PDA

View Full Version : Federer and bigger rackets


Pages : [1] 2

Jack Romeo
04-21-2011, 12:44 AM
For those of you who follow Jon Wertheim's mailbag on CNNSI, he again mentioned the possibility of Federer possibly prolonging his stay at the top by switching to a bigger racket. Sampras has gone on record saying he might have been more competitive in his later years, especially on clay if he had used a bigger racket.

Do you think Federer will be too stubborn to experiment with a different headsize?

To me, this issue is similar to the one many players had to deal with in the late 70's-early 80''s when graphite rackets became popular. Some traditionalists insisted on staying with wood. Borg didn't want to switch even during his first failed comeback attempt. Evert also resisted, but eventually relented and it might have been a factor in her gaining back the number one ranking in the middle of 1985, after a few years of being dominated by Navratilova.

Graf is another player who comes to mind. After achieving gigantic success with her old Dunlop, she was passed in the rankings by Seles in the early 90's and started losing more matches to old rivals like Sabatini and Sanchez-Vicario. In 1994, she switched to Wilson. I think this new racket was slightly bigger and lighter than her Dunlop. She started dominating the big events again.

Connors also adapted his equipment later in his career. Although he was too old to be any kind of consistent force in the game, it still enabled a few bright moments for him, most notably his 1991 US Open semifinal run.

Like what Wertheim said, if Roger did switch to a bigger racket, he might be able to buy a few more years where he is more competitive, especially against his fellow top players. Besides, he can always switch back to his old racket if things don't work out as planned.

cocolate
04-21-2011, 01:05 AM
For those of you who follow Jon Wertheim's mailbag on CNNSI, he again mentioned the possibility of Federer possibly prolonging his stay at the top by switching to a bigger racket. Sampras has gone on record saying he might have been more competitive in his later years, especially on clay if he had used a bigger racket.

Do you think Federer will be too stubborn to experiment with a different headsize?

To me, this issue is similar to the one many players had to deal with in the late 70's-early 80''s when graphite rackets became popular. Some traditionalists insisted on staying with wood. Borg didn't want to switch even during his first failed comeback attempt. Evert also resisted, but eventually relented and it might have been a factor in her gaining back the number one ranking in the middle of 1985, after a few years of being dominated by Navratilova.

Graf is another player who comes to mind. After achieving gigantic success with her old Dunlop, she was passed in the rankings by Seles in the early 90's and started losing more matches to old rivals like Sabatini and Sanchez-Vicario. In 1994, she switched to Wilson. I think this new racket was slightly bigger and lighter than her Dunlop. She started dominating the big events again.

Connors also adapted his equipment later in his career. Although he was too old to be any kind of consistent force in the game, it still enabled a few bright moments for him, most notably his 1991 US Open semifinal run.

Like what Wertheim said, if Roger did switch to a bigger racket, he might be able to buy a few more years where he is more competitive, especially against his fellow top players. Besides, he can always switch back to his old racket if things don't work out as planned.



As Federer huimself said...big player fall in the trap of their own style of game...probably he won't change the head size and probably he won't change his game style...too bad...

namelessone
04-21-2011, 02:29 AM
Federer doesn't NEED a bigger racket. He won 16 grand slams with this size geniuses.

mellowyellow
04-21-2011, 04:01 AM
Federer doesn't NEED a bigger racket. He won 16 grand slams with this size geniuses.

Clearly he isn't the Federer that won those tourneys anymore either. He better change something or its just about time to hand it in and step aside. This board will always have someone on here that is under this belief that they could play with any racquet because they are so good and its not the racquet. Get over yourself and realize that in any sport equipment often makes the difference of a players game and their confidence throughout. With all the mishits and UE recently, a few more inches and added power would give him the confidence in his ground game and not have to play to such a high level of concentration on each shot. The racquet may not make him "hit" better but consistency would be helped and the boost in confidence would allow him to play more freely............

0d1n
04-21-2011, 04:47 AM
For those of you who follow Jon Wertheim's mailbag on CNNSI, he again mentioned the possibility of Federer possibly prolonging his stay at the top by switching to a bigger racket. Sampras has gone on record saying he might have been more competitive in his later years, especially on clay if he had used a bigger racket.

Do you think Federer will be too stubborn to experiment with a different headsize?

To me, this issue is similar to the one many players had to deal with in the late 70's-early 80''s when graphite rackets became popular. Some traditionalists insisted on staying with wood. Borg didn't want to switch even during his first failed comeback attempt. Evert also resisted, but eventually relented and it might have been a factor in her gaining back the number one ranking in the middle of 1985, after a few years of being dominated by Navratilova.

Graf is another player who comes to mind. After achieving gigantic success with her old Dunlop, she was passed in the rankings by Seles in the early 90's and started losing more matches to old rivals like Sabatini and Sanchez-Vicario. In 1994, she switched to Wilson. I think this new racket was slightly bigger and lighter than her Dunlop. She started dominating the big events again.

Connors also adapted his equipment later in his career. Although he was too old to be any kind of consistent force in the game, it still enabled a few bright moments for him, most notably his 1991 US Open semifinal run.

Like what Wertheim said, if Roger did switch to a bigger racket, he might be able to buy a few more years where he is more competitive, especially against his fellow top players. Besides, he can always switch back to his old racket if things don't work out as planned.

Wow...just...WOW.

Clearly he isn't the Federer that won those tourneys anymore either. He better change something or its just about time to hand it in and step aside. This board will always have someone on here that is under this belief that they could play with any racquet because they are so good and its not the racquet. Get over yourself and realize that in any sport equipment often makes the difference of a players game and their confidence throughout. With all the mishits and UE recently, a few more inches and added power would give him the confidence in his ground game and not have to play to such a high level of concentration on each shot. The racquet may not make him "hit" better but consistency would be helped and the boost in confidence would allow him to play more freely............

Yeah...he better change his age and get rid of his family...which in turn will help with his footwork and with his "drive and motivation".
When he'll be 23 again his racquet will be great for him. :rolleyes:

Cup8489
04-21-2011, 04:48 AM
I must have missed soemthing... Didnt Federer win WTf like 5 months ago using that ancient stick of his, beating the world number 1 at the time? Did I miss somethign? and didn't he only lose to the eventual AO champion who was playing out of his mind but still had to work his butt off for the straight sets win?

Am I missing something?

ChipNCharge
04-21-2011, 05:14 AM
Federer doesn't NEED a bigger racket. He won 16 grand slams with this size geniuses.

Perhaps he won all those slams in spite of his miniature racquet. Maybe he would have won 20 by now, if he had a bigger frame.

Power Player
04-21-2011, 05:20 AM
What happens if he wins a slam this year. Do all these threads go away?

Sadly, I doubt it.

Ronaldo
04-21-2011, 05:33 AM
I must have missed soemthing... Didnt Federer win WTf like 5 months ago using that ancient stick of his, beating the world number 1 at the time? Did I miss somethign? and didn't he only lose to the eventual AO champion who was playing out of his mind but still had to work his butt off for the straight sets win?

Am I missing something?

Life in the ATP comes atcha fast, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ngpyRuFg8

sureshs
04-21-2011, 07:31 AM
This is a great idea

kishnabe
04-21-2011, 07:51 AM
This is a great idea

LOL..I bet this was your doing.

I think Federer should stick to his 90 inch racquet....it gives him control which is key among his game that others aren't as good as him. Going to a bigger racquet will make overhit.....and there will be less heft in the stroke like you would have with a smaller headsize.....and the control wouldn't be as great.


He would be a melzer if he switched to a bigger racquet.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 07:51 AM
Yes Federer will be too stubborn to change. Just like he was too stubborn to change his tactics against Nadal at the FO's.

Cup8489
04-21-2011, 07:54 AM
I'll send him my KPS88 and he will win FO, Wimbledon, USO this year.

and then the 88 will be even more legendary.

ivan_the_terrible
04-21-2011, 07:57 AM
Didn't Fed make enough of a racket with his gambling involvement? Maybe he should stoke the fires with some drug involvement to make bigger racket

Then his fans will regret even bringing up this topic.

Happy Easter!

ninman
04-21-2011, 08:04 AM
This is what Federer needs to start using.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4429888632_ba7bec707f.jpg

sureshs
04-21-2011, 09:09 AM
Going to a bigger racquet will make overhit.

He should control that with more topspin and clearance over the net.

ryushen21
04-21-2011, 09:14 AM
Yikes. I thought these threads were over....

Pros rarely actually ever switch frames. Sure the PJ will be different but they find what they like and stick to it. Regardless of whether he is playing well or playing like crap, trying to put a different frame into an already established game and style is not going to change much of anything.

If Fed wanted to switch, he would have switched by now. Obviously he doesn't.

tenis1
04-21-2011, 09:19 AM
For those of you who follow Jon Wertheim's mailbag on CNNSI, he again mentioned the possibility of Federer possibly prolonging his stay at the top by switching to a bigger racket. Sampras has gone on record saying he might have been more competitive in his later years, especially on clay if he had used a bigger racket.

Do you think Federer will be too stubborn to experiment with a different headsize?

To me, this issue is similar to the one many players had to deal with in the late 70's-early 80''s when graphite rackets became popular. Some traditionalists insisted on staying with wood. Borg didn't want to switch even during his first failed comeback attempt. Evert also resisted, but eventually relented and it might have been a factor in her gaining back the number one ranking in the middle of 1985, after a few years of being dominated by Navratilova.

Graf is another player who comes to mind. After achieving gigantic success with her old Dunlop, she was passed in the rankings by Seles in the early 90's and started losing more matches to old rivals like Sabatini and Sanchez-Vicario. In 1994, she switched to Wilson. I think this new racket was slightly bigger and lighter than her Dunlop. She started dominating the big events again.

Connors also adapted his equipment later in his career. Although he was too old to be any kind of consistent force in the game, it still enabled a few bright moments for him, most notably his 1991 US Open semifinal run.

Like what Wertheim said, if Roger did switch to a bigger racket, he might be able to buy a few more years where he is more competitive, especially against his fellow top players. Besides, he can always switch back to his old racket if things don't work out as planned.

LOL Another poster who knows better than Federer what he needs.
Also bolded part mentioned that Graf was losing to Seles and than "started dominating the big events again" in 1994 and is completely ignorant of the fact that Seles was not playing in 1994 because of stabbing. Absence of Seles due to stabbing had a way bigger effect on Graf "dominating the big events again" than supposed racquet switch. OP failed.

jackson vile
04-21-2011, 09:27 AM
I must have missed soemthing... Didnt Federer win WTf like 5 months ago using that ancient stick of his, beating the world number 1 at the time? Did I miss somethign? and didn't he only lose to the eventual AO champion who was playing out of his mind but still had to work his butt off for the straight sets win?

Am I missing something?

Wait, I thought he was too old and etc. If he is too old then certainly suggesting a larger head size of racket is not out of the question?

Ronaldo
04-21-2011, 09:44 AM
Wait, I thought he was too old and etc. If he is too old then certainly suggesting a larger head size of racket is not out of the question?

Fed is too old and stubborn to take the advice on this board.

Hood_Man
04-21-2011, 09:49 AM
I'd assume he's tried a larger frame in private somewhere, and didn't like it.

kkm
04-21-2011, 09:57 AM
It isn't the racquet, not the head size anyway. Courier used the same stick as Sampras to win a couple FOs.
Style of play, people.

ryushen21
04-21-2011, 10:04 AM
I just received word from an insider friend that Fed is indeed switching. He will use a Gamma Big Bubba 29 PJd as a Wilson Cierzo BLX.

Cup8489
04-21-2011, 10:11 AM
LOL Another poster who knows better than Federer what he needs.
Also bolded part mentioned that Graf was losing to Seles and than "started dominating the big events again" in 1994 and is completely ignorant of the fact that Seles was not playing in 1994 because of stabbing. Absence of Seles due to stabbing had a way bigger effect on Graf "dominating the big events again" than supposed racquet switch. OP failed.

One should point out the fact that ultimately Seles did not have a massive impact on Graf's domination of the tour... the Head 2 Head suggests such, that Graf was Seles' equal even on clay.. . you make it sound like Graf was helpless against Seles when that's simply not the case.

