not by any means easier to wield or more powerful than Fed's.

Praetorian
06-12-2012, 07:39 AM
Wish I could click Shift+Pi to make this thread disappear. :p

This ^^^^ LOL

tennytive
06-13-2012, 06:34 AM
Good question. Perhaps, some people need a larger brain :)

Best answer by far.

Praetorian
06-13-2012, 09:45 AM
all we agree is, Federer, can't cry and complain when he loses to the top guns and younger players, , when he knows they are all faster, healthier, stronger, using bigger equipemtn, larger racquets, etc...and he still "thinks and believes" he will win another salm using the 90 frame..

it's been 3 years now? 365 days a year x 3? LOL nver mind the little tournaments...his endorsement deals pay more that prize money....if hes playing for fun, done...enough said...but he wants to win another slam, and he wont with the 90 frame anymore...4 years ago, 3 years go, yes...not anymore....he's older and weaker, not younger or stronger or faster...

not arguing with you...just a fan's observation...play for fun and enjoy losing, "good match" you're playing for your fans, etc.... but if you're playing to WIN WIN WIN, and you lose, lose lose aginst the BIG BOYS, you wonce OWNED 5 years ago...then something has gotta change...

Maybe he can, maybe he can't - but only he can answer that, not anyone on this board. If Federer isn't confident that he'd be able to execute the type of shots he wants to execute, with a bigger/smaller/etc, racket, then he's not going to execute it, and that's not his game. Confidence in your racket, is soo much more important that type, size, power, control, etc.

purge
06-13-2012, 10:17 AM
because it would be rather silly to say it whenever he wins :?

Drrjjj
06-13-2012, 01:27 PM
There is nothing wrong with his racquet head size because he has used the same size for most of his career and look how it helped him!

BreakPoint
07-08-2012, 11:37 AM
So where are all the - "Murray needs to switch to a SMALLER racquet" threads? ;-)

gplracer
07-08-2012, 07:38 PM
The two guys with the most GS titles used rackets that were 85 and 90 sq in. They both did it at a time when most other pro players had larger rackets. Hmm......

spoonmugen
07-09-2012, 04:28 AM
roger's slump isnt his equipment... its confidence, when someone beats you in majors consistently you lose focus and start trying to change your game...
wimbledon semi should be a confidence booster for federer vs novak - although would be more defining if it wasnt 'indoor'/roof closed

bluegrasser
07-09-2012, 04:48 AM
yes in 1991, he switched to a 90sq Mizuno, and played pretty consistently, but for his severe ongoing back issues...he retired but he made the switch, no EGO....ala Federer and Sampras

I'm all for small racquets, I play with my Dunlop Max 200G to this day and blow locals here off the court, in fun...but playing onthe Tour, against fast young kids, with larger racquets and more powerful kids in general, Federer has gotta make the switch to have a chance...he can win all the little tournaments he wants to..

Lend won 94 titles, but no one talks about that, only his 8 GS, using his 75 in sq Adidas GTX Pro racquet....

Federer can win all thel ittle tournaments he wants to, but he still wants GS, No? so he needs to switch...if he doesn't fine...only he CANNOT complain when he loses in GS against these younger guys... he CAN'T complain... he does though, everytime...

hmm, last I heard he just won Wimbledom -small tournament ?

lendlmac
09-05-2012, 08:05 PM
I think tonights performance was evidence of needing alarger raquet...

Seth
09-05-2012, 08:18 PM
I think tonights performance was evidence of needing alarger raquet...

Why did you resurrect three threads to say the same thing?

scotus
09-05-2012, 08:43 PM
The two guys with the most GS titles used rackets that were 85 and 90 sq in. They both did it at a time when most other pro players had larger rackets. Hmm......

I don't remember many people saying Pete should change to a bigger racquet. The idea came mostly from himself post retirement upon reflecting on his lack of Roland Garros title.

The reason Roger gets so much of this switch-to-a-larger-racquet crap is that he shanks. I have never seen a top player shank so many shots. It's a wonder how one can keep his head so steady and eyes so long on the ball and still shank so much.

BreakPoint
09-05-2012, 08:55 PM
I think tonights performance was evidence of needing alarger raquet...
Yet, when Federer beat Berdych a few months ago at Madrid, it wasn't?

And I guess Young, Phau, and Verdasco all need bigger racquets since they all lost to Federer with his "tiny" racquet at this US Open?

BTW, if Roddick had used a bigger racquet today, I'm positive he would have beaten Del Potro. :)

BreakPoint
09-05-2012, 08:59 PM
The reason Roger gets so much of this switch-to-a-larger-racquet crap is that he shanks. I have never seen a top player shank so many shots. It's a wonder how one can keep his head so steady and eyes so long on the ball and still shank so much.
Because nobody else hits the ball just as early off the bounce AND has the same high racquet head speed AND rolls over the ball at the point of contact as Federer does. Combine those 3 things and you're going to shank regardless of the size of your racquet.

BreakPoint
09-05-2012, 09:03 PM
I think tonights performance was evidence of needing alarger raquet...
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Almagro, Querrey, Zopp, and Goffin ALL need to switch to bigger racquets as well since they all got crushed by Berdych at this US Open. :)

scotus
09-05-2012, 09:54 PM
Because nobody else hits the ball just as early off the bounce AND has the same high racquet head speed AND rolls over the ball at the point of contact as Federer does. Combine those 3 things and you're going to shank regardless of the size of your racquet.

All you are saying is he is attempting shots he is not good enough to hit cleanly.

BreakPoint
09-05-2012, 10:02 PM
All you are saying is he is attempting shots he is not good enough to hit cleanly.
But still good enough to win 17 Slams with and become the GOAT. :)

BTW, other pros who use bigger racquets don't even attempt to do what Federer does because they know they couldn't do it.

scotus
09-05-2012, 10:07 PM
No, I believe he is good enough hit those shots clean if he uses a larger racquet with the same swing weight.

BreakPoint
09-05-2012, 10:38 PM
No, I believe he is good enough hit those shots clean if he uses a larger racquet with the same swing weight.
Then why is it that no other pro using bigger racquets are good enough to hit those shots?

BTW, a 90 and a 95 do not swing the same even if they have the same swingweight due to aerodynamics and the fact that physically larger things are more obstructive than physically smaller things. I think a larger racquet would slow down his racquet head speed and also make it more difficult for him to roll over the ball on contact that he does. A larger hoop may also hit the ground first because he hits the ball so early off of the bounce.

scotus
09-05-2012, 11:09 PM
Then why is it that no other pro using bigger racquets are good enough to hit those shots?

BTW, a 90 and a 95 do not swing the same even if they have the same swingweight due to aerodynamics and the fact that physically larger things are more obstructive than physically smaller things. I think a larger racquet would slow down his racquet head speed and also make it more difficult for him to roll over the ball on contact that he does. A larger hoop may also hit the ground first because he hits the ball so early off of the bounce.


Get him the larger stick that he can swing at the same speed.

Problem solved.

BreakPoint
09-05-2012, 11:21 PM
Get him the larger stick that he can swing at the same speed.

Problem solved.
Then that racquet would be too light and thus less stable. And like I said, you can't get a larger hoop as close to the ground as you can a smaller hoop.

BTW, pros like Connors and Lendl used racquets that were around 70 sq. in. and I don't recall them ever shanking any balls. It's Federer style of play that causes him to shank balls, not the size of his racquet. Besides, what's wrong with shanking balls when you've won much more than anyone who shanks less? I think that's a trade-off that Federer or anyone else would gladly make. :)

scotus
09-05-2012, 11:35 PM
Fed doesn't shank on low balls only. He mishits high ones as well.

No need to compare him to the other past greats who were obviously not known as shankers.