Most likely, it was a combination of Seles not playing and Graf no longer feeling any pressure from her as a result that allowed Graf to play better quality tennis.




jackson vile, i personally think that while fed is getting older/slower and whatnot that a new frame simply wouldn't make much difference.. other than affecting his comfort level with the current one. I dont think it would help much... his game is based so much on control that he'd make more mistakes, IMHO, with a bigger, higher powered racquet. One user suggested he add more spin to control that power, but that's now how he won 16 majors. He won sixteen majors with smaller frames, flatter spin shots, and attacking.. not adapting by using a bigger frame and more spin. I dont think it would help him.

wilkinru
04-21-2011, 10:13 AM
I'd assume he's tried a larger frame in private somewhere, and didn't like it.

You know, it would be nice if he said: "in Dec of 2008 he tried and did not like multiple 95 inch rackets made for him by Wilson."

Instead we get a constant denial. We'd love to know if he has tried.

You know why? Cuz we're rooting for you Rog. I didn't like you when you were god of the court, but now your the underdog :)

Povl Carstensen
04-21-2011, 10:32 AM
I dont think its Federers responsibility to tell us whether he has tried a different racket.

Ronaldo
04-21-2011, 10:33 AM
It isn't the racquet, not the head size anyway. Courier used the same stick as Sampras to win a couple FOs.
Style of play, people.

That was last century.

mellowyellow
04-21-2011, 11:05 AM
Lets get it straight here. Fed has already admitted that maybe the "new" racquet switch probably helped when he started to dominate the game years ago. I do not see Rafa going to a smaller stick because it makes him all gooey inside when he connects with the ball, he uses what gets the job done the best. Certainly if Rafa had to use the 90 that Fed uses he would not be anywhere near as successful as he has been. Andre said as much that without on oversize he could not play his style of tennis reliably. No doubt 0d1n that age is creeping in, and having a family can be a distraction. I will also throw in motivation for other reasons too, boredom ...... how many times can you beat so many players without losing a set/match and not be bored. Many of his recent loses this year and end of last year are first time losses to those types of opponents. Clearly a lack of competitive play, and then when you think this great rivalry (Rafa) will be a motivator the general consensus that Rafa is/was into PED's would certainly hold you back especially if you are a clean athlete competing for the same tourneys. Hard to be motivated to be better than someone you believe to be using, and has a physical advantage that you realize you will never overcome.

jigar
04-21-2011, 01:02 PM
He doesn't need advice from Jon Wertheim.
All Jon has to do it write and that is his job.

Roger is the best at what he does and think Jon is not even close to what he does.

Those need to switch racket who can't win anything not even a match.

cknobman
04-21-2011, 01:11 PM
He should control that with more topspin and clearance over the net.

Maybe the racquet should be a babolat?

Maybe even though Fed is a natural right he should hit lefty?

cknobman
04-21-2011, 01:13 PM
I've had countless women tell me "Its not the size that matters, its how you use it".

pmerk34
04-21-2011, 01:15 PM
I've had countless women tell me "Its not the size that matters, its how you use it".

Countless women?

0d1n
04-21-2011, 01:26 PM
I've had countless women tell me "Its not the size that matters, its how you use it".

Hmmmmm, thinking about the fact that "countless women" lied to you makes me wonder...hmmmmmmm :twisted:

mtommer
04-21-2011, 02:26 PM
With all the mishits and UE recently, a few more inches and added power would give him the confidence in his ground game and not have to play to such a high level of concentration on each shot.

Why is it that you hit on an arguably big issue with Fed right now but completely fail to see it as a root cause? In pro tennis, it doesn't matter what sized racquet you use when it comes to having to concentrate at a high level for each and every shot. When you don't concentrate and focus as much as you can, you fail. It's that simple and something Federer is dealing with right now. If Nadal takes even one point off slightly he knows he could lose and I think any pro would tell you that about their own game.

mtommer
04-21-2011, 02:37 PM
I've had countless men's magazines tell me "Its not the size that matters, its how you use it".

Fixed that for you.

For the record here's the truth: The size matters depending on the mood, person, and situation.

hoodjem
04-21-2011, 03:37 PM
Fed is too old and stubborn to take the advice on this board.Fed is too intelligent and sane to take the advice on this board.I've had countless women tell me "Its not the size that matters, its how you use it".Which is not too difficult after this "wisdom."

TheNatural
04-21-2011, 04:05 PM
Fed cant control a bigger racket, he needs all the control he can get to keep his wayward shots in the court, so he won't be using a bigger racket anytime soon.

TennisandMusic
04-21-2011, 04:15 PM
I've had countless women tell me "Its not the size that matters, its how you use it".

That's really not what you want women to be telling you.

sureshs
04-21-2011, 04:18 PM
Switching to a larger frame is like admitting defeat. He will not do it.

billnepill
04-21-2011, 04:58 PM
Switching to a larger frame is like admitting defeat. He will not do it.

u got that right

MagneticCurls
04-21-2011, 05:20 PM
Would be funny if he switched frames and went on the win a CYGS.

kishnabe
04-21-2011, 05:24 PM
Would be funny if he switched frames and went on the win a CYGS.

If he goes to a bigger racquet and wins the French Open....I would laugh my *** off.

IvanisevicServe
04-21-2011, 07:36 PM
Racket size means very little to a pro. They actually hit the "sweet spot" consistently.

I doubt Federer's shanks are the result of him just being a LITTLE off. He completely mistimes stuff.

Jack Romeo
04-21-2011, 07:41 PM
first of all: i wanted to start this thread because i follow wertheim's column on cnnsi and he brought up this topic once again. additionally, i was reminded of the fact that sampras sort of regretted not experimenting with a larger racket in his later years. i just thought that maybe that would make someone like roger at least think about experimenting, especially since he is getting older and not getting the same results as in years past. of course we all know that he will contend until the day he retires, even with a small racket so i don't know, it just made me wonder.

secondly, not to turn this into another graf-seles thread, all i wanted to point out was that graf wasn't afraid to change equipment in the later part of her career; something that other great champions have done (king, connors, evert). if sampras can wonder aloud whether things would have been different with a bigger racket, then couldn't it be at least a consideration for federer to try it out?

as we all know and as many of you have pointed out, federer has won 16 slams with the small racket. to me, that means that his legacy is sealed. he can stay in the top 3 until the day he retires or he can go on a slow and steady fade from the top of the game and retire 5 years from now ranked in the 50's - either way he'd still be remembered as the GOAT. no one can take away what he has achieved. he basically has nothing to lose anyway. experimenting with a bigger frame is just an experiment - if it doesn't work, he can always go back to what he used previously. but what if it works? what if it does improve things?

(an aside, i believe graf would have regained the top ranking with or without the stabbing of seles because she wasn't far behind in the ranking points, and there were a few weeks in 1991 when she actually did regain the top ranking from seles. they probably would have gone back and forth anyway.)

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 07:44 PM
first of all: i wanted to start this thread because i follow wertheim's column on cnnsi and he brought up this topic once again. additionally, i was reminded of the fact that sampras sort of regretted not experimenting with a larger racket in his later years. i just thought that maybe that would make someone like roger at least think about experimenting, especially since he is getting older and not getting the same results as in years past. of course we all know that he will contend until the day he retires, even with a small racket so i don't know, it just made me wonder.

secondly, not to turn this into another graf-seles thread, all i wanted to point out was that graf wasn't afraid to change equipment in the later part of her career; something that other great champions have done (king, connors, evert). if sampras can wonder aloud whether things would have been different with a bigger racket, then couldn't it be at least a consideration for federer to try it out?

as we all know and as many of you have pointed out, federer has won 16 slams with the small racket. to me, that means that his legacy is sealed. he can stay in the top 3 until the day he retires or he can go on a slow and steady fade from the top of the game and retire 5 years from now ranked in the 50's - either way he'd still be remembered as the GOAT. no one can take away what he has achieved. he basically has nothing to lose anyway. experimenting with a bigger frame is just an experiment - if it doesn't work, he can always go back to what he used previously. but what if it works? what if it does improve things?

(an aside, i believe graf would have regained the top ranking with or without the stabbing of seles because she wasn't far behind in the ranking points, and there were a few weeks in 1991 when she actually did regain the top ranking from seles. they probably would have gone back and forth anyway.)

Seles >>>> Steffi Parche :)

ananda
04-21-2011, 08:19 PM
I've had countless women tell me "Its not the size that matters, its how you use it".

Countless women?
He forgot to spell-check :twisted:

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 08:21 PM
He forgot to spell-check :twisted:

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

BreakPoint
04-21-2011, 10:22 PM
Sampras has gone on record saying he might have been more competitive in his later years, especially on clay if he had used a bigger racket.
Really? Sampras actually said this? When? Where? I've never seen anyone mention this before anywhere on this board. Just kidding.......:)

The fact of the matter is, if Sampras had used a larger racquet during his career, he'd probably now be lamenting that had he used a smaller racquet he might have won one Wimbledon title. Like the old saying goes - "The Grass is Always Greener......." (no Wimbledon pun intended :wink: )


Evert also resisted, but eventually relented and it might have been a factor in her gaining back the number one ranking in the middle of 1985, after a few years of being dominated by Navratilova.
Evert switched because Wilson stopped making wood racquets. She had no choice.


Graf is another player who comes to mind. After achieving gigantic success with her old Dunlop, she was passed in the rankings by Seles in the early 90's and started losing more matches to old rivals like Sabatini and Sanchez-Vicario. In 1994, she switched to Wilson. I think this new racket was slightly bigger and lighter than her Dunlop. She started dominating the big events again.
Graf switched to Wilson because Dunlop had stopped making her beloved Max 200G in 1993. She had no choice but to switch.


Connors also adapted his equipment later in his career. Although he was too old to be any kind of consistent force in the game, it still enabled a few bright moments for him, most notably his 1991 US Open semifinal run.
Connors switched because he finally ran out of his trusted T-2000's. Wilson had stopped making them almost a decade earlier. He had no choice but to switch. Connors even appealed to his fans to send him any T-2000's that they were no longer using.


Like what Wertheim said, if Roger did switch to a bigger racket, he might be able to buy a few more years where he is more competitive, especially against his fellow top players. Besides, he can always switch back to his old racket if things don't work out as planned.
It's not the racquet. It's the player. Federer is just not as good as he used to be. It happens to all tennis players. Heck, I'm not as good as I used to be, either. :(

Netzroller
04-22-2011, 05:28 AM
Connors switched because he finally ran out of his trusted T-2000's. Wilson had stopped making them almost a decade earlier. He had no choice but to switch. Connors even appealed to his fans to send him any T-2000's that they were no longer using.
Seriously!? LOOOL:)

I just tried to imagine Federer posting on his facebook page: "Guys, I ran out of rackets:( Whoever sends me a frame gets a free tennis lesson"

mellowyellow
04-22-2011, 05:42 AM
Why is it that you hit on an arguably big issue with Fed right now but completely fail to see it as a root cause? In pro tennis, it doesn't matter what sized racquet you use when it comes to having to concentrate at a high level for each and every shot. When you don't concentrate and focus as much as you can, you fail. It's that simple and something Federer is dealing with right now. If Nadal takes even one point off slightly he knows he could lose and I think any pro would tell you that about their own game.

What you are failing to see in these very different situations is that if Nadal relaxes a little he still gets the ball over the net and in the court and the opponent has to come up with something to win the point , If Roger is a little lax he loses the point outright. He has no margin with the power and topspin because its too small of a head and a little too flimsy. When confidence is low, pressing because the racquet gives you nothing is not the recipe for success, it equals net tape, and outside the lines. Sometimes in life you need to be realistic, some things may not be what you like best but are what will be in your best interest, and will not necessarily hurt for trying anyway.

1970CRBase
04-22-2011, 06:10 AM
Graf didn't change to a bigger racquet. Her wilson was 85, Max 200G was 84.

sureshs
04-22-2011, 07:14 AM
Heck, I'm not as good as I used to be, either. :(

Your posts are not as good as they used to be

sureshs
04-22-2011, 07:16 AM
What you are failing to see in these very different situations is that if Nadal relaxes a little he still gets the ball over the net and in the court and the opponent has to come up with something to win the point , If Roger is a little lax he loses the point outright. He has no margin with the power and topspin because its too small of a head and a little too flimsy. When confidence is low, pressing because the racquet gives you nothing is not the recipe for success, it equals net tape, and outside the lines. Sometimes in life you need to be realistic, some things may not be what you like best but are what will be in your best interest, and will not necessarily hurt for trying anyway.

Well put. His game has little margin for error due to the small frame. But is also has little margin because of over reliance on perfect timing. When these factors combine, he just loses points outright. I don't see his famed defensive skills. They appear to me to be fluke shots which landed in.

Devilito
04-22-2011, 07:29 AM
People twist around Petros comment about his racquet. If you read his book what he specifically talks about is how during his clay court push and late career slump they talked about different things they could do to possibly turn things around. One of them was potentially switching racquets. They talked about it and obviously they decided it wasn’t a good idea. IMO it was a good move because at that point you should focus on your strengths which are fast courts. If he had made changes just to push on clay he might have no won 7 Wimbledons or his final US Open. He never once suggests that he should have switched or that he regretted not switching. It was only a topic of discussion among many other things.

mtommer
04-22-2011, 10:07 AM
What you are failing to see in these very different situations is that if Nadal relaxes a little he still gets the ball over the net and in the court and the opponent has to come up with something to win the point

I think what you're failing to realize is that you are not correct in this assessment. If Nadal relaxes a little the point is that he doesn't always get the ball over the net - just like every other pro. Further, the times that him or anyone else, including Roger do get that ball back, the ball is a sitting duck and is almost always, if not well over 97% I'd wager, returned for an outright winner. This is why so few are so good at tennis. It requires extreme concentration, focus and intent for EVERY single shot. It is not enough to be able to hit a ball well, one must hit it well with purpose - ALWAYS to succeed at the top level. I can't (obviously) stress that enough and this is even true at the college level although there can be more forgiveness for laxes due to the far larger margin between abilities of players.

Part of Federer's legacy is that he was able to take games off mentally and still turn it back on in time to win. He is THAT good that he's able to do what few, if any pros, before have been able to do in that regard. Due to Federer's natural physical degradation he can't do that anymore. However, that degradation, while being a degradation, merely puts him on the level of every other pro. Much of his career he hasn't had to play 100% mentally focused and now he does. That's a big change and a hard one to make. Nadal is used to having to do that to succeed and is in fact noted for how he plays every single point, every single shot, all the time. Federer won't find leniancy with a bigger racquet. He'll keep shanking, keep missing and keep dumping routine shots (for the pros) into the net regardless of his racquet size if or until he finds the way to stay in all matches 100%.

BreakPoint
04-22-2011, 10:26 AM
Seriously!? LOOOL:)

I just tried to imagine Federer posting on his facebook page: "Guys, I ran out of rackets:( Whoever sends me a frame gets a free tennis lesson"
Yup, seriously. Connors couldn't get any more T-2000's from Wilson because they had been out of production for so long, so he tried to get them from the general public who didn't need them anymore. So check your closets or garages and dig out those old T-2000's collecting dust that you don't need anymore and donate them to Connors! :)

BreakPoint
04-22-2011, 10:27 AM
Your posts are not as good as they used to be
See, what did I tell you. :wink:

mellowyellow
04-22-2011, 03:04 PM
I think what you're failing to realize is that you are not correct in this assessment. If Nadal relaxes a little the point is that he doesn't always get the ball over the net - just like every other pro. Further, the times that him or anyone else, including Roger do get that ball back, the ball is a sitting duck and is almost always, if not well over 97% I'd wager, returned for an outright winner. This is why so few are so good at tennis. It requires extreme concentration, focus and intent for EVERY single shot. It is not enough to be able to hit a ball well, one must hit it well with purpose - ALWAYS to succeed at the top level. I can't (obviously) stress that enough and this is even true at the college level although there can be more forgiveness for laxes due to the far larger margin between abilities of players.

Part of Federer's legacy is that he was able to take games off mentally and still turn it back on in time to win. He is THAT good that he's able to do what few, if any pros, before have been able to do in that regard. Due to Federer's natural physical degradation he can't do that anymore. However, that degradation, while being a degradation, merely puts him on the level of every other pro. Much of his career he hasn't had to play 100% mentally focused and now he does. That's a big change and a hard one to make. Nadal is used to having to do that to succeed and is in fact noted for how he plays every single point, every single shot, all the time. Federer won't find leniancy with a bigger racquet. He'll keep shanking, keep missing and keep dumping routine shots (for the pros) into the net regardless of his racquet size if or until he finds the way to stay in all matches 100%.

You look at the stats and tell me who has more UE and mishits , and who is beating their self. Lets be clear too, this has ben a storm brewing for a long time now. Yeah, some mental and physical degradation, but only showing because of such a demanding stick. That racquet is all you, it gives you little, now take Rafas stick and what happens? Miss hits go away and off hits still go over with some direction and authority. Honestly that last part??? are you for real? When did Fed take games off? I remember him more times brutalizing players not going soft, that seems to have come from your imagination or you confused/interjected your play with Fed's in your daydreams?

OTMPut
04-22-2011, 03:41 PM
That racquet is all you, it gives you little, now take Rafas stick and what happens? Miss hits go away and off hits still go over with some direction and authority.

i get this idea once in a while that if i play with a 100 size babolat, i will cut down my unforced errors. i immediately regret it. i do cut down the UFE, but i do not win matches.

people always naively conclude that bigger area = lower UFE = more wins.
at any level it is not enough just to get more balls across net. you might simply prolong the average length of your points and you might still lose.

you will have to look at "effectiveness" in many areas (return game, serves, defense, ...) rather than simply looking at reduced UFE.
For example the key component of Fed's game is serve. When serves well, he picks up a lot of free points. And he does not really rams it down like Andy Roddick, does he? Can he get the same serve effectiveness with an APD?

BreakPoint
04-22-2011, 05:30 PM
You look at the stats and tell me who has more UE and mishits , and who is beating their self. Lets be clear too, this has ben a storm brewing for a long time now. Yeah, some mental and physical degradation, but only showing because of such a demanding stick. That racquet is all you, it gives you little, now take Rafas stick and what happens? Miss hits go away and off hits still go over with some direction and authority. Honestly that last part??? are you for real? When did Fed take games off? I remember him more times brutalizing players not going soft, that seems to have come from your imagination or you confused/interjected your play with Fed's in your daydreams?
So what you're telling us is that Rafa cheats? You say that many of his shots are "not all him", right? Then maybe the ATP should take all of Nadal's trophies and prize money away from him and give them to Babolat instead? Since it sounds like it was actually Babolat that won those titles and not Nadal? :shock:

Chopin
04-22-2011, 05:35 PM
I think the point is that Roger shouldn't be against at least trying a 95. I'm not venturing a guess as to whether it would make any difference at all--on the one hand, pros are very finicky, on the other, they could play with a spoon--but it's important to be adaptable as you age in tennis. Sampras wasn't, and regrets not at least trying, and Borg wasn't either, and probably regrets it. Agassi, we know, did experiment with various racquets (he actually used a midplus for a brief experiment during his twilight years, though it didn't last long). And, as we know, Agassi lasted a long time. You have to make changes as you age in tennis and Federer's stubbornness, in general, which is undoubtedly a source of his greatness, also has hurt him at times.

Chopin
04-22-2011, 05:48 PM
Well put. His game has little margin for error due to the small frame. But is also has little margin because of over reliance on perfect timing. When these factors combine, he just loses points outright. I don't see his famed defensive skills. They appear to me to be fluke shots which landed in.

Do you ever feel sad that you post so much about tennis but know so little about the sport? Just wondering...

mellowyellow
04-22-2011, 06:13 PM
So what you're telling us is that Rafa cheats? You say that many of his shots are "not all him", right? Then maybe the ATP should take all of Nadal's trophies and prize money away from him and give them to Babolat instead? Since it sounds like it was actually Babolat that won those titles and not Nadal? :shock:

Maybe the ATP/ITF should look at the reasons as to why the spaghetti strung racquet was going to be bad for tennis and look at what can be done with a ball now......Maybe those trophies should go to Fuentes? Maybe Nadal should have sued for defamation of character when he was insinuated to be involved in Operation Puerta yet he never followed through. My "guess" is that a real court of law would have made the Spanish government release those records they locked away :oops:

mellowyellow
04-22-2011, 06:45 PM
i get this idea once in a while that if i play with a 100 size babolat, i will cut down my unforced errors. i immediately regret it. i do cut down the UFE, but i do not win matches.

people always naively conclude that bigger area = lower UFE = more wins.
at any level it is not enough just to get more balls across net. you might simply prolong the average length of your points and you might still lose.

you will have to look at "effectiveness" in many areas (return game, serves, defense, ...) rather than simply looking at reduced UFE.
For example the key component of Fed's game is serve. When serves well, he picks up a lot of free points. And he does not really rams it down like Andy Roddick, does he? Can he get the same serve effectiveness with an APD?

I agree to an extent, but when Roger is routinely hitting more UE rather than winners when he loses I would say its time to figure out why. Its not just going to a bigger frame, its going to the right bigger frame. If your accustomed to a heavy players stick in a 90/93 sq. picking up a 100 sq. APD is not going to suit the stroke you are use to producing in a match. I wouldn't suggest that to anyone. Going to a 95/98 sq. with similar weight, frame width, and stiffness may be the ticket to taking balls earlier, hitting more spin while also hitting through the court. Funny you mention about serve too, he could use some more pop on that as well lately couldn't he?

mtommer
04-23-2011, 08:48 AM
You look at the stats and tell me who has more UE and mishits , and who is beating their self......Miss hits go away and off hits still go over with some direction and authority.

No, don't look at the stats, look at the play. The stats only tell you the result, they don't actually tell you what happened during the entire point. From what I've seen of Federer's play, he's missing ROUTINE shots. He's not even missing them because he was hurried or out of position many times. He's simply missing them because he isn't maintaining focus and you can see that in his body language as well as during replays when the ball is hit clean but still he dumps it into the net. Do you understand that ball hit in the sweetspot is not close to the edge of the frame? When you watch the play and see him frame a ball you can see how he wasn't in position or hurried. Do you realize that's a shank with any racquet? Do you realize I've seen Nadal shank plenty of balls and hit unforced errors too? I bet you have also. I guess Nadal needs a 110" racquet now eh?


Honestly that last part??? are you for real? When did Fed take games off? I remember him more times brutalizing players not going soft, that seems to have come from your imagination or you confused/interjected your play with Fed's in your daydreams?

Anybody who's watched Federer matches has seen him "come alive" while playing or start out really well, lag off and then turn it back on again to win the match. Just watch the body language. When you see him play now there's a marked difference in frustration levels (ie none as opposed to a lot more now) when he isn't doing well.

mellowyellow
04-23-2011, 09:54 AM
No, don't look at the stats, look at the play. The stats only tell you the result, they don't actually tell you what happened during the entire point. From what I've seen of Federer's play, he's missing ROUTINE shots. He's not even missing them because he was hurried or out of position many times. He's simply missing them because he isn't maintaining focus and you can see that in his body language as well as during replays when the ball is hit clean but still he dumps it into the net. Do you understand that ball hit in the sweetspot is not close to the edge of the frame? When you watch the play and see him frame a ball you can see how he wasn't in position or hurried. Do you realize that's a shank with any racquet? Do you realize I've seen Nadal shank plenty of balls and hit unforced errors too? I bet you have also. I guess Nadal needs a 110" racquet now eh?



Anybody who's watched Federer matches has seen him "come alive" while playing or start out really well, lag off and then turn it back on again to win the match. Just watch the body language. When you see him play now there's a marked difference in frustration levels (ie none as opposed to a lot more now) when he isn't doing well.

What, are you breakpoint with a different screen name? He wants to take an example that I use and turn it into a Nadal cheats, Nadal vs Fed hate thread. you actually imply something I said just the opposite of, Nadal uses what he does and gets the job done with it and I will add that their are diminishing returns. Bring something real to the discussion and quit nitpicking articulation of a sentence. Fed is missing so much more now because he feels the need to press more, they are not routine strokes he is missing, they are shots intended to do damage and win points.

Heracles
04-23-2011, 10:08 AM
I of course reported mellowyellow to the moderation.