Certainly 17 grand slams is a GOAT achievement. But we would never know if he couldn't have won even more with a larger racquet, especially against the one player who causes him to mishit most often.

Chances are, Fed will be known as the GOAT who usually came up short against his greatest rival.

Bartelby
09-05-2012, 11:43 PM
Fed's forehand technique is a technically risky shot compared to most so its no wonder he can make wild errors.

connico
09-05-2012, 11:54 PM
Because nobody else hits the ball just as early off the bounce AND has the same high racquet head speed AND rolls over the ball at the point of contact as Federer does. Combine those 3 things and you're going to shank regardless of the size of your racquet.

He doesn't roll over the ball, he pronates.

BreakPoint
09-06-2012, 12:10 AM
He doesn't roll over the ball, he pronates.
Same thing. The result is he rolls over the ball. If you don't pronate your forearm/wrist at all, you can't roll over the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkDIFP4SK9Q&feature=related

ramos77
09-06-2012, 02:17 AM
there is bugger all difference in head size when you compare a 90 to a 95 for example...

lendlmac
09-06-2012, 05:33 AM
I guess we can all agree then. Notice this was exactly how djoker lost the FO ast yearvwith 4 days off and Federer looked fresh, federer had 5 days off and looked flat.

BreakPoint
09-06-2012, 08:56 AM
Fed doesn't shank on low balls only. He mishits high ones as well.

No need to compare him to the other past greats who were obviously not known as shankers.

Certainly 17 grand slams is a GOAT achievement. But we would never know if he couldn't have won even more with a larger racquet, especially against the one player who causes him to mishit most often.

Chances are, Fed will be known as the GOAT who usually came up short against his greatest rival.
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the size of his racquet. Nadal beats EVERY right-hander with a one-handed backhand regardless of the size of the racquet they're using. In fact, I haven't checked but I believe Federer has more wins against Nadal than any other right-handed 1HBH player.

BreakPoint
09-06-2012, 08:59 AM
I guess we can all agree then. Notice this was exactly how djoker lost the FO ast yearvwith 4 days off and Federer looked fresh, federer had 5 days off and looked flat.
Yes, I'd say the lack of match play (especially the lack of competitive matches) probably had more to do with Federer's loss last night than the size of his racquet. He's beaten Berdych many times before and he did look a bit off of his game last night. Berdych also played great.

scotus
09-06-2012, 12:16 PM
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the size of his racquet. Nadal beats EVERY right-hander with a one-handed backhand regardless of the size of the racquet they're using. In fact, I haven't checked but I believe Federer has more wins against Nadal than any other right-handed 1HBH player.

Every shank is pretty much a point lost. Reduce that, he might have a better chance.

Yes, a larger-head racquet will help him reduce the shanks.

BreakPoint
09-06-2012, 12:58 PM
Every shank is pretty much a point lost. Reduce that, he might have a better chance.

Yes, a larger-head racquet will help him reduce the shanks.
If that were true I'm sure Federer would have switched to a larger-head racquet already.

It may help you reduce your shanks but it wouldn't help Federer reduce his shanks because no one else on the planet hits the ball the way that he does. Besides, most of his shanks are off of the side of the frame and a larger head racquet has more side to the frame to shank. :)

Heck, even I shank just as many balls with a larger racquet as with a smaller racquet and I don't take the ball nearly as early nor do I swing nearly as fast nor do I roll over the ball on contact like Federer does. I'm sure this is even more true with Federer.

scotus
09-06-2012, 01:09 PM
If that were true I'm sure Federer would have switched to a larger-head racquet already.

It may help you reduce your shanks but it wouldn't help Federer reduce his shanks because no one else on the planet hits the ball the way that he does. Besides, most of his shanks are off of the side of the frame and a larger head racquet has more side to the frame to shank. :)

Heck, even I shank just as many balls with a larger racquet as with a smaller racquet and I don't take the ball nearly as early nor do I swing nearly as fast nor do I roll over the ball on contact like Federer does. I'm sure this is even more true with Federer.

Do not compare yourself to Federer. Where you fail, Fed will succeed with the right equipment.

The only reason Fed is not changing equipment is that he is used to his current setup and doesn't want to change the feel, just as it was with Sampras.

Now, I'm not saying that a larger racquet would necessarily bring him more titles, and of course, Fed being the GOAT, should probably stick to whatever equipment he feels most comfortable with, but I do believe that the larger racquet would result in fewer shanks.

BreakPoint
09-06-2012, 01:48 PM
Do not compare yourself to Federer. Where you fail, Fed will succeed with the right equipment.

The only reason Fed is not changing equipment is that he is used to his current setup and doesn't want to change the feel, just as it was with Sampras.

Now, I'm not saying that a larger racquet would necessarily bring him more titles, and of course, Fed being the GOAT, should probably stick to whatever equipment he feels most comfortable with, but I do believe that the larger racquet would result in fewer shanks.
But isn't that what you're doing? You think Federer would shank less with a larger racquet because YOU shank less with a larger racquet, right? I mean if you shanked MORE with a larger racquet, I highly doubt you would be suggesting that Federer switch to a larger racquet to reduce his shanks.

BTW, I didn't compare myself with Federer. I said Federer does everything way better than I do. So if a larger racquet can't even help me at my low level, how can it help Federer who does everything way better than I do? If anything, a larger racquet should help me much more than it helps Federer, right?

Also, Sampras used an even smaller 85 sq. in. racquet and I don't recall him ever shanking. Why? Is it because of the way Sampras hits the ball? If you agree, then you must also agree that it had nothing to do with the size of Sampras's racquet. Thus, it follows that you must agree that Federer shanks because of the way he hits the ball and not because of the size of his racquet. The rationale is the same. It's all technique, not racquet size that causes shanking or no shanking.

realplayer
09-06-2012, 02:32 PM
But isn't that what you're doing? You think Federer would shank less with a larger racquet because YOU shank less with a larger racquet, right? I mean if you shanked MORE with a larger racquet, I highly doubt you would be suggesting that Federer switch to a larger racquet to reduce his shanks.

BTW, I didn't compare myself with Federer. I said Federer does everything way better than I do. So if a larger racquet can't even help me at my low level, how can it help Federer who does everything way better than I do? If anything, a larger racquet should help me much more than it helps Federer, right?

Also, Sampras used an even smaller 85 sq. in. racquet and I don't recall him ever shanking. Why? Is it because of the way Sampras hits the ball? If you agree, then you must also agree that it had nothing to do with the size of Sampras's racquet. Thus, it follows that you must agree that Federer shanks because of the way he hits the ball and not because of the size of his racquet. The rationale is the same. It's all technique, not racquet size that causes shanking or no shanking.

Maybe the luxilon strings have caused him to shank more. When he beat Sampras in 2001 poly was not a factor but now the game has changed to heavy topspin. I can imagine that he would benefit from a bigger headsize.

scotus
09-06-2012, 03:52 PM
But isn't that what you're doing? You think Federer would shank less with a larger racquet because YOU shank less with a larger racquet, right? I mean if you shanked MORE with a larger racquet, I highly doubt you would be suggesting that Federer switch to a larger racquet to reduce his shanks.

BTW, I didn't compare myself with Federer. I said Federer does everything way better than I do. So if a larger racquet can't even help me at my low level, how can it help Federer who does everything way better than I do? If anything, a larger racquet should help me much more than it helps Federer, right?

Also, Sampras used an even smaller 85 sq. in. racquet and I don't recall him ever shanking. Why? Is it because of the way Sampras hits the ball? If you agree, then you must also agree that it had nothing to do with the size of Sampras's racquet. Thus, it follows that you must agree that Federer shanks because of the way he hits the ball and not because of the size of his racquet. The rationale is the same. It's all technique, not racquet size that causes shanking or no shanking.

No, I did not compare myself to Federer at all.

It is really just a simple concept. Fed, whatever technique is involved, is trying to hit the ball off the string. The larger racquet face provides more hitting surface, i.e., a larger margin for error, for that.

As long as he is aiming to hit the ball off the string rather than off the frame, the larger hitting area will help that.

tistrapukcipeht
09-08-2012, 06:44 PM
Fed does need a bigger racquet, maybe a 95-98 sq in, that would not be a problem for him, just a help.

Not because he lost to Berdych shanking every other ball, that was a bad day he had, had He gone through, He would probably win US Open, but it is easier to play with bigger racquets, more forgiveness for balls hit not perfectly in the sweet spot.

It's his choice, he can do whatever he wants.

BreakPoint
09-08-2012, 06:53 PM
Fed does need a bigger racquet, maybe a 95-98 sq in, that would not be a problem for him, just a help.

Not because he lost to Berdych shanking every other ball, that was a bad day he had, had He gone through, He would probably win US Open, but it is easier to play with bigger racquets, more forgiveness for balls hit not perfectly in the sweet spot.

It's his choice, he can do whatever he wants.
But if that was really true, how did Sampras with his 85 sq. in. racquet beat Agassi with his 107 sq. in. racquet in every single U.S. Open and Wimbledon match they ever played (which was a lot of them)?

tistrapukcipeht
09-09-2012, 05:57 AM
But if that was really true, how did Sampras with his 85 sq. in. racquet beat Agassi with his 107 sq. in. racquet in every single U.S. Open and Wimbledon match they ever played (which was a lot of them)?

Completely different eras, no one is able to serve and volley nowadays and get to semis of Master Series, let alone win a slam. If Agassi played in this era for the past 7 years, He would not win a single slam, any top 10 now is better than Agassi ever was, you may disagree.

The conditions were a lot faster as well, shorter points, there is almost no way Sampras would ever rally 10 shots with a 85sq in these conditions they play nowadays, it has been changed to have more rallies unfortunately.

As for the racquet, Sampras last used that racquet more than a decade ago, since his retirement he has not used it anymore, rather a 98 as some people have seen and proven.

If a 85sq is that good and has more advantages why nobody uses it? Why doesn't Federer go back to it?? No performance at the highest level, rather a disadvantage.

West Coast Ace
09-09-2012, 09:05 AM
Every shank is pretty much a point lost. Reduce that, he might have a better chance.

Yes, a larger-head racquet will help him reduce the shanks.Do you play tennis? I'm doubting it. A shank is WAY off center - some are off the frame. A move from 90 to 95 (or even 98) - Fed's shanks are still either shanks or such weak returns that his opponent would crush the next shot for a winner.

864-194 - Fed is doing fine. He had a bad night and Berdych had a good one.

lendlmac
10-13-2012, 06:29 AM
I guess it is safe to say, roger needs to upgrade and fast! All these shanks! Its not his age folks he is the no. 1 player in the world and is getting blown away more so now than ever.

BreakPoint
10-14-2012, 09:38 AM
I guess it is safe to say, roger needs to upgrade and fast! All these shanks! Its not his age folks he is the no. 1 player in the world and is getting blown away more so now than ever.
If shanking makes me the greatest player who ever lived and the #1 ranked player for 300 weeks, PLEASE let me shank EVERY SINGLE ball. :)

lendlmac
11-12-2012, 01:34 PM
Now we can all agree!

I guess we can all agree then. Federer at his age, will not surpass the greatness of Ivan Lendl..... Lendl dominated men's tennis and to this day, Federer is still trying to "catch up" toovertake Lendl in many career achievements and milestones....

Federer needs a larger racquet to compete...

sunof tennis
11-12-2012, 01:48 PM
Now we can all agree!

I guess we can all agree then. Federer at his age, will not surpass the greatness of Ivan Lendl..... Lendl dominated men's tennis and to this day, Federer is still trying to "catch up" toovertake Lendl in many career achievements and milestones....

Federer needs a larger racquet to compete...

You are kidding, right? How many slams did Lendl win (8?), about 1/2 as many as Roger. Roger also won slams on all surfaces, Lendl did not. I don't make Roger the undisputed GOAT-Laver, Borg, Pete may have legitmate claims, but Lendl does not. There is nothing that Lendl did on the court that Roger doesn't do better

DownTheLineWith90
11-12-2012, 07:00 PM
You are kidding, right? How many slams did Lendl win (8?), about 1/2 as many as Roger. Roger also won slams on all surfaces, Lendl did not. I don't make Roger the undisputed GOAT-Laver, Borg, Pete may have legitmate claims, but Lendl does not. There is nothing that Lendl did on the court that Roger doesn't do better

Two thumbs, two big toes up.

JDMasFCK
11-12-2012, 07:39 PM
Now we can all agree!

I guess we can all agree then. Federer at his age, will not surpass the greatness of Ivan Lendl..... Lendl dominated men's tennis and to this day, Federer is still trying to "catch up" toovertake Lendl in many career achievements and milestones....

Federer needs a larger racquet to compete...

lendl sucks... period

jokinla
11-12-2012, 10:00 PM
Now we can all agree!

I guess we can all agree then. Federer at his age, will not surpass the greatness of Ivan Lendl..... Lendl dominated men's tennis and to this day, Federer is still trying to "catch up" toovertake Lendl in many career achievements and milestones....

Federer needs a larger racquet to compete...

Please list these for us.

dr325i
11-13-2012, 12:24 AM
Please list these for us.

One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...

Praetorian
11-13-2012, 04:31 AM
Completely different eras, no one is able to serve and volley nowadays and get to semis of Master Series, let alone win a slam. If Agassi played in this era for the past 7 years, He would not win a single slam, any top 10 now is better than Agassi ever was, you may disagree.

The conditions were a lot faster as well, shorter points, there is almost no way Sampras would ever rally 10 shots with a 85sq in these conditions they play nowadays, it has been changed to have more rallies unfortunately.

As for the racquet, Sampras last used that racquet more than a decade ago, since his retirement he has not used it anymore, rather a 98 as some people have seen and proven.

If a 85sq is that good and has more advantages why nobody uses it? Why doesn't Federer go back to it?? No performance at the highest level, rather a disadvantage.

Yes.. but if Agassi was born in 1985 and took advantage of the technology and advanced training techniques now used by the top pros, Nadal probably wouldn't have won one. The power of what-ifs...

Praetorian
11-13-2012, 04:33 AM
If shanking makes me the greatest player who ever lived and the #1 ranked player for 300 weeks, PLEASE let me shank EVERY SINGLE ball. :)

QFT...
10 chars

KHSOLO
11-13-2012, 10:23 AM
The "shanker" finished the year with what 70-10 ratio?

jokinla
11-13-2012, 10:36 AM
One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...

This is your list of the "many career achievements and milestones" of Lendl's that Fed is trying to catch up to?

Bobby Jr
11-13-2012, 11:41 AM
This is your list of the "many career achievements and milestones" of Lendl's that Fed is trying to catch up to?
Yeah, I left replying to that post to you. It was a doozie of irrelevancy huh? :lol:

sunof tennis
11-13-2012, 02:05 PM
One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...

How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments

dr325i
11-13-2012, 02:24 PM
How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments

That is the base for everything else, btw. You will learn that once you grow up and have kids of your own...

IMO, you cannot compare the two -- totally different times, totally different competition, totally different strokes.
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...

That is why the whole GOAT discussion is absolute waste of time

EX: 2012 BMW (F30) runs faster, smoother, corners better, sounds and looks better than 1989 BMW (E30), but every car enthusiast knows which one to enjoy better... Different generations and standrds...

jokinla
11-13-2012, 06:38 PM
How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments

Of course, which is why neither him nor the other guy has listed the "many" achievements Fed is trying to catch, what a joke, but that pretty much sums up this place.