BreakPoint
04-23-2011, 10:08 AM
What, are you breakpoint with a different screen name? He wants to take an example that I use and turn it into a Nadal cheats, Nadal vs Fed hate thread. you actually imply something I said just the opposite of, Nadal uses what he does and gets the job done with it and I will add that their are diminishing returns. Bring something real to the discussion and quit nitpicking articulation of a sentence. Fed is missing so much more now because he feels the need to press more, they are not routine strokes he is missing, they are shots intended to do damage and win points.
Um....I have well over 30,000 posts (and that's not even including any posts in Odds and Ends nor Rants and Raves). Do you seriously think I need to or have the time to post under another screen name? Get real. :???:

OK, how about this as a solution for you. Instead of Federer switching to a bigger racquet to make things more fair, why not have all the other players switch to smaller racquets to make it more fair? For hundreds of years, ALL tennis players used the SAME SIZE racquet (i.e. tiny). That was back when tennis was "fair". :)

mellowyellow
04-23-2011, 10:24 AM
Um....I have well over 30,000 posts (and that's not even including any posts in Odds and Ends nor Rants and Raves). Do you seriously think I need to or have the time to post under another screen name? Get real. :???:

OK, how about this as a solution for you. Instead of Federer switching to a bigger racquet to make things more fair, why not have all the other players switch to smaller racquets to make it more fair? For hundreds of years, ALL tennis players used the SAME SIZE racquet (i.e. tiny). That was back when tennis was "fair". :)

You sound like a little child, "fair", everyone can use what is deemed legal, the thread was about Roger possibly trying bigger racquets... for some reason people that don't like Roger find their way into the discussion and want to ruin a thread. Seems like some are afraid of what would happen if Roger would utilize a bigger frame because they realize their "boy" would be a mediocre player with a 90 sq. and don't want to admit that his equipment has something to do with his success.

Mick
04-23-2011, 10:48 AM
imo it would be a disaster if federer switched to a bigger headsize racquet and still lose.

Forehand Avenger
04-23-2011, 10:51 AM
Fed needs to switch to a very big racket in order to avoid a repeat of last year's Madrid final whiff.

Devilito
04-23-2011, 10:51 AM
imo it would be a disaster if federer switched to a bigger headsize racquet and still lose.

Then we'd know he didn't go big enough right?

Mick
04-23-2011, 10:54 AM
Then we'd know he didn't go big enough right?

haha. to me, it would be a sign of desparation because all his playing life, he had been using small headsize racquets.

Fugazi
04-23-2011, 10:58 AM
I must have missed soemthing... Didnt Federer win WTf like 5 months ago using that ancient stick of his, beating the world number 1 at the time? Did I miss somethign? and didn't he only lose to the eventual AO champion who was playing out of his mind but still had to work his butt off for the straight sets win?

Am I missing something?
I'm a Fed fan, and the way he plays at the moment, he'll be very lucky to win another major, with Nadal and Djoko in his path. Changing for a slightly bigger racket could probably help a little, but he's too stubborn to do it. If Sampras seems to regret not changing, I don't see why it would be out of the question for Fed. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't win a major in 2011 will he be ready for a change...

sureshs
04-23-2011, 11:12 AM
Do you ever feel sad that you post so much about tennis but know so little about the sport? Just wondering...

I used to feel sad, then I realized others were worse :-)

Moreover, recent medical studies have shown that posting here reduces the risk of Alzheimers in old age by keeping your mind engaged.

sureshs
04-23-2011, 11:14 AM
imo it would be a disaster if federer switched to a bigger headsize racquet and still lose.

Very interesting point. As I said before, switching is admitting that Nadal and Djokovic are better players. On top of that, if he still loses, it proves that point yet again. At least now he can retire with the theory that had he switched, he could have beaten Nadal.

mtommer
04-23-2011, 11:17 AM
Fed is missing so much more now because he feels the need to press more, they are not routine strokes he is missing, they are shots intended to do damage and win points.

Many of them most certainly are routine shots.

BreakPoint
04-23-2011, 07:31 PM
You sound like a little child, "fair", everyone can use what is deemed legal, the thread was about Roger possibly trying bigger racquets... for some reason people that don't like Roger find their way into the discussion and want to ruin a thread. Seems like some are afraid of what would happen if Roger would utilize a bigger frame because they realize their "boy" would be a mediocre player with a 90 sq. and don't want to admit that his equipment has something to do with his success.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it fair.

Is it legal for you to never pay for the drinks when you go out with your friends? Sure, it is. But is it fair?

BreakPoint
04-23-2011, 07:34 PM
I'm a Fed fan, and the way he plays at the moment, he'll be very lucky to win another major, with Nadal and Djoko in his path. Changing for a slightly bigger racket could probably help a little, but he's too stubborn to do it. If Sampras seems to regret not changing, I don't see why it would be out of the question for Fed. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't win a major in 2011 will he be ready for a change...
Yes, and that "change" will probably be he leaves the tour to become a family man. That's quite a "change", wouldn't you agree?

1970CRBase
04-23-2011, 07:44 PM
Look, here's a quote by Fed which is most appropriate for certain people on TT who never stop saying they know better than him and keep telling him what to do. Tells you all you need to know!

""Sometimes, to a point, a bit annoyed because all sorts of crazy people started writing me and trying to reach me, telling me I need some help either mentally or physically,""


http://www.expatica.com/za/health_fitness/fitness_sports/Federer-proves-he-is-as-sharp-as-ever_12955.html

mellowyellow
04-23-2011, 08:16 PM
Maybe thats his giant ego getting in the way? Did he even have a coach at that time? Maybe that would be admitting that you have plateaued in your career and the only place to go is down, most pro athletes have a hard time admitting that. Last but not least, I don't see anything that is racquet related in that article, or did I miss something?

TennisD
04-23-2011, 09:15 PM
Fed is too old and stubborn to take the advice on this board.
That's not even the issue; the advice on this board, along with the general knowledge level, isn't exactly stellar.

wmoore
04-24-2011, 02:54 AM
I believe the point that Fed has made his career with only a couple different racquets (paint jobs not withstanding) is undeniable. Likely, it was not his stick that won all those majors for him but his talent.

I think I'm safe in saying that nobody on these boards has close to the talent he has - which is why we are so consumed with head size, string patterns, tension etc. Myself included.

We might do well to look at what has changed. Novak D, for example, has not improved his lot by changing from a black racquet to a white one to a black and white one. The big, big change in his game is his physique. The boy is buff!! he used to be kind of a skinny guy - not so any more. The last time I saw him beat Fed, there was no doubting who was stronger.

My not-so-humble opinion is that while Fed has always been fit enough to go five sets with anyone - that was mainly cardio vascular fitness. Maybe, just maybe, he ought to spend some time with Gil Reyes or someone like that and put some more zip into his forehand so he wouldn't see so many opponents running it down instead of watching it go by.

There's no doubting that he has perhaps the best tennis mind of any player ever - he just needs to turn up the volume a bit.

nikdom
04-24-2011, 03:05 PM
Roger needs a lacrosse stick. Catch the ball and throw it wherever he wants.

Ronaldo
04-24-2011, 03:41 PM
That's not even the issue; the advice on this board, along with the general knowledge level, isn't exactly stellar.

Less than stellar, you cannot be serious! The greatest minds and talent call this board their own.

Bjorn99
04-24-2011, 03:54 PM
What made Federer so good and so great to watch was his adherence to beautiful form. No question he could have beaten Nadal a year or two ago with some looping moonballs high to Nadals backhand and a lot more vicious slice DOWN THE LINE to Nadals backhand.

I think he would have driven Nadal nuts with this tactic. Sampras mooned his backhand on clay, he knew driving it against two handers was going into their strengths and that mooning it put a two hander in the ONE position, they hated.

But Federer is all about style and form. If he cannot go through you he is not all that interested.

And because of that incredible stubborness, we watched a guy play the game with a finesse that we probably won't see again for about 60 years.

BreakPoint
04-24-2011, 04:29 PM
And because of that incredible stubborness, we watched a guy play the game with a finesse that we probably won't see again for about 60 years.
Why 60 years? :confused: What will happen in 60 years time to change things?

Povl Carstensen
04-26-2011, 12:09 PM
I don't see his famed defensive skills. They appear to me to be fluke shots which landed in.
I used to feel sad, then I realized others were worse :-)
Moreover, recent medical studies have shown that posting here reduces the risk of Alzheimers in old age by keeping your mind engaged.
Maybe you should engage your mind a bit more.

sureshs
04-26-2011, 12:19 PM
Maybe you should engage your mind a bit more.

Still won't help Fed to win

Povl Carstensen
04-27-2011, 06:44 AM
Just as a favour to yourself and others.

mtommer
04-27-2011, 12:56 PM
we watched a guy play the game with a finesse that we probably won't see again for about 60 years.

Naw, in 60 years this won't be the case. In fact, Federer won't even be considered GOAT because the game at that point will be so much more physical and "modern".

Sentinel
04-27-2011, 08:53 PM
I used to feel sad, then I realized others were worse :-)
.
you create the biggest racket here. ;)

Netspirit
04-27-2011, 09:32 PM
A bigger frame (with its air drag and different feel) will require several months of adjustment, potentially falling out of top 10 and having to climb all the way up, with unclear benefits.

Federer switching to a 95 is possible, but very unlikely.

jackson vile
05-16-2011, 07:50 AM
I believe the point that Fed has made his career with only a couple different racquets (paint jobs not withstanding) is undeniable. Likely, it was not his stick that won all those majors for him but his talent.

I think I'm safe in saying that nobody on these boards has close to the talent he has - which is why we are so consumed with head size, string patterns, tension etc. Myself included.

We might do well to look at what has changed. Novak D, for example, has not improved his lot by changing from a black racquet to a white one to a black and white one. The big, big change in his game is his physique. The boy is buff!! he used to be kind of a skinny guy - not so any more. The last time I saw him beat Fed, there was no doubting who was stronger.

My not-so-humble opinion is that while Fed has always been fit enough to go five sets with anyone - that was mainly cardio vascular fitness. Maybe, just maybe, he ought to spend some time with Gil Reyes or someone like that and put some more zip into his forehand so he wouldn't see so many opponents running it down instead of watching it go by.

There's no doubting that he has perhaps the best tennis mind of any player ever - he just needs to turn up the volume a bit.



Novak is rail thin, and his racket change and string change may have played a very large part for his success on clay.

BreakPoint
05-16-2011, 12:28 PM
Novak is rail thin, and his racket change and string change may have played a very large part for his success on clay.
Novak went back to the same Head racquet and the same multi strings that he's used for years. There was also no change in racquet head size.

Djokovic's improvement is in his movement, his nutrition, his physical conditioning and stamina, and most importantly, his confidence and belief.

mtommer
05-17-2011, 12:40 PM
Djokovic's improvement is in his movement, his nutrition, his physical conditioning and stamina, and most importantly, his confidence and belief.
..........
+1.

Bendex
05-17-2011, 02:20 PM
I must have missed soemthing... Didnt Federer win WTf like 5 months ago using that ancient stick of his, beating the world number 1 at the time? Did I miss somethign? and didn't he only lose to the eventual AO champion who was playing out of his mind but still had to work his butt off for the straight sets win?

Am I missing something?

You're missing the fact that he is now consistently losing to players he used to beat. His level has clearly dropped and people are suggesting ways for him to maximise his potential. I hope this helps.

Ronaldo
05-17-2011, 02:39 PM
Fedex needs to take his game to the outer limits by using the final solution.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Gamma_Big_Bubba_29/descpageRCGAMMA-GBB29.html

Lsmkenpo
05-17-2011, 02:55 PM
What you are failing to see in these very different situations is that if Nadal relaxes a little he still gets the ball over the net and in the court and the opponent has to come up with something to win the point , If Roger is a little lax he loses the point outright. He has no margin with the power and topspin because its too small of a head and a little too flimsy. When confidence is low, pressing because the racquet gives you nothing is not the recipe for success, it equals net tape, and outside the lines. Sometimes in life you need to be realistic, some things may not be what you like best but are what will be in your best interest, and will not necessarily hurt for trying anyway.

I see a few flaws in your argument, first of all Federer plays a different stye of tennis than Nadal. He is much more aggressive and takes the ball way earlier so naturally he is going to make more UE and also hit more winners.

Secondly, he hits his forehand differently than any other pro on tour. His WW motion is extremely compact, a bigger frame won't matter, he turns his wrist over at contact to generate his topspin he doesn't use a big brushing motion with a vertical swing plane. So he gains nothing. A bigger frame would hurt his forehand more than it would help it. Why would he want to make his best shot weaker overall? Unless he wants to start playing defensive tennis and run around the court for 15 strokes. Not a good idea, not his style.

Lastly, have you ever used the K90, it is not under powered or flimsy as you stated. The racquet has more power than the APD, look at the power map on this site. Federer strings at low tension with gut mains his racquet is very powerful.

Seems you want Federer to change his style of play not his racquet.

Bobby Jr
05-17-2011, 06:52 PM
This whole 'Federer's ego prevents him from improving' thing is pretty much a myth in terms of his history.