Bobby Jr
11-13-2012, 07:01 PM
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...
Well, he'd likely have all of Lendl's US Opens, plus Becker's from 89, Sampras' first one, McEnroe's from 84, Connor's from 82 and 83 and for sure Wilander's from 88. Give or take the odd anomaly Federer would have 7 or 8 US Opens.

One thing for sure also is Federer would also have Wilander's 88 Aussie Open and probably his 83 and 84 wins on grass too. Kreik's two Aussie Opens would be Federer's too, as would Lendl's from 89 and 90. That's 7 Aussie Opens right there - for sure - perhaps more if he snuck another off Edberg at Kooyong.

Wimbledon... you think a 17 year old Becker would beat Federer? Dream on. Or Cash? One of Edberg's wasn't particularly legendary also... That's 4 Wimbledon's right there for sure without even going back to McEnroe or Connors' in the early 80s.

French Open? Well, for sure he's got Noah, Chang and Gomez's titles without even needing to change his shirt. They were lucky chump champions there without doubt.

All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering either of Edberg's 2 Wimbledon titles or any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles.

We know for sure, for sure, that Federer would smoke a stack of majors off the historic title holders in the 80s. It's pretty much a given.

So, you're correct. Federer would not have 17 slams in his pocket if he played in Lendl's generation. He'd have 20 or more.

Borrelli
11-13-2012, 08:12 PM
All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering either of Edberg's 2 Wimbledon titles or any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles.
.

Borg eh? I think that might be pushing it a little, considering he can't beat Nadal on clay and many believe that Borg was equal or even better.

Tennusdude
11-13-2012, 08:53 PM
It seems when Federer gets nervous he hits his forehand out by at least 2 feet at times. It would seem if he had a bigger frame he would be able to hit them out by at least 3 feet. Just a thought. :)

Bobby Jr
11-14-2012, 12:30 AM
Borg eh? I think that might be pushing it a little, considering he can't beat Nadal on clay and many believe that Borg was equal or even better.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote again. It says: "All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering ... any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles."

I.e. not taking any of Borg's titles on clay.

Wilander
11-14-2012, 12:34 AM
Its getting harder with every year. Never have so many players trained professionelly. For Lendl half of his early round matches have been like a walk in the park. Today the top-guys cant take the first rounds easy, as they would be in troubles soon. The difference from a player ranked 100 to a guy ranked 10, has become closer every year. To say it was harder during Lendl's time, is wrong.

sunof tennis
11-14-2012, 06:11 AM
That is the base for everything else, btw. You will learn that once you grow up and have kids of your own...

IMO, you cannot compare the two -- totally different times, totally different competition, totally different strokes.
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...

That is why the whole GOAT discussion is absolute waste of time

EX: 2012 BMW (F30) runs faster, smoother, corners better, sounds and looks better than 1989 BMW (E30), but every car enthusiast knows which one to enjoy better... Different generations and standrds...

Wow. Reading your post would be a shock to my eldest daughers who are in their 20s.
It is not my fault you can't come up with any facts to support your erroneous assertion that Lendl was a better player than Federer. Further, I have never heard any tennis expert make such a claim. Most experts don't even place Lendl in the same tier of greatness as Federer, Laver, Sampras, Borg.
I don't disagree that there is a difficulty in comparing players accross generations which is one of the reasons I don't believe that Federer is the undisputed GOAT. However, Federer started his career with a PS85 with gut strings which is not very different from the racquets that Lendl played with in the late 80s. Never saw Lendl do the things that Roger can do with the ball.

jokinla
11-14-2012, 07:39 AM
Its getting harder with every year. Never have so many players trained professionelly. For Lendl half of his early round matches have been like a walk in the park. Today the top-guys cant take the first rounds easy, as they would be in troubles soon. The difference from a player ranked 100 to a guy ranked 10, has become closer every year. To say it was harder during Lendl's time, is wrong.

Which is exactly why I laugh when people try and compare Laver to Fed, he certainly wasn't facing the type of competition early on that Fed is, not to mention he won 3 of his 4 on grass, certainly something Fed could have done numerous times.

PrimeChoice
11-14-2012, 07:53 AM
Fed did switch to a bigger racquet

PrimeChoice
11-14-2012, 08:02 AM
used to play w/ 85 when a kid

dimeaxe
11-18-2012, 12:29 PM
Nole suggests...this one
http://img.blesk.cz/img/2/full/1463573-img-novak-djokovic-kuerten-tenis.jpg

PrimeChoice
11-19-2012, 07:53 AM
A:
b/c they are little babies who cannot understand the sport.
It's somthing to say
It fills the gaps in the silence

gplracer
11-19-2012, 10:00 AM
Federer shanks balls because he hits so early on the rise so much. Also, a shank on a 90 inch frame still would not be a good shot on a 95 inch frame. For us it might make a difference but not for him.

Mick
11-19-2012, 10:34 AM
>>Why do people say Federer needs a bigger racquet whenever he loses...........<<

probably because all the players that Federer have lost to have used bigger racquets :)

Povl Carstensen
11-19-2012, 11:23 AM
Perhaps players with a loosing h2h with Federer should change to a smaller racket.

BreakPoint
11-19-2012, 11:34 AM
Now we can all agree!

I guess we can all agree then. Federer at his age, will not surpass the greatness of Ivan Lendl..... Lendl dominated men's tennis and to this day, Federer is still trying to "catch up" toovertake Lendl in many career achievements and milestones....

Federer needs a larger racquet to compete...
Yes, because Lendl won 17 Slams during his career. :???: He didn't even win HALF as many!

Oh, and Lendl dominated men's tennis with a 72 sq. in. racquet so CLEARLY Lendl needed a 98 sq. in. racquet in order to compete. :???:

BreakPoint
11-19-2012, 11:39 AM
>>Why do people say Federer needs a bigger racquet whenever he loses...........<<

probably because all the players that Federer have lost to have used bigger racquets :)
So have all the players that Federer has beaten. :)

lendlmac
05-09-2013, 08:59 AM
The writing is on the wall!

If Federer wants to compete with the younger kids with bigger frames, he has to uprade! He wont be Dimitrov, Wrawrinka, Dolgopolov and all the young kids at his avanced aged.

Dimitrov, with cramps, easily dispatched the world' #1 player with cramps, while Djoker was 100% healthy! Federer needs a bigger raquet!

tennisplayer1993
05-09-2013, 09:01 AM
Because they can't believe the idea that the GOAT should ever lose. Federer has some REALLY delusional fans.

vandre
05-09-2013, 09:45 AM
The writing is on the wall!

If Federer wants to compete with the younger kids with bigger frames, he has to uprade! He wont be Dimitrov, Wrawrinka, Dolgopolov and all the young kids at his avanced aged.

Dimitrov, with cramps, easily dispatched the world' #1 player with cramps, while Djoker was 100% healthy! Federer needs a bigger raquet!

you do know that fed owns a 13-1 h2h vs. wawrinka (he's beaten stan 13 times and lost only once) so i think he's competing just fine against him. he's 1-0 versus dolgo (fed's won the only time they've played). fed and baby fed have never squared off in a match yet so who knows how that will go down

we do all understand that a larger racquet is not the fountain of youth, correct? like someone else posted, shanks off a 90 in stick don't automatically turn into screaming winners with a 95. any time there is a bump up in headsize there is a slight chance that the serve might be negatively affected (it was rumored aa shaved a couple of inches off his sticks near the end of his career to try to get more out of his serve). is that worth risking some cheap and easy points off the serve?

BreakPoint
05-09-2013, 11:52 AM
The writing is on the wall!

If Federer wants to compete with the younger kids with bigger frames, he has to uprade! He wont be Dimitrov, Wrawrinka, Dolgopolov and all the young kids at his avanced aged.

Dimitrov, with cramps, easily dispatched the world' #1 player with cramps, while Djoker was 100% healthy! Federer needs a bigger raquet!
So why isn't the logical conclusion that Djokovic also needs to switch to a bigger racquet? :confused:

sureshs
05-09-2013, 11:54 AM
^^^ Creative arguments are not going to help Federer at this point. He has to switch.

BreakPoint
05-09-2013, 11:58 AM
^^^ Creative arguments are not going to help Federer at this point. He has to switch.
I agree. I'm a big advocate of Federer switching back to the PS 6.0 85. So much more accuracy and control.

Povl Carstensen
05-09-2013, 01:03 PM
Or at least go back to 25 kg tension.

jackcrawford
05-09-2013, 01:14 PM
I used to say he should switch after he had a bad patch, but after he won Wimbledon last year I finally figured out he must know what frame is best for him:wink:

HIGHER_PRIMATE
05-13-2013, 06:17 PM
When someone comments in this section on a top 4 player, you can immediately consider it non-sequitor if the poster has anything to do with a top 4 player in there avatar or username.

monfed
05-13-2013, 07:50 PM
I do believe Fed could use a bigger racquet,what's he got to lose? Try something different,who knows he may feel more in control of the rallies against the grinders.

Carolina Racquet
05-14-2013, 12:24 PM
So funny reading all of the comments from the armchair quarterbacks in the forum.

Don't you think a legend like Federer knows what kind equipment he needs?

Yeah, once in a while he shanks a few backhands. The answer is 5-10 more inches in frame size? Hardly.

Let him keep winning 90+% of his matches, even at age 31, and just enjoy watching him while we can.

Povl Carstensen
05-14-2013, 12:51 PM
I do believe Fed could use a bigger racquet,what's he got to lose?A setup that brought him more or less the best resume in tennis history?

mightyrick
05-14-2013, 01:15 PM
I do believe Fed could use a bigger racquet,what's he got to lose? Try something different,who knows he may feel more in control of the rallies against the grinders.

He should have done this two years ago. I don't think he should have went to a 100 sq. in. head, but going to the PS95 would have been great.

His serve these days needs more pop. I've played with both the PS90 and PS95. The PS90 has *zero* power. You have to be a liquid whip with iron wrists to create any action while serving using that stick.

I strongly feel if he used the 95, he wouldn't have to push his back so hard on the serve. I bet he'd add 5mph... which would do wonders for him. More power in the racquet means less energy expended by the body to make up for it.

Roger hates changing things, though. I guess he can hardly be blamed given his results.

But that PS90 has seriously taken a toll on his body.

BreakPoint
05-14-2013, 01:20 PM
He should have done this two years ago. I don't think he should have went to a 100 sq. in. head, but going to the PS95 would have been great.

His serve these days needs more pop. I've played with both the PS90 and PS95. The PS90 has *zero* power. You have to be a liquid whip with iron wrists to create any action while serving using that stick.

I strongly feel if he used the 95, he wouldn't have to push his back so hard on the serve. I bet he'd add 5mph... which would do wonders for him. More power in the racquet means less energy expended by the body to make up for it.

Roger hates changing things, though. I guess he can hardly be blamed given his results.

But that PS90 has seriously taken a toll on his body.
Most people say they can serve better with smaller racquets than with larger racquets, myself included. That's why the PS 6.0 85 is still one of the best serving racquets ever. The Dunlop AG100 (90 sq. in.) is also a great serving racquet, as is the K90. It's also why Phillipoussis could serve just as big with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet as he could with his regular graphite racquet.

I Heart Thomas Muster
05-15-2013, 08:54 AM
Apparently he trimmed his hair to make the racquet look bigger.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/936842_519775424750840_939337232_n.png

2Hare
05-15-2013, 12:39 PM
He should have done this two years ago. I don't think he should have went to a 100 sq. in. head, but going to the PS95 would have been great.

His serve these days needs more pop. I've played with both the PS90 and PS95. The PS90 has *zero* power. You have to be a liquid whip with iron wrists to create any action while serving using that stick.

I strongly feel if he used the 95, he wouldn't have to push his back so hard on the serve. I bet he'd add 5mph... which would do wonders for him. More power in the racquet means less energy expended by the body to make up for it.

Roger hates changing things, though. I guess he can hardly be blamed given his results.

But that PS90 has seriously taken a toll on his body.

You have to play it leaded up at 12 like Federer and use gut/alu rough at low 50s or you haven't used PS90 at all! At this setup, PS90 is a completely different beast! It's so much more powerful and spinny. It's a very string sensitive racquet.

As for if Federer should've switched to a bigger head. I don't think so. That would require him changing years of muscle memory and tactics fitted for the racquet. It's hard for a recreational player, I can imagine that it's even harder for a pro who used the racquet since he's a teenager.

Harry_Wild
05-21-2013, 03:50 PM
Oh for shame - Federer is still ranked what - #3 in the world!

I feel for his downfall!

BreakPoint
07-19-2013, 09:54 PM
Every shank is pretty much a point lost. Reduce that, he might have a better chance.

Yes, a larger-head racquet will help him reduce the shanks.

If that were true I'm sure Federer would have switched to a larger-head racquet already.

It may help you reduce your shanks but it wouldn't help Federer reduce his shanks because no one else on the planet hits the ball the way that he does. Besides, most of his shanks are off of the side of the frame and a larger head racquet has more side to the frame to shank. :)

Heck, even I shank just as many balls with a larger racquet as with a smaller racquet and I don't take the ball nearly as early nor do I swing nearly as fast nor do I roll over the ball on contact like Federer does. I'm sure this is even more true with Federer.
Another old post of mine. ^^^

Well, looks like I was right about Federer's shanking. :)

scotus
07-19-2013, 11:33 PM
Why, how many shanks did Federer hit?

BreakPoint
07-19-2013, 11:43 PM
Why, how many shanks did Federer hit?
It seemed like a lot more than he used to shank with his 90. Even with the 98, it seemed like he shanked at least once or maybe twice per game.

scotus
07-19-2013, 11:54 PM
I haven't watched his matches since the racquet switch, but forgive me if I am reluctant to trust your account of how many shanks he is hitting now vs in the past based on what "seems" to you.

Anyway, stuff your childish celebrations for now and get back to me in a few months when Federer has had the time to adjust to the new frame.

BreakPoint
07-20-2013, 12:25 AM
I haven't watched his matches since the racquet switch, but forgive me if I am reluctant to trust your account of how many shanks he is hitting now vs in the past based on what "seems" to you.

Anyway, stuff your childish celebrations for now and get back to me in a few months when Federer has had the time to adjust to the new frame.
Seriously, you need to watch the matches. Or at least go though the match threads and the other threads in this gear forum about his racquet switch. I'm not the only one talking about his shaking. Heck, I didn't even mention it until all these other people kept bringing it up.

Here's one thread for example: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=470730

And I said "seems" because, no, I don't sit around and count the exact number of shanks he hits per match for every match throughout his career.

To "adjust" to this new frame to stop shanking would mean he needs to change something about the way he hits the ball with the new frame. Heck, if he could do that, he would have changed something about the way he hits the ball with his old frame to stop shanking.

Praetorian
07-20-2013, 08:56 AM
I haven't watched his matches since the racquet switch, but forgive me if I am reluctant to trust your account of how many shanks he is hitting now vs in the past based on what "seems" to you.

Anyway, stuff your childish celebrations for now and get back to me in a few months when Federer has had the time to adjust to the new frame.