He was once poor tempered on court.. and managed to sort it out. He was once considered a serve-volleyer, but developed one of the best baseline games in history. To try and crack clay he added the drop-shot, something which few were doing and now every man and his Djog have started to do. He was having less success at the net, so played some doubles to freshen up... The fact he was so close to being a complete player means the changes he has made are quite subtle and perhaps more strategic or confidence-based than technical.

Likewise, the sort of determination and mindset to become a great player entails a level of on-going self-belief only one in a million people possess - something we're only now seeing regularly in Djokovic (finally). This self-belief is rare and, by definition, seems to usually exclude the ability to be as open to suggestions that an outsider might think are plainly obvious to make. That's why it takes coaches like Annacone/Roach etc to focus on a the small, but potentially important, oversights a player may have about their game or overall groove/funk they're in. (And possibly the reason Murray, Roddick etc have a hard time finding the right coach for them)

Federer's adaptability to different surfaces and opponents might not seem obvious as his game for so long was one which could simply out-play most opponents. And as much as people claim his not changing his backhand or up-sizing his racquet are the reasons for *whatever* the fact is, his ability to rarely ever allow others to stomp their game-plan on him has been a huge part of his success for a decade. Changing that approach to his game would almost guarantee he will lose more winnable matches than previously (notwithstanding the competition has improved as well) even if it also won him a few close ones.

drakulie
05-17-2011, 07:00 PM
If federer needs to switch to a larger frame, then isn't the same true for every player not ranked ahead of him?? You know,,,, the thousand or so ATP players ranked beneath him??

Mick
05-17-2011, 07:03 PM
If federer needs to switch to a larger frame, then isn't the same true for every player not ranked ahead of him?? You know,,,, the thousand or so ATP players ranked beneath him??

i think the wilson executives are wishing that federer would do so. not that the move would improve his game but wilson probably would be able sell more federer racquets if they were larger in size :)

fruitytennis1
05-17-2011, 07:19 PM
A bigger frame (with its air drag and different feel) will require several months of adjustment, potentially falling out of top 10 and having to climb all the way up, with unclear benefits.

Federer switching to a 95 is possible, but very unlikely.

Take a few moments to realize this is ROGER FEDERER your talking about.

I believe the point that Fed has made his career with only a couple different racquets (paint jobs not withstanding) is undeniable. Likely, it was not his stick that won all those majors for him but his talent.

timmeh
05-17-2011, 11:01 PM
Just because something is legal doesn't make it fair.

Is it legal for you to never pay for the drinks when you go out with your friends? Sure, it is. But is it fair?

You are a horrible poster. Will now be skipping every post you make after reading this read and the bulldust that spews from your keyboard.

BreakPoint
05-18-2011, 12:23 AM
You are a horrible poster. Will now be skipping every post you make after reading this read and the bulldust that spews from your keyboard.
Thank you. Your posts are awesome, too. :)

Satch
05-18-2011, 12:48 AM
i think the wilson executives are wishing that federer would do so. not that the move would improve his game but wilson probably would be able sell more federer racquets if they were larger in size :)

wow, it's really a hard job to promote and sell Fed racq as 110sqin if needed... 99% of people would believe it, you know, it's the TV that makes it "smaller" :???:

jackson vile
05-18-2011, 07:15 AM
I say Roger already has a big fat head, so it does not need to become any larger. Oh... Wait... rackets! Well Hewitt did it, how much did that help him?

Gaudio2004
05-18-2011, 07:29 AM
Having a bigger frame doesn't make you "better" as a tennis player nor does it reduce your error-count, assuming it does is very basic theory that has no practical use.

People need to be laughed at if they believe by simply changing his racquet, Federer will have different (better) results. He won't.

niff
05-18-2011, 08:07 AM
Fed was asked about it recently:

Q:You still play with a very small Racket. Sampras advised you to a larger racket as he did on the seniors tour. Is that applicable for you?

A: I changed already once, 2002, from the Sampras racquet to my current model. Every so often I test larger racquets. The problem is that I have no time for detailed tests.

pmerk34
05-18-2011, 08:09 AM
Having a bigger frame doesn't make you "better" as a tennis player nor does it reduce your error-count, assuming it does is very basic theory that has no practical use.

People need to be laughed at if they believe by simply changing his racquet, Federer will have different (better) results. He won't.

The answer is we do not know - no one knows if a switch to a larger head size would help or hinder Federer.

IF you claim to know either way you should be laughed at.

mtommer
05-19-2011, 09:50 AM
The answer is we do not know - no one knows if a switch to a larger head size would help or hinder Federer.

IF you claim to know either way you should be laughed at.

The way many talk here one would think that by switching to a larger head sized racquet that all of sudden one is playing with a sweetspot the size of the entire head size of the K90.

Here's what I want you to do. I would like you to impose racquets of 95,100 and 110 onto high speed video of each of Federer's errors for a match. Would you care to bet that it could be shown that in almost all situations that any racquet used would have resulted in the exact same thing that happened? A shank would still have been a shank. A ball dumped into the net would have still have gone into the net. Further, would you care to bet that in almost (if not all) every situation one could narrow down the cause of the error to the racquet not being in the right position at the right time?

Next I would like you to make a jig that would hold a racquet and swing it from low to high; head at a 70 degree angle from straight vertical. Get something that can throw a ball with an exact repeatable path and make the contact points the same for all racquets. Put in the K90 so the ball hits dead center, slightly off center and almost to the frame. Take out the K90 and put in the AeroPro. What do you think is going to happen to the ball? Do you think the AeroPro, being a larger sized racquet will be able to return the ball back along the ball path or an equivalent that gets the ball over the net whereas the K90 would not? Do you think that resulting ball vectors are actually going to change much from racquet to racquet? Do you think the laws of physics change depending on what sized racquet you use?

tennis_pro
05-19-2011, 10:04 AM
from the article mentioned before (about how Federer feels he's better now than in 2005)

http://www.faz.net/s/Rub9CD731D06F17450CB39BE001000DD173/Doc~E61331CC37B724B84B4B7E3CE6A75B749~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html

Interviewer: Sie spielen immer noch mit einem sehr kleinen Racket. Sampras riet Ihnen, wie er auf der Seniors Tour zu einem größeren Schläger zu greifen. Kommt das für Sie in Frage?

Federer: Ich habe ja schon einmal, 2002, vom Sampras-Schläger auf mein jetziges Modell gewechselt. Ich teste immer wieder mal größere Schläger. Das Problem ist, dass mir die Zeit für ausführliche Tests fehlt.

Interviewer: "You still use very small racquets. Sampras who plays on the Champions Tour started to use bigger ones and gave you an advice to do so as well. Do you consider doing it?
Federer:I've already changed once in 2002 a Sampras-racquet for my current model. I still test some bigger racquets. The problem is that I lack time to keep trying out new ones"

So it's not your stubborness, Fed, it's the lack of time that disallows you to change the goddamn racquet?

sureshs
05-19-2011, 10:16 AM
So Federer has listened to us and is trying bigger frames.

Double_Fault
05-19-2011, 10:19 AM
Federer needs a smaller racquet.

Rusty669
05-19-2011, 10:31 AM
Federer has mentioned on more than one occasion that the tennis season is so packed that it is virtually impossible to train certain aspects of his game(i.e all pros) or try out some new things...
I can't find the quote right now, but he kept it pretty open what exactly he meant by that...

But I am guessing it probably isn't trying to switch to a 2HB:-)

On the whole racquet-change theories going on here, I believe a slightly bigger head might change something regarding the shanking and mishits.
But again,let's face it, if there isn't enough time during the season to experiment long enough and get used to another racquet, I wouldn't change it for the world either, especially having won 16 grand slams with the current stick.

Devilito
05-19-2011, 11:40 AM
Fed was asked about it recently:

As to the whole “too busy” thing… I think Federer still has this notion of breaking Petros’ weeks at number 1 record. This forces him to play lots of events while at the same age Petros was already slowing down and focusing more on slams. Once Federer gives up on that record and slows down his schedule to focus more on slams he might also have time to test new racquets and potentially switch for a final career push at winning majors.

niff
05-19-2011, 11:49 AM
As to the whole “too busy” thing… I think Federer still has this notion of breaking Petros’ weeks at number 1 record. This forces him to play lots of events while at the same age Petros was already slowing down and focusing more on slams. Once Federer gives up on that record and slows down his schedule to focus more on slams he might also have time to test new racquets and potentially switch for a final career push at winning majors.
Funnily enough this quote is from the same interview : "But I consider whether I will play next year directly again in Indian Wells and thereafter in Miami". There were rumours for a while now that he was thinking about skipping one. He also said "If I play in Paris and Wimbledon well, I can make a large leap. It is short term my goal of becoming again the number one." So, you might be spot on about where his schedule is heading.

Doulers
05-19-2011, 01:57 PM
For those of you who follow Jon Wertheim's mailbag on CNNSI, he again mentioned the possibility of Federer possibly prolonging his stay at the top by switching to a bigger racket. Sampras has gone on record saying he might have been more competitive in his later years, especially on clay if he had used a bigger racket.

Do you think Federer will be too stubborn to experiment with a different headsize?

To me, this issue is similar to the one many players had to deal with in the late 70's-early 80''s when graphite rackets became popular. Some traditionalists insisted on staying with wood. Borg didn't want to switch even during his first failed comeback attempt. Evert also resisted, but eventually relented and it might have been a factor in her gaining back the number one ranking in the middle of 1985, after a few years of being dominated by Navratilova.

Graf is another player who comes to mind. After achieving gigantic success with her old Dunlop, she was passed in the rankings by Seles in the early 90's and started losing more matches to old rivals like Sabatini and Sanchez-Vicario. In 1994, she switched to Wilson. I think this new racket was slightly bigger and lighter than her Dunlop. She started dominating the big events again.

Connors also adapted his equipment later in his career. Although he was too old to be any kind of consistent force in the game, it still enabled a few bright moments for him, most notably his 1991 US Open semifinal run.

Like what Wertheim said, if Roger did switch to a bigger racket, he might be able to buy a few more years where he is more competitive, especially against his fellow top players. Besides, he can always switch back to his old racket if things don't work out as planned.

I think Federer definitely needs to give a larger head size a try. It doesn't have to be a huge increase, 5 inches would be fine. He did it before when he switched from the Wilson Pro Staff 85 to what he currently uses which is a 90 sq. inch head. And he had used the PS 85 for most of his junior career and up to I think 2002 when he made the switch. So if he was not stubborn then, why is he being stubborn now. I think he should try the Wilson BLX 95 16x18, which is the stick I use. Not only will the larger head increase his margin for error on off center hits, but the racquet has a broader beam width than his current stick. Beam width is another often overlooked spec on a racquet. The broader width of the BLX 95 will help stability also and give more power and also a bigger margin for error. I have demo'ed his racquet (and I know the retail stock version is probably not the same as what he is actually using, but it is close, and the head size is the same) and it is a difficult racquet to use (I am a 4.0 to 4.5 level player). If you are not spot on with your timing and technique, it is difficult to generate depth, pace, and spin with his racquet. Especially now that he is approaching the twilight of his career and is getting older, and that the play is so fast on the pro tour, Federer would benefit immensely I think from switching to a larger head size. And maybe he doesn't have to choose from what is out there right now, but ask Wilson to custom make one for him that his somewhere between what he uses now and say, for example, the BLX 95. He should definitely consider it in my view.

Timbo's hopeless slice
05-19-2011, 03:09 PM
i switch fairly frequently between my 3 'everyday' sticks, Dunlop Bio 200, 300 and 500 Tour which are 95, 98 and 100 sq in respectively. Now, I'm nobody's Roger Federer, but I don't notice any difference in 'shank ratio' between them at all.

Sure, tey are quit different, but due to stiffness and string pattern, not head size. Maybe I'm lucky, I learnt with a woodie and I played a fair bit of squash when I was young so I maybe hit the ball in the middle more ofen than not, but I really think the whole 'Fed needs a new racquet' thing is utter rubbish.

Ronaldo
05-19-2011, 05:16 PM
i switch fairly frequently between my 3 'everyday' sticks, Dunlop Bio 200, 300 and 500 Tour which are 95, 98 and 100 sq in respectively. Now, I'm nobody's Roger Federer, but I don't notice any difference in 'shank ratio' between them at all.

Sure, tey are quit different, but due to stiffness and string pattern, not head size. Maybe I'm lucky, I learnt with a woodie and I played a fair bit of squash when I was young so I maybe hit the ball in the middle more ofen than not, but I really think the whole 'Fed needs a new racquet' thing is utter rubbish.