LOL... as opposed to the childish celebrations, of posters, for just about switching to a racket even before even playing a match. I just find hilarious.:):):)

paulcd77
07-20-2013, 09:19 AM
To "adjust" to this new frame to stop shanking would mean he needs to change something about the way he hits the ball with the new frame. Heck, if he could do that, he would have changed something about the way he hits the ball with his old frame to stop shanking.

from watching the practice clips and his matches vs. hajek and mayer, it's clear that he has changed something. he's had to adjust his swing to compensate for the differences in the new racquet compared to the old. the adjustments are subtle, but they're there.

i don't see any relevance in all the arguments/debates about racquet size, composition, physics, etc. people are naive to believe that another racquet will drastically improve federer's fortunes. the issue is much more basic. federer isn't the player he once was, and djokovic and murray (and others) have either hit or are reaching their primes. during wimbledon, patrick mcenroe noted the increasing parity in the game, that "the big four" aren't nearly as formidable in the minds of the rest of the tour players as they once were. tennis is as much psychological (some would say more) as it is physical, and federer's attempted racquet switch is evidence of that. many will judge (they've been doing so a lot around here already, which is ridiculous) whether the change is a net positive or not based on the match results. he's ultimately the only one who can answer that question, and his barometer is likely going to include factors other than his win-loss record.

(btw, mr. prokes' outrageous predictions aside, the Wall Street Journal article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323993804578616031293432850.html) being cited in other threads offers a lucid perspective.)

HRB
07-20-2013, 06:26 PM
........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer? :confused:

And a lot more people lose to Federer than beat Federer.

I mean, isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet while the loser is using the inferior racquet?

Just asking.......

You really struggle with this???

Now you kinda make sense to me since I read this idiotic statement: "Isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet"...Now I kinda understand most of your dumb stubborn post all over this board maniacally defending Roger sticking with a stick "spec" that has proven to be outdated (NEWS FLASH...that is what we call a fact, when less than 15% of a given sports professionals use something, that defines OUTDATED!!!!!

In short..NO ..that is not the rationale..the rationale is that the winner played better, or at least good enough to win. If people had that rationale, they'd be changing sticks every damn tourney when someone beats them.

The actual reason for mentioning the stick switch is it is ATTAINABLE change that may prolong a career and take care of some deficiencies as Roger ages. Roger realizes that SAMPRES REGRETTED NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO OPPORTUNITIES TO TRY NEW STICKS (then again, you'll ignore that because Roger has a few more slams...like a fool..LMAO).

He CAN'T...get younger, quicker, and have more drive and hunger (kinda tough when you've won everything to win), but he CAN experiment with equipment...so THAT is why it is suggested.

Apparently the mere thought of Roger changing something gets your panties all in a bind! CHANGE HAPPENS DEAL WITH IT.

Damn...this is chuck full of logic, you sooo hate that...looking forward to your dumb-***, stubborn, can't ever admit you're wrong response.

foetz
07-20-2013, 07:32 PM
Why do people say Federer needs a bigger racquet whenever he loses because they don't know better ;)

BreakPoint
07-20-2013, 08:14 PM
You really struggle with this???

Now you kinda make sense to me since I read this idiotic statement: "Isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet"...Now I kinda understand most of your dumb stubborn post all over this board maniacally defending Roger sticking with a stick "spec" that has proven to be outdated (NEWS FLASH...that is what we call a fact, when less than 15% of a given sports professionals use something, that defines OUTDATED!!!!!

In short..NO ..that is not the rationale..the rationale is that the winner played better, or at least good enough to win. If people had that rationale, they'd be changing sticks every damn tourney when someone beats them.

The actual reason for mentioning the stick switch is it is ATTAINABLE change that may prolong a career and take care of some deficiencies as Roger ages. Roger realizes that SAMPRES REGRETTED NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO OPPORTUNITIES TO TRY NEW STICKS (then again, you'll ignore that because Roger has a few more slams...like a fool..LMAO).

He CAN'T...get younger, quicker, and have more drive and hunger (kinda tough when you've won everything to win), but he CAN experiment with equipment...so THAT is why it is suggested.

Apparently the mere thought of Roger changing something gets your panties all in a bind! CHANGE HAPPENS DEAL WITH IT.

Damn...this is chuck full of logic, you sooo hate that...looking forward to your dumb-***, stubborn, can't ever admit you're wrong response.

So when Federer loses, he needs a bigger racquet. When Federer wins, he doesn't need a bigger racquet.

When Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray loses, they don't need a bigger racquet. When Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray win, they don't need a bigger racquet.

Thus, when Federer loses, the problem MUST be his racquet. When Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray loses, it MUST be some other reason that has nothing to do with their racquets. However, when Federer loses, there's no way there's any other reason besides his racquet. Federer can't possibly have the same reason for losing that Nadal, Djokovic or Murray have.

If you believe the above sounds logical, then I feel very sad for you. :(

And "outdated" is a matter of opinion. What does it matter if it's "outdated" is you can win with it? If you asked Berdych if he would be willing to use an "outdated" racquet if it would guarantee that he would win 17 Slams with it, do you think he would accept your offer? Of course he would!

When Sampras destroyed Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final and 2002 US Open final, Sampras was already using an "outdated" racquet. Do you think it mattered to Agassi that Sampras was using an "outdated" racquet? And after watching Federer play this week with his new bigger racquet, I'm sure Sampras is so happy that he never switched to a bigger racquet while he was on tour. :)

Vcore89
07-20-2013, 10:42 PM
........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer? :confused:

And a lot more people lose to Federer than beat Federer.

I mean, isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet while the loser is using the inferior racquet?

Just asking.......

...and nobody told Andre to switch to 138 back then, right?

ilovetennis212
07-20-2013, 11:58 PM
Racket is nothing to do with his loss in Federer's opinion.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/federer-racquet-didnt-cause-loss/48441/#.UeuT3Ka9LCQ

Harry_Wild
07-21-2013, 01:51 AM
Federer lost in Hamburg in the semi to a qualifier - . Federico Del Bonis 6-7 (7-9), 6-7 (4-7) final!

Oh well either way 90 or 98 - it still the same results for now!

Bobby Jr
07-21-2013, 06:06 AM
I wonder if he didn't enter these two tournaments knowing they will be relatively painful for him in terms of making the biggest leap in racquet type in his career? Every match he wins is a points bonus anyway to even in Hamburg he is up on points.

This and the next tournament could the exact sort of opportunities he's rarely ever had before where the results literally cannot affect his ranking negatively, nor do they interfere with an important part of the season for him. Even in the matches he won it wasn't vintage Federer even by his pretty average 2013 pre-Wimbledon standards. I imagine he'll really tighten this ship up for the next tournament and come the hard court swing where he typically goes more control oriented with his string set-up the hardest part of the process will be over.

Maybe it's all just an opportunistic happening but, then again, maybe he has this planned better than some are giving him credit for when they just look at his level of play on these pretty crap clay courts using weird balls. Wilson were in on it months ago - we know that by the fact P1 was customising him a set of frames a few weeks ago. This was no "try 5 frames and pick one in a few days then play with it in a tournament 5 days later" scenario. A lot of preparation went into this imo.

monfed
07-21-2013, 06:16 AM
A setup that brought him more or less the best resume in tennis history?

How's that working out for him this year? :lol:

tistrapukcipeht
09-02-2013, 05:59 PM
Good time to bring it back.

BreakPoint
09-02-2013, 06:22 PM
Good time to bring it back.
And why didn't you bring this thread back after Federer beat Mannarino in the 3rd round and advise Mannarino to switch to a smaller racquet? :???:

tistrapukcipeht
09-02-2013, 06:31 PM
And why didn't you bring this thread back after Federer beat Mannarino in the 3rd round and advise Mannarino to switch to a smaller racquet? :???:

Because Manarinno is that bad, so she should have beaten him with frying pan anyway:)

TennisAddiction
09-03-2013, 08:03 AM
I'm guessing Roger will revist the 98 now that the 2013 season is essentially over (for him anyway).

Baxter
09-03-2013, 09:08 AM
I'm guessing Roger will revist the 98 now that the 2013 season is essentially over (for him anyway).

Or maybe a Weed.

llodra_fan
09-03-2013, 09:31 AM
I remember Federer saying that he will resume his racket testing after US Open.

BreakPoint
09-03-2013, 09:59 AM
If a bigger racquet helped players extend their pro careers when they got older, both McEnroe and Sampras would still be on the ATP Tour.

TennisAddiction
09-03-2013, 01:20 PM
If a bigger racquet helped players extend their pro careers when they got older, both McEnroe and Sampras would still be on the ATP Tour.

Extend, maybe not. Help, possibly.

When Sampras says he wishes he'd tried a larger frame during his last few years, I think that carries more weight anything anyone on here could have to say.

BreakPoint
09-03-2013, 01:55 PM
Extend, maybe not. Help, possibly.

When Sampras says he wishes he'd tried a larger frame during his last few years, I think that carries more weight anything anyone on here could have to say.
After seeing Federer's fiasco with the larger racquet, Sampras now says he's glad he stuck with his PS 85 during his career.

The grass is always greener. I wish I had bought a lottery ticket the last time the jackpot was over 500 million. Because if I did, of course I would have won. :shock:

tistrapukcipeht
09-03-2013, 05:45 PM
After seeing Federer's fiasco with the larger racquet, Sampras now says he's glad he stuck with his PS 85 during his career.

The grass is always greener. I wish I had bought a lottery ticket the last time the jackpot was over 500 million. Because if I did, of course I would have won. :shock:

Ok, what about Fed's Fiasco 2nd round exit against Stakhovsky and against Robredo? But wait, it's with the small racquet, ah?? So Fed is a fiasco nowadays with anything, but his chances would be better with a bigger racquet (IMO), He will go back to it and will play better with it, small racquets are part of the past, quit pretending you are know a lot, Fed has the worst handed backhand in the top 200 (well Lopez and Karlovic are right there with him), meanwhile all others one handed play with bigger racquets, I don't know if it's a coincidence or not but they all have better BH, at least they can rip it down the line anytime they want, unlike Fed.

Age is not an excuse either HAAS, ROBREDO... are just as old as He is.

BreakPoint
09-03-2013, 05:55 PM
Ok, what about Fed's Fiasco 2nd round exit against Stakhovsky and against Robredo? But wait, it's with the small racquet, ah?? So Fed is a fiasco nowadays with anything, but his chances would be better with a bigger racquet (IMO), He will go back to it and will play better with it, small racquets are part of the past, quit pretending you are know a lot, Fed has the worst handed backhand in the top 200 (well Lopez and Karlovic are right there with him), meanwhile all others one handed play with bigger racquets, I don't know if it's a coincidence or not but they all have better BH, at least they can rip it down the line anytime they want, unlike Fed.

Age is not an excuse either HAAS, ROBREDO... are just as old as He is.
That's what happens when you get old. Federer is 32. How about 7-time Wimbledon champion Sampras' 2nd round exit to Bastl at Wimbledon when Sampras was 30?

And how about Nadal's 1st round exit to Darcis at Wimbledon this year? Does Nadal need to switch to a bigger racquet, too?

You're right about Federer's backhand. His one-handed backhand was better when he used the PS 6.0 85. He should switch to a smaller racquet.

Oh, and how many Slams have either Haas or Robredo won in their 30's?

UncleRico.
09-03-2013, 06:50 PM
I can only imagine the number of slams Marat Safin would have won if he moved from that tiny Mid to the Midplus :twisted:

Old man Robredo played a solid game, Federer just could not capitalize on anything that match, a shank on a 90 isn't gonna be a winner on a 95/98. His game that requires so much timing, footwork, speed and agility that the dropoff was going to be precipitous. He doesn't have a game that shortens points or a big serve to lean on.

vandre
09-03-2013, 07:33 PM
I can only imagine the number of slams Marat Safin would have won if he moved from that tiny Mid to the Midplus :twisted:

Old man Robredo played a solid game, Federer just could not capitalize on anything that match, a shank on a 90 isn't gonna be a winner on a 95/98. His game that requires so much timing, footwork, speed and agility that the dropoff was going to be precipitous. He doesn't have a game that shortens points or a big serve to lean on.

let's just put safin, robredo and fed on the shelf for a minute. I've gotta know what size racquet uncle rico uses to hit a tennis ball over them mountains? btw, would you have won state if you were using a 98 in stick instead of a 90? :twisted:

Nostradamus
09-03-2013, 07:34 PM
Good question. Perhaps, some people need a larger brain :)

that's cause these not so smart people thinks somehow bigger racket with bigger head will make them play better. This is always the case. Federer is perfect example. he acutally loses control on his forehand when he goes to bigger frame. and he gains nothing on his serves

taylor15
09-05-2013, 05:16 AM
With a 98 I would've taken state. Things would be different

AdAraujo
09-05-2013, 12:05 PM
Is this still on discussion????... Get a life...

ccapp
09-05-2013, 06:02 PM
It's not the head size, it's the weight and/or swingweight. Fed's late on everything these days. All his shots, especially forehands that go deep indicate that he isn't quite getting the stick through the hitting zone. He just needs to drop 3 - 5 grams off the head.

Fedinkum
09-06-2013, 04:16 AM
Change of stick at this stage of his career is a real distraction to his beautiful tennis.

larlarbd
09-06-2013, 08:14 AM
It's not the head size, it's the weight and/or swingweight. Fed's late on everything these days. All his shots, especially forehands that go deep indicate that he isn't quite getting the stick through the hitting zone. He just needs to drop 3 - 5 grams off the head.

This may actually be a good suggestion.

BreakPoint
09-06-2013, 10:02 AM
Change of stick at this stage of his career is a real distraction to his beautiful tennis.
Exactly! I think one of the reasons he lost to Robredo is that he lost a bit of confidence in his shots with his old racquet after fooling around with so many different prototypes for almost two months. That was enough to plant a seed of doubt in the back of his mind. At his level, that's enough to to mess him up just enough to lose a few critical points and the match.

CoachSubway
09-06-2013, 02:30 PM
Exactly! I think one of the reasons he lost to Robredo is that he lost a bit of confidence in his shots with his old racquet after fooling around with so many different prototypes for almost two months. That was enough to plant a seed of doubt in the back of his mind. At his level, that's enough to to mess him up just enough to lose a few critical points and the match.

I re-watched Fed's match against Nadal in Cincy. His problem is clearly not racket head size. He's still got the game to be at the top, but clearly against Robredo he was not hitting with much confidence. I continue to believe that it's primarily a mental issue with him at the moment and not anything physical, whether regarding his own body or his racket.

maskedmuffin
09-06-2013, 07:19 PM
Is it possible to keep the same 90 box beam mold for roger while changing the throat to a more Aerodynamic aeropro design?

Basically amalgamation of pro staff and aero technology?

i basically am in agreement that his racquet works for him, he just needs to be able to whip it easier every so often and not feel like the inertia is too large..especially on the arc balls

Le Master
09-06-2013, 10:59 PM
I continue to believe that it's primarily a mental issue with him at the moment and not anything physical, whether regarding his own body or his racket.
For sure. His racquet is fine and notwithstanding a back tweak here and there (he's had them at least as far back as 2003), he's physically capable of playing as well as ever. It seems very evident his head is his biggest and possibly only real issue.

ollinger
09-08-2013, 08:52 AM
He doesn't need a bigger racquet. He needs a new racket.

BreakPoint
09-08-2013, 10:14 AM
He doesn't need a bigger racquet. He needs a new racket.
He doesn't need a new racquet. He needs a new back, new legs, and new confidence.

maskedmuffin
09-08-2013, 10:15 AM
Is it possible to keep the same 90 box beam mold for roger while changing the throat to a more Aerodynamic aeropro design?