Get a 100 and switch

fRa
05-20-2011, 06:40 AM
Was strolling around the net and found an article about Federer... The website is in bulgarian so I had to translate it using Google. Forgive its translating limitations.

Here's a link to the website : http://www.tenniskafe.com/ATP/Роджър-Федерер/7211-Федерер-за-сравненията-с-Григор-Димитров,-за-непобедимия-Ноле-и-целта-му-да-бъде-отново-№1

Then, Google translation :
Q: Still playing with a small rocket (small head of the rocket) (I think Google means racket here). Sampras, they advise you to use more as it did the tournament for veterans. What do you think about it?

A: Once I changed it already - in 2002 I went to the model of Sampras to that which I am now. From time to time test missiles with a big head. The problem is that I have no time for more detailed tests.

It's very approximate but you get the idea. Looks like Fed isn't against the idea of changing racquets, he just doesn't have the time.

Mick
05-20-2011, 07:11 AM
"from time to time test missiles with a big head"
wow. talking about weapons :D

Povl Carstensen
05-22-2011, 01:26 PM
Federer needs a smaller racquet.
Actually why not. He played great with it and the number of shanks hasn't changed that much.

West Coast Ace
05-22-2011, 01:52 PM
Do you think Federer will be too stubborn to experiment with a different headsize?

Bingo. He's too stubborn to change where he stands to receive serve from Rafa or attack his 2nd serves. Took him yrs to even consider hitting droppers. Still spends too much time trying to trade groundies with guys who are more solid. Becker was the same way - if he'd played his normal Smashmouth tennis he would have won a few RG's.

Might help his groundies; might foul up his serve.

tennis_pro
05-22-2011, 02:05 PM
"from time to time test missiles with a big head"
wow. talking about weapons :D
http://www.deviantart.com/download/205631025/big_head___by_nejiismybaby-d3efdwx.jpg

Timbo's hopeless slice
05-22-2011, 02:33 PM
Still spends too much time trying to trade groundies with guys who are more solid.

More solid than Roger Federer...

This forum is a constant source of entertainment, it really is...

West Coast Ace
05-22-2011, 02:46 PM
More solid than Roger Federer...

This forum is a constant source of entertainment, it really is...You apparently took 'solid' to mean something other than intended - or you don't play tennis - or both.

So Roger hitting his BH to Rafa's FH is a good thing? Trading BH to BH with Joker? How are those working out for him?

dangros
05-22-2011, 03:39 PM
Agreed (to the quote below!)
One thing people fail to understand is that more power = less control. In case anyone's watched Fed lately, you might have noticed a slight dip in power AND control. It's either age, the fact he's got other responsibilities now, or that the competition has just gotten better.
If a larger racket simply extended his career, why not just go with it from the begging?! one answer: CONTROL!

Fed cant control a bigger racket, he needs all the control he can get to keep his wayward shots in the court, so he won't be using a bigger racket anytime soon.

accidental
05-22-2011, 04:13 PM
I must be missing something op.

What change is happening to rackets now that is similar to the change from wood to graphite? Is federer using a wood racket right now?

Timbo's hopeless slice
05-22-2011, 04:47 PM
You apparently took 'solid' to mean something other than intended - or you don't play tennis - or both.

So Roger hitting his BH to Rafa's FH is a good thing? Trading BH to BH with Joker? How are those working out for him?

Given that he is losing in the semis of majors, I would suggest it is working out rather better for him than any alternative strategy is working out for the remaining 1497 players on the tour...

Federer is unlikely to change a game that has carried him this far, just as Rafa is unlikely to suddenly attempt Serve and Volley to counter Djoker since his rallying game is not currently doing the job.

Developing a world class game isn't like playing in the park, it's the result of thousands of hours of practice. These guys can't just suddenly decide to switch to a new grip or change to a 2HBH!

This would be where someone like you would probably say something like "if you played tennis at a decent level you would realise this" but I don't need to get into a ******* contest with the likes of you.

In this instance, I happen to disagree with you. I imagine I will be able to sleep tonight.

Rock Strongo
05-23-2011, 04:06 AM
http://www.deviantart.com/download/205631025/big_head___by_nejiismybaby-d3efdwx.jpg

Is that when Stefan Edberg got his head stuck in a vice?

Smasher08
05-23-2011, 04:52 PM
Going up to a 95 sq inch racket may be a bit too much of a change, ut a custom mold with 2 sq inches more might work wonders, just like it did for Sampras when he went to the KPS88 - provided most of the extra frame size went to the sweet spot.

Fed *is* older and slower, so a little more racket headsize might be a good thing. The trick would be not to overdo it.

Bobby Jr
05-23-2011, 05:32 PM
Going up to a 95 sq inch racket may be a bit too much of a change, ut a custom mold with 2 sq inches more might work wonders, just like it did for Sampras when he went to the KPS88...
The KPS88 has a 90 sq inch head fyi.

(yes, someone did a high-tech measurement and compared it to the K-90/BLX90)

I think the thing we should consider is that there are ways to make a racquet more powerful without changing the head size and it may be that Federer has tried stiffer or different flex variants of his frame etc.

mellowyellow
05-23-2011, 07:01 PM
I see a few flaws in your argument, first of all Federer plays a different stye of tennis than Nadal. He is much more aggressive and takes the ball way earlier so naturally he is going to make more UE and also hit more winners.
Taking the ball early and being aggressive are reasons to use a bigger head.
Secondly, he hits his forehand differently than any other pro on tour. His WW motion is extremely compact, a bigger frame won't matter, he turns his wrist over at contact to generate his topspin he doesn't use a big brushing motion with a vertical swing plane. So he gains nothing. A bigger frame would hurt his forehand more than it would help it. Why would he want to make his best shot weaker overall? Unless he wants to start playing defensive tennis and run around the court for 15 strokes. Not a good idea, not his style.
Are you really saying a guy who has 16 majors is incapable of adjusting to a racket tailored to him by Wilson and would not be able to exploit the clear advantages of a bigger player frame?
Lastly, have you ever used the K90, it is not under powered or flimsy as you stated. The racquet has more power than the APD, look at the power map on this site. Federer strings at low tension with gut mains his racquet is very powerful.
I have a Ncode 90 and have used other prostaff models along with HPS5.0, PT280's, DNX10, Revolution Pros, RDS 001 are current and most were weighted by me. I know a thing or two about playability, head size, beam width, throat taper, flexibility and how all of it can make a stick play good ar bad or just so so.
Seems you want Federer to change his style of play not his racquet.
No, I want Fed to use what is available and have options in the harder matches. Right now Fed when he plays someone good and that presses the action Fed has no options but to hit a UE or play defense and ultimately lose the point.It would maybe open up his service games and maybe his return could be more offensive. I know Fed is capable of hitting shots like Gasquet on the 1 HBH from behind the baseline moving back, but not with that stick, don't care what the "power map" says, thats a robot swing, not in a match, when pressed for time and off center hits, not mishits, can/do happen.

mellowyellow
05-23-2011, 07:06 PM
If federer needs to switch to a larger frame, then isn't the same true for every player not ranked ahead of him?? You know,,,, the thousand or so ATP players ranked beneath him??

Are you for real? Why don't you tell everyone on here how many of the thousand beneath him play with a 90. This is not about going to an OS/SuperMid. This is about going to a friendlier players frame.

The Djoker
05-23-2011, 07:08 PM
I think Nadal is going to have to switch to a smaller racquet to bead Nole...And then Nole will go smaller and Federer will have the biggest racquet and be able to beat Nadal again!

mellowyellow
05-23-2011, 07:16 PM
Having a bigger frame doesn't make you "better" as a tennis player nor does it reduce your error-count, assuming it does is very basic theory that has no practical use.

People need to be laughed at if they believe by simply changing his racquet, Federer will have different (better) results. He won't.

So you think Nadal could accomplish with the 90sq. what he has accomplished already? It doesn't make you a better striker of the ball, but to think that all sticks are the same and have no advantage over the other is your unsubstantiated opinion having no practical use, and I can only assume the laughter is at you swinging your 85 for the fences and hitting the net, not even the tape. Fact: Fed already pointed to the change to the 90 coincided with him dominating, he didn't give it all the credit, but he did acknowledge it.

drakulie
05-23-2011, 08:24 PM
Are you for real?


why don't you just go on playing with a huge oversize frame in the hopes you'll beat the local 90 year old 2.5 granny in your neighborhood.

BreakPoint
05-23-2011, 09:29 PM
Are you for real? Why don't you tell everyone on here how many of the thousand beneath him play with a 90. This is not about going to an OS/SuperMid. This is about going to a friendlier players frame.
And maybe if the thousand below him all used a 90 they would be ahead of Federer? :)

Oh, and BTW, I'd say Federer's 90 has been very friendly to Federer indeed, as his trophy case and bank account will attest to. :)

Sentinel
05-23-2011, 09:44 PM
Federer should get a few inches added to his legs, so he can run down balls quicker. That may help his serve also. The trick is not to overdo it.
Or maybe just lengthen his arms !!!

Torres
05-23-2011, 11:50 PM
Oh, and BTW, I'd say Federer's 90 has been very friendly to Federer indeed, as his trophy case and bank account will attest to. :)

I don't know why people keep on trying to use that as an example. That was then and this is now. Now, he's older and slower and the competition considerably stronger. Even Fed himself admits that the competition is much stronger than a few years ago.

90sq" racquets are increasingly less relevant to modern game. They're an anachronism - a legacy from the days of woodies.

Povl Carstensen
05-24-2011, 01:35 AM
No, I want Fed to use what is available and have options in the harder matches. Right now Fed when he plays someone good and that presses the action Fed has no options but to hit a UE or play defense and ultimately lose the point.It would maybe open up his service games and maybe his return could be more offensive. I know Fed is capable of hitting shots like Gasquet on the 1 HBH from behind the baseline moving back, but not with that stick, don't care what the "power map" says, thats a robot swing, not in a match, when pressed for time and off center hits, not mishits, can/do happen.
Well Federer plays a lot of good players, and he is nr. 3 in the world. In the latter part of last year he just about performed as nr. 1 in the world. Catastrophe.
Instead of Annacone he should hire the TW board.

Sentinel
05-24-2011, 03:04 AM
Well Federer plays a lot of good players, and he is nr. 3 in the world. In the latter part of last year he just about performed as nr. 1 in the world. Catastrophe.
Instead of Annacone he should hire the TW board.
Freddy'll go broke, one way or another.

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 06:12 AM
I think Nadal is going to have to switch to a smaller racquet to bead Nole..[B].And then Nole will go smaller /B]and Federer will have the biggest racquet and be able to beat Nadal again!

I just saw Nole's bag check and I think that is what he is secretly anticipating and preparing for! :wink:

jackson vile
05-24-2011, 08:44 AM
I don't know why people keep on trying to use that as an example. That was then and this is now. Now, he's older and slower and the competition considerably stronger. Even Fed himself admits that the competition is much stronger than a few years ago.

90sq" racquets are increasingly less relevant modern game. They're an anachronism - a legacy from the days of woodies.

Good points, but 90sq is really not that small. For example; most players play with 95sqin which is only 5sqin more than 90sqin. Federer's fram is 5sqin more than Sampras' racket.

So you can see there is not the big of a difference. Or you would have to state that Federer already plays with a large head LOL

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 10:08 AM
Good points, but 90sq is really not that small. For example; most players play with 95sqin which is only 5sqin more than 90sqin. Federer's fram is 5sqin more than Sampras' racket.

So you can see there is not the big of a difference. Or you would have to state that Federer already plays with a large head LOL
This argument is what gets me, everyone argues it won't help and the time for adjustment would be too long, though again discrediting Fed that he would all of a sudden start losing to avg player because of a modest head size change. Its about maybe helping to beat the guys he consistently loses to now. Then you have a group of nay sayers that wants to act like its "not a big difference" it won't help. Its one or the other not both.
Back then the ball was not hit with so much spin and pace as now, and the men today hit the ball harder, some due to fitness/strength, some due to racket/string tech. Ball trajectory and arc are much different now. Comparing the frames/strings from yesteryear to the playing conditions and styles of today is wrong. Many actually played with small heads and wood won right up into what 1988? Back then 85-90 was normal, now 95/98 is normal and their are probably as many 100/102 frames. I can't actually think of 5 high profile people that play less than 93sq in todays field.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 11:29 AM
Alright guys, we can stop bickering now. Annacone had something to say on the topic -

There have been suggestions that Federer switch to a racket with a larger head in his dotage to help him on clay, something Pete Sampras has said he wished he had done during his career. For the moment, Federer is still using a racket with a 90-square-inch head, significantly smaller than Nadal’s 100-square-inch racket head.

“I guess for me, it’s kind of like, what for?” Annacone said. “Most people use it for a heavier ball, but there’s not a lot of guys still who hit the ball heavier than Roger. There’s maybe a couple, but there’s not a lot, so he still hits the ball very heavy through the court. People say, ‘Well, what about the mis-hits?’ Well, the racket-head speed that he generates, whether he’s hitting a 90-inch or 93-inch or 95-inch frame, if he mis-hits it, he’s going to mis-hit it.”

But Annacone said neither he nor Federer would rule out anything in his quest to remain deeply relevant if no longer dominant.

“You know what these guys are like,” Annacone said of top players. “A lot of them are creatures of habit. Roger isn’t so much. He knows what makes him successful, but he’s open to debate, to conversations about things that maybe he didn’t used to do. He’s very expansive in his thinking, so it won’t go undiscussed, for sure.”

from an article in the NYTimes - "Federer Is No Longer the Focus at the French Open (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/sports/tennis/24iht-arena24.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2)"

nikdom
05-24-2011, 11:33 AM
^^ With all due respect to Paul Annacone, a lot of folks think that Roger could keep the ball deeper in the court with a slightly lighter and larger frame - more intrinsic power from the frame can only help Roger.

Plus won't it help to generate even more racquet head speed if its a tad bit lighter?

I think the bottom line is that Roger likes the feel of the racquet he's played with for so long and won't change it for fear of losing his "touch" like Djoko did last year.

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 11:47 AM
Anacone brings up mishits,those do have more to do with timing and form on your stroke, but its the off center hits that make that racket junk, they might go over but do nothing but sit their in the middle hanging like a big meatball and that especially on Fed's 1HBH is what is killing him. This in part plays with Feds head, and now being beat by more average players, he is forcing the issue and the mishits creep in because of his feeling the need to press and swing out when he already takes a huge cut at the ball to begin with >>>>> because the racket gives you nothing in return. I give him credit, his accomplishments are definitely not equipment aided its all Fed that makes the ball go through the court.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 12:23 PM
I don't know why people keep on trying to use that as an example. That was then and this is now. Now, he's older and slower and the competition considerably stronger. Even Fed himself admits that the competition is much stronger than a few years ago.

90sq" racquets are increasingly less relevant to modern game. They're an anachronism - a legacy from the days of woodies.
So switching to a bigger racquet will make Federer younger and his competition weaker? His opponents will just surrender at the sight of Federer with a bigger racquet? Is a bigger racquet the true "Fountain of Youth"? Is that what Ponce de Leon was really looking for in Florida? A big tennis racquet? :lol:

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 12:29 PM
^^ With all due respect to Paul Annacone, a lot of folks think that Roger could keep the ball deeper in the court with a slightly lighter and larger frame - more intrinsic power from the frame can only help Roger.

Plus won't it help to generate even more racquet head speed if its a tad bit lighter?

I think the bottom line is that Roger likes the feel of the racquet he's played with for so long and won't change it for fear of losing his "touch" like Djoko did last year.
And a lot of folks think it will hurt Roger as more power means he'll hit the ball out more often. And, no, changing his well-honed strokes, which he has practiced a billion times, is not an option at this late stage of his career.

jackson vile
05-24-2011, 12:38 PM
^^ With all due respect to Paul Annacone, a lot of folks think that Roger could keep the ball deeper in the court with a slightly lighter and larger frame - more intrinsic power from the frame can only help Roger.

Plus won't it help to generate even more racquet head speed if its a tad bit lighter?

I think the bottom line is that Roger likes the feel of the racquet he's played with for so long and won't change it for fear of losing his "touch" like Djoko did last year.



You have a good point if hitting the ball deeper is an issue, I know Roger dropped his tension even more. Perhaps that effected his ability to hit flat and that is why he hits with more spin?

nikdom
05-24-2011, 01:37 PM
Look, I'm not Roger Federer obviously, but I get the dilemma.

I play with two racquets - my old trusted PS85 and a Yonex RDS 001 MP (98 sq in).

The control and feel of the PS85 are exquisite and unmatched. Only problem for me is that when playing guys who are putting tons of top spin and hitting with power, the PS 85 can be demanding - I get more tired playing baseline tennis and tend to frame shots with it in the later parts of a singles match. But in a doubles match, the PS 85 is great... esp at the net...just stick the racquet out and it does the job for you. And if I'm in position, I can put the ball wherever I want... its like a magic wand sometimes.

The Yonex helps a lot with my singles game. Its got a good balance between control and power (flex rating) for me. With a good gut-like soft poly, it allows me, a one hander, to compete with the two handed guys.

I would love to play with the PS85 all the time, but I think the 98 sq in head does my game a huge favor.

I just wish Roger can adopt something similar and I bet it will make a huge difference in his game

nikdom
05-24-2011, 01:43 PM
And a lot of folks think it will hurt Roger as more power means he'll hit the ball out more often. And, no, changing his well-honed strokes, which he has practiced a billion times, is not an option at this late stage of his career.

That's not true. If you get used to the new racquet, it allows you to generate the same power with less effort thus keeping the ball deep but not hitting out.

With these polys and hybrid set up nowadays, you can take nice full swing and get the ball to dip even better. This is not news to Roger, he's being doing the same, except with a lighter setup, he'll take it one step further.

Satch
05-24-2011, 02:05 PM
That's not true. If you get used to the new racquet, it allows you to generate the same power with less effort thus keeping the ball deep but not hitting out.

With these polys and hybrid set up nowadays, you can take nice full swing and get the ball to dip even better. This is not news to Roger, he's being doing the same, except with a lighter setup, he'll take it one step further.

Can you even imagine Fed hitting with less effort than now? His racquet mass, head speed (which he produces because of smaller head), string tension that he can string also because of smaller head, ect. allow him to hit with almost no effort.

I can bet that sweet spot on k90 is almost the same as on k95. So moving 5in wouldn't improve anybodys game

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 02:26 PM
Look, I'm not Roger Federer obviously, but I get the dilemma.

I play with two racquets - my old trusted PS85 and a Yonex RDS 001 MP (98 sq in).

The control and feel of the PS85 are exquisite and unmatched. Only problem for me is that when playing guys who are putting tons of top spin and hitting with power, the PS 85 can be demanding - I get more tired playing baseline tennis and tend to frame shots with it in the later parts of a singles match. But in a doubles match, the PS 85 is great... esp at the net...just stick the racquet out and it does the job for you. And if I'm in position, I can put the ball wherever I want... its like a magic wand sometimes.

The Yonex helps a lot with my singles game. Its got a good balance between control and power (flex rating) for me. With a good gut-like soft poly, it allows me, a one hander, to compete with the two handed guys.

I would love to play with the PS85 all the time, but I think the 98 sq in head does my game a huge favor.

I just wish Roger can adopt something similar and I bet it will make a huge difference in his game
Good post , and everything is spot on with my experience.

jackson vile
05-24-2011, 03:47 PM
Look, I'm not Roger Federer obviously, but I get the dilemma.

I play with two racquets - my old trusted PS85 and a Yonex RDS 001 MP (98 sq in).

The control and feel of the PS85 are exquisite and unmatched. Only problem for me is that when playing guys who are putting tons of top spin and hitting with power, the PS 85 can be demanding - I get more tired playing baseline tennis and tend to frame shots with it in the later parts of a singles match. But in a doubles match, the PS 85 is great... esp at the net...just stick the racquet out and it does the job for you. And if I'm in position, I can put the ball wherever I want... its like a magic wand sometimes.

The Yonex helps a lot with my singles game. Its got a good balance between control and power (flex rating) for me. With a good gut-like soft poly, it allows me, a one hander, to compete with the two handed guys.

I would love to play with the PS85 all the time, but I think the 98 sq in head does my game a huge favor.

I just wish Roger can adopt something similar and I bet it will make a huge difference in his game

What if he just changed his strings, so maybe the crosses were a more powerful co-poly or maybe even go full gut setup?

The Djoker
05-24-2011, 05:08 PM
Hey, everyone can calm down, I got a scoop from an inside source that Federer will be using a larger headsize racquet at Wimbledon. Proof:

http://www.*************goods.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3982038&cp=4406646.4413887.4418821.4418829.4418840

I think you can figure out the stars: dicks sporting

Tghaz04
05-24-2011, 05:45 PM
The arguments for using a certain type of racket are very subjective; what's good for me might not be good for you or anyone else because everyone is different including federer. We can't say what he needs because we are not him and don't know what he feels or experiences when he hits a ball.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 05:52 PM
That's not true. If you get used to the new racquet, it allows you to generate the same power with less effort thus keeping the ball deep but not hitting out.

With these polys and hybrid set up nowadays, you can take nice full swing and get the ball to dip even better. This is not news to Roger, he's being doing the same, except with a lighter setup, he'll take it one step further.
"Less effort" = changing your strokes

Federer swings at the ball with massive racquet head speed. He always has and he always will. He is not going to slow down nor change his strokes to accommodate a new racquet. Why should he? He can hit the ball as hard as anyone on tour with his current racquet. Why does he need one with more power? :confused:

So you're suggesting that he switch to a more powerful racquet but also switch to a less powerful full poly stringjob so he can keep the ball in? That makes no sense. Doesn't the low powered strings defeat the purpose of switching to a more powerful frame? Why not just stick with his less powerful frame and more powerful natural gut strings? Besides, Federer likes the natural gut for the feel and touch it gives him. His flick passing shots and sidespin drop shots are sublime because of the feel that natural gut gives him.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:04 PM
With a good gut-like soft poly, it allows me, a one hander, to compete with the two handed guys.
That is one of the biggest oxymorons I've read on this board. There's simply no such thing as a "gut-like" poly string.


I would love to play with the PS85 all the time, but I think the 98 sq in head does my game a huge favor.

I just wish Roger can adopt something similar and I bet it will make a huge difference in his game
I'm sorry but how many Grand Slam titles do you have?

I really don't understand why low level recreational players think that something that works for their own games would somehow translate to and work for the greatest tennis play who ever lived. It's beyond night and day.

It's like, hey, I play better after a couple of beers, so maybe Federer should down a six-pack before every match and he'll never lose again! :???:

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:08 PM
Good post , and everything is spot on with my experience.
So could you please explain how YOUR experience correlates in any way, shape or form to Roger Federer's experiences? Were you once known as the best tennis player who ever lived? Have you ever won even one Grand Slam title? Were you ever even a top ranked ATP pro? No? Then what does YOUR experience have anything at all to do with Federer? :confused:

nikdom
05-24-2011, 06:10 PM
"Less effort" = changing your strokes

Federer swings at the ball with massive racquet head speed.

I don't want to argue on this too much but I'll say a couple of things.

Djokovic and Nadal generate a lot of racquet head speed as well. They're not exactly caressing the ball to produce all that top spin. Lighter racquet = easier to whip around your body faster.

Don't know where you're getting the less powerful string thingy from. Lighter racquets tend to be stiffer, I.e more powerful. You don't want a looser string setup like Roger has now on the K90. That'd make it a trampoline.

Tighter polys on a stiffer racquet give control yet the increased (not decreased) racquet head speed will do its part in generating power and top spin.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:10 PM
The arguments for using a certain type of racket are very subjective; what's good for me might not be good for you or anyone else because everyone is different including federer. We can't say what he needs because we are not him and don't know what he feels or experiences when he hits a ball.
Great post!

Finally some common sense coming back in this thread.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 06:19 PM
That is one of the biggest oxymorons I've read on this board. There's simply no such thing as a "gut-like" poly string.


I'm sorry but how many Grand Slam titles do you have?

I really don't understand why low level recreational players think that something that works for their own games would somehow translate to and work for the greatest tennis play who ever lived. It's beyond night and day.

It's like, hey, I play better after a couple of beers, so maybe Federer should down a six-pack before every match and he'll never lose again! :???:

I'm sorry I meant synthetic gut, not poly gut.

As far as your attitude I think you should take it down a notch. I said right at the top that I'm no Federer but here is my experience. If anything I said I understand the dilemma of letting go of a more control oriented racquet.

If none of us have the credentials to say anything about the pro game, there is no reason to have these boards. Plus that would logic would invalidate your own outraged protestations about what is right vs wrong first. Learn to be humble. You're no tennis god yourself.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:19 PM
I don't want to argue on this too much but I'll say a couple of things.