Basically amalgamation of pro staff and aero technology?

i basically am in agreement that his racquet works for him, he just needs to be able to whip it easier every so often and not feel like the inertia is too large..especially on the arc balls

I was pondering my previous response and believe if wilson can somehow get around the patent that is owned by Babolat on the aero design this could be successful.

Fedinkum
09-08-2013, 04:33 PM
He doesn't need a new racquet. The old stick got him 16 break points at US Open this yr, his head took only 2.

vandre
09-10-2013, 05:41 AM
With a 98 I would've taken state. Things would be different

where's my "like" button??? :)

akind
02-06-2014, 03:05 AM
I think RF needs more mass on his old racquet. He doesn't need bigger head size. He needs bigger mass. More weight on both tip and handle. As timing is a crucial part on his game, the added mass will help him with the timing.

ricki
02-06-2014, 04:09 AM
I think RF needs more mass on his old racquet. He doesn't need bigger head size. He needs bigger mass. More weight on both tip and handle. As timing is a crucial part on his game, the added mass will help him with the timing.

what an idiotic post this is

BreakPoint
02-06-2014, 12:36 PM
what an idiotic post this is
Why? A bigger stringbed is not the only way to get more power, if that's what Federer wants. More weight or a stiffer frame will also give you more power, as will more powerful strings and/or lower tension and/or a more open string pattern. So a bigger racquet is not the only way to go. In fact, a bigger racquet just gets in the way of your swing more and is harder to manipulate the angle of the head.

degrease
02-09-2014, 12:53 AM
I think RF needs more mass on his old racquet. He doesn't need bigger head size. He needs bigger mass. More weight on both tip and handle. As timing is a crucial part on his game, the added mass will help him with the timing.



Federer more than likely has heard of this weight and balance stuff. He may possibly have worked out what balance works best for him.

I love how forum people give their advice to players rated some of the greatest that have ever played the game.

The fact is people say about a larger racket as Fed "frames" more balls than the other top names.

HRB
02-09-2014, 04:01 AM
Why? A bigger stringbed is not the only way to get more power, if that's what Federer wants. More weight or a stiffer frame will also give you more power, as will more powerful strings and/or lower tension and/or a more open string pattern. So a bigger racquet is not the only way to go. In fact, a bigger racquet just gets in the way of your swing more and is harder to manipulate the angle of the head.

You're correct, a bigger racquet does get in the way, and is clearly a handicap...which is precisely why 98% OF THE CURRENT PRO'S USE IT..apparently they just love to put themselves at such a disadvantage!!!!

WILL YOU PEOPLE WAKE UP AND JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS!!!! There is a reason 95-100 sq inch is the new standard...IT WORKS BEST!!!!!!!

The Mid is dead...on the PRO TOUR...relax..no one is taking them away from you...I still use my 89.5" Graphite Pro plenty of times...but if I as on the Pro Tour...no way.

kiki
02-09-2014, 04:53 AM
He doesn´t need a bigger racket.

Just bigger balls.

BreakPoint
02-09-2014, 12:29 PM
You're correct, a bigger racquet does get in the way, and is clearly a handicap...which is precisely why 98% OF THE CURRENT PRO'S USE IT..apparently they just love to put themselves at such a disadvantage!!!!

WILL YOU PEOPLE WAKE UP AND JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS!!!! There is a reason 95-100 sq inch is the new standard...IT WORKS BEST!!!!!!!

The Mid is dead...on the PRO TOUR...relax..no one is taking them away from you...I still use my 89.5" Graphite Pro plenty of times...but if I as on the Pro Tour...no way.
Yup, you're right. If these pros used smaller racquets, it would be less in their way and they'd have the racquet head speed that Federer had with his 90. And perhaps they'd also have 17 Slams. :)

Oh, and everybody using something does not prove that it works best. Everybody used VHS even though Betamax worked better. Everybody back in the 1960's used 65 sq. in. racquets, does that mean it worked best? Everybody wore long pants to play tennis back in the 1930's, does that mean it worked best?

HRB
02-09-2014, 02:23 PM
Yup, you're right. If these pros used smaller racquets, it would be less in their way and they'd have the racquet head speed that Federer had with his 90. And perhaps they'd also have 17 Slams. :)

Oh, and everybody using something does not prove that it works best. Everybody used VHS even though Betamax worked better. Everybody back in the 1960's used 65 sq. in. racquets, does that mean it worked best? Everybody wore long pants to play tennis back in the 1930's, does that mean it worked best?

WOW...been awhile, forgot how delusional you are, yup....you're right...99% of the players are using inferior equipment by choice...for no reason...with no evidence to back it up, yup, they are just idiots, and even with all their exposure to ANY EQUIPMENT THEY WANT, THEY STILL CHOOSE THE INFERIOR SPEC!!!! #HEADINTHESANDIMPOSSIBLYSTUBBORNMORON!!!!!!

BreakPoint
02-09-2014, 04:18 PM
WOW...been awhile, forgot how delusional you are, yup....you're right...99% of the players are using inferior equipment by choice...for no reason...with no evidence to back it up, yup, they are just idiots, and even with all their exposure to ANY EQUIPMENT THEY WANT, THEY STILL CHOOSE THE INFERIOR SPEC!!!! #HEADINTHESANDIMPOSSIBLYSTUBBORNMORON!!!!!!
Oh, there is a reason. 99% of players aren't good enough to use smaller racquets, that's why they NEED the bigger racquets. Federer is NOT one of these untalented people.

Denton1
02-10-2014, 10:55 AM
why can we just not accept that it does not matter what racket he uses.

BreakPoint
02-10-2014, 12:03 PM
why can we just not accept that it does not matter what racket he uses.
Because there are so many people on this board who aren't good enough to use anything other than a big racquet in order to hit the ball so they think that's also what the best player who ever lived also needs. :???:

hirschi80
02-10-2014, 12:06 PM
i would bet a lot of money that he retires or switches back to the old, smaller racket (until the end of this year). if betnwin would offer this bet, i would bet A LOT on it.
this bet would also resolve the problem here...if u think this fkng bigger racket helps him, bet on it! good for me, im getting better odds :)

mellowyellow
02-10-2014, 12:22 PM
Because there are so many people on this board who aren't good enough to use anything other than a big racquet in order to hit the ball so they think that's also what the best player who ever lived also needs. :???:

OMG, you could have saved Feds, so much time by donating a roll of lead tape to customize his racquets. Ashame he, and his team never thoughted of that.... too late now that he has invested so much time in switching and testing. How much slams has this costed him? Maybe a thread should be started on how many slams he missed out on?

pmerk34
02-21-2014, 01:09 PM
why can we just not accept that it does not matter what racket he uses.

because it does matter

BreakPoint
02-21-2014, 02:54 PM
because it does matter
It seems to matter more to people on this board than it does to Federer. :(

gplracer
02-21-2014, 03:33 PM
He does not need a larger racket. He needs a younger body. I feel with the larger racket a little of the magic is gone.

HeeK_ILRF
02-22-2014, 07:33 AM
........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer? :confused:

And a lot more people lose to Federer than beat Federer.

I mean, isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet while the loser is using the inferior racquet?

Just asking.......

the fact is simple:
only fed imho has that superior class that makes him able to play with 90 square and play the tennis that we know....
now that the age begins to have a further impact ( adding also the growth in the adversaries's skill) he's trying another type of racquet that, for example, could help him to avoid certain situations...like when he doesn't center the ball when hitting...above all with the backhand....
but imho the precision guaranteed by the racquet used until now ( i mean excluding the 98) will be no more the same with a new racquet...the result can be a better regularity...that's maybe what the G.O.A.T. is looking for now...
we will see in yhe next tournaments!