Djokovic and Nadal generate a lot of racquet head speed as well. They're not exactly caressing the ball to produce all that top spin. Lighter racquet = easier to whip around your body faster.

Don't know where you're getting the less powerful string thingy from. Lighter racquets tend to be stiffer, I.e more powerful. You don't want a looser string setup like Roger has now on the K90. That'd make it a trampoline.

Tighter polys on a stiffer racquet give control yet the increased (not decreased) racquet head speed will do its part in generating power and top spin.
Isn't a tighter full poly stringbed LESS POWERFUL than a looser natural gut stringbed? Didn't you suggest that Federer switch to full poly so that he can reduce the power of the more powerful, bugger frame so that he can keep the ball in?

Federer's strokes are not the same as Nadal's nor Djokovic's. He's not going to change his strokes for a new racquet. You might as well try and net Nadal to change his forehand to hit the ball as flat as Jimmy Connors.

There's a reason why nobody else on tour hits the ball just like Nadal even though they may use the same racquet.

Federer's strokes are grooved to swinging a heavier racquet. Switching to a lighter racquet will throw his precise timing completely off. It would be a disaster.

BTW, should Tom Brady also change the way he passes a football because you know of a way that works better for YOU?

drakulie
05-24-2011, 06:21 PM
Good post , and everything is spot on with my experience.


In your "experience", do you also use large shoes when on the tennis court?


http://www.cmich.edu/Images/study_abroad/netherlands/Big%20Shoes%20to%20Fill_large.jpg

gold soundz
05-24-2011, 06:24 PM
Federer's strokes are grooved to swinging a heavier racquet. Switching to a lighter racquet will throw his precise timing completely off. It would be a disaster.


I disagree. Federer is a tennis genius/mastermind/legend. IMO he could easily still play amazing world class tennis with a lighter/much lighter racquet.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:25 PM
I'm sorry I meant synthetic gut, not poly gut.

As far as your attitude I think you should take it down a notch. I said right at the top that I'm no Federer but here is my experience.

If none of us have the credentials to say anything about the pro game, there is no reason to have these boards. Plus that would logic would invalidate your own outraged protestations about what is right vs wrong first. Learn to be humble. You're no tennis god yourself.
Yeah, that's why I don't go around suggesting that Federer change his racquet because, hey, I'm not Federer! I think he knows what racquet works for him much better than I know what racquet works for him, don't you think?

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:28 PM
I disagree. Federer is a tennis genius/mastermind/legend. IMO he could easily still play amazing world class tennis with a lighter/much lighter racquet.
He already plays "amazing world class tennis" with his current racquet so what would be the point of switching to a lighter/much lighter racquet? :confused:

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 06:29 PM
So could you please explain how YOUR experience correlates in any way, shape or form to Roger Federer's experiences? Were you once known as the best tennis player who ever lived? Have you ever won even one Grand Slam title? Were you ever even a top ranked ATP pro? No? Then what does YOUR experience have anything at all to do with Federer? :confused:

Dumb__! Look at the conversation and how its directed to nikdom and his comments about the PS85/RDS 001, I have NCode 90 and 3 RDS 001. Not about Fed. I will say though that on the level of competition that if you are equally matched with opponents like Fed is, why isn't it relevant how switching from a 90 to a 93 or a 98 increases the effectiveness of your 1HBH when taking balls on the rise deep or over the shoulder? Is Fed immune to the same physical and strength limitations all humans have especially on the over the shoulder 1HBH, or hitting/timing the ball on the rise from deep in the corner on the 1HBH? Get REAL, you talk like none of us have any clue as to what Fed goes through, yet you talk about him like your in the first person...... you clearly do not read the post completely and only intend to be argumentative in your pointless ramblings. Back on the list..........

gold soundz
05-24-2011, 06:29 PM
He already plays "amazing world class tennis" with his current racquet so what would be the point of switching to a lighter/much lighter racquet? :confused:

I wasn't saying he should switch, I'm just saying that if he did, then I still think he'd be capable of playing amazing world class tennis, even if it's not quite as good as with his current racquet.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 06:31 PM
Yeah, that's why I don't go around suggesting that Federer change his racquet because, hey, I'm not Federer! I think he knows what racquet works for him much better than I know what racquet works for him, don't you think?

There is a difference between saying Roger should not change racquets because HE knows why and why he should not change it because YOU think you know why. In the latter case you're arguing about a hypothesis just like I am. Except you passive aggressively present YOUR argument as Feds rationale.

Did he come and tell you exactly why he is reluctant to make that change? No!

So if you are going to argue about something have the courtesy to disagree respectfully. You only come off as an arrogant bully by writing 5 para long responses to every hair splitting detail

drakulie
05-24-2011, 06:35 PM
if federer could play better with a larger frame (according to the TW Racquet Police), imagine what a larger frame could have done for Isner today against Nadal. Surely he would have won in 3 sets. :roll:

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:38 PM
Dumb__! Look at the conversation and how its directed to nikdom and his comments about the PS85/RDS 001, I have NCode 90 and 3 RDS 001. Not about Fed. I will say though that on the level of competition that if you are equally matched with opponents like Fed is, why isn't it relevant how switching from a 90 to a 93 or a 98 increases the effectiveness of your 1HBH when taking balls on the rise deep or over the shoulder? Is Fed immune to the same physical and strength limitations all humans have especially on the over the shoulder 1HBH, or hitting/timing the ball on the rise from deep in the corner on the 1HBH? Get REAL, you talk like none of us have any clue as to what Fed goes through, yet you talk about him like your in the first person...... you clearly do not read the post completely and only intend to be argumentative in your pointless ramblings. Back on the list..........
Most people hit their 1HBH's BETTER with smaller, heavier racquets. I'd bet Federer is no exception.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:39 PM
I wasn't saying he should switch, I'm just saying that if he did, then I still think he'd be capable of playing amazing world class tennis, even if it's not quite as good as with his current racquet.
Exactly! If he wouldn't play as good as with his current racquet, what would be the point of switching?

gold soundz
05-24-2011, 06:43 PM
Exactly! If he wouldn't play as good as with his current racquet, what would be the point of switching?

Oh. I wasn't talking about him switching. You said before that it would be a disaster if he played with a lighter racquet. I disagree with that, that's all. Never said he should switch.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 06:46 PM
There is a difference between saying Roger should not change racquets because HE knows why and why he should not change it because YOU think you know why. In the latter case you're arguing about a hypothesis just like I am. Except you passive aggressively present YOUR argument as Feds rationale.

Did he come and tell you exactly why he is reluctant to make that change? No!

So if you are going to argue about something have the courtesy to disagree respectfully. You only come off as an arrogant bully by writing 5 para long responses to every hair splitting detail
I'm not suggesting Federer do anything or not do anything. I'm saying that Federer knows better than any of us what works for him and what doesn't work for him. And since he has stayed with his current racquet, that obviously means he knows that his current racquet works for him. Why would any of us be so presumptuous as to assume that we know better what Federer needs than Federer himself? Who's hitting and feeling the ball?

Sid_Vicious
05-24-2011, 06:47 PM
if federer could play better with a larger frame (according to the TW Racquet Police), imagine what a larger frame could have done for Isner today against Nadal. Surely he would have won in 3 sets. :roll:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41F5158wpzL._SL500_.jpg

Look man, I played with this racquet and the sweet spot was much more powerful. I don't know why Isner would not have benefited from the extra-power as well. It worked for me. :)

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 06:50 PM
if federer could play better with a larger frame (according to the TW Racquet Police), imagine what a larger frame could have done for Isner today against Nadal. Surely he would have won in 3 sets. :roll:

Another pointless rambling that has no argument, and would have everyone here believe its being suggested to use an OS or a SuperMid.
In IW/Miami/Madrid/Rome " imagine what a smaller frame could have done for The Nadal today against Djokovic. Surely he would have won in 3 sets".

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 06:55 PM
In your "experience", do you also use large shoes when on the tennis court?


http://www.cmich.edu/Images/study_abroad/netherlands/Big%20Shoes%20to%20Fill_large.jpg

Maybe keep your foot fetish and bf pics in the bedroom?

drakulie
05-24-2011, 06:58 PM
Another pointless rambling that has no argument,


actually, to YOU, it has no argument, because your initial argument is quite frankly, STUPID.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 06:59 PM
I'm not suggesting Federer do anything or not do anything. I'm saying that Federer knows better than any of us what works for him and what doesn't work for him. And since he has stayed with his current racquet, that obviously means he knows that his current racquet works for him. Why would any of us be so presumptuous as to assume that we know better what Federer needs than Federer himself? Who's hitting and feeling the ball?

If that's true then your whole contribution to this thread would end with after making that point.

But you chose to counteract my speculation that a lighter racquet would do him good by making one of your own - that a lighter racquet would mess up Roger's timing etc. That's your argument (and something that is eminently debatable on its own merit. He can adapt. Djoker did). That's not necessarily Roger's raison d'etre unless he came and told you so.

If you're going to argue about something, at least have the courage to not justify it through false association. You intermingle YOUR arguments about why it would not work with Roger's prerogative not to make any changes (based on whatever criteria he has - perhaps he is sentimentally attached to his racquet! who knows?)

drakulie
05-24-2011, 07:00 PM
Maybe keep your foot fetish and bf pics in the bedroom?


Let us know how your tennis battles with that little 90 year-old lady are going. One day, when you finally take our advice, and begin playing with a 150 square inch frame, maybe you could win a few points off her.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 07:03 PM
In IW/Miami/Madrid/Rome " imagine what a smaller frame could have done for The Nadal today against Djokovic. Surely he would have won in 3 sets".
You do realize that statement is exactly the same as your statement that Federer should switch to a bigger frame, right?

Nadal switching to a smaller frame would make exactly as much sense as Federer switching to a bigger frame. Both have been using their current head size and racquet weights for a very long time. Both would have their timing thrown completely off if they switched to each other's racquet.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 07:08 PM
btw Drakulie, your point about how everyone below Roger would have to switch to a larger racquet if he has to..... that is an inherently fallacious argument.

What's applicable to Roger is uniquely aimed at his style of game and equipment. He is the only one that plays with the 90 sq in racquet as far as I know among most of the Top 100. He's also the only one who plays a one hander with such a small head size among the top pros.

So to suggest that a larger head size would help with his problems with consistency and penetration does not trickle down to others. Most would have already maximized (given they are not as talented as Roger) what they can get from their equipment for the current enviroment of baseline, slow court, high top spin tennis.

I don;t think it is heresy to suggest Roger try this approach. If anything it is with respect to his massive talent that we believe he could easily make that adaptation (like Chrissy did or Graf did) and reap any late career benefits he can.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 07:09 PM
If that's true then your whole contribution to this thread would end with after making that point.

But you chose to counteract my speculation that a lighter racquet would do him good by making one of your own - that a lighter racquet would mess up Roger's timing etc. That's your argument (and something that is eminently debatable on its own merit. He can adapt. Djoker did). That's not necessarily Roger's raison d'etre unless he came and told you so.

If you're going to argue about something, at least have the courage to not justify it through false association. You intermingle YOUR arguments about why it would not work with Roger's prerogative not to make any changes (based on whatever criteria he has - perhaps he is sentimentally attached to his racquet! who knows?)
When did Djokovic switch to a bigger, lighter racquet? :confused:

You do realize Djokovic has been using his current racquet since before he turned pro, right? (It's a Head mold based on the LM Radical MP that's he's always used. When he was under contract with Wilson, they simply made a copy of that same mold.) He hasn't switched. It's all been paintjobs.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 07:16 PM
When did Djokovic switch to a bigger, lighter racquet? :confused:

You do realize Djokovic has been using his current racquet since before he turned pro, right? (It's a Head mold based on the LM Radical MP that's he's always used. When he was under contract with Wilson, they simply made a copy of that same mold.) He hasn't switched. It's all been paintjobs.

He did CHANGE racquets. And whatever that change was, it was attributed as the reason for a lot of his disappointing results at the time. I trust what was written about his change in the media more than your speculations.

You keep claiming this all this insider knowledge like you know it firsthand. Sorry to tell you, no matter what how hard you think you're right, you don't really know that Djoker's racquet is a paint job or that Roger is not changing because it'll affect his timing.

I think its time for you to STFU.

drakulie
05-24-2011, 07:17 PM
^^Agree with BP.

Nearly every pro I strung for at the Delray ATP was using a paintjob of a previous frame. Mostly Pt280's, or 6.1 Classics. Heck even Phillipousis is still using the Prestige Classic painted like something else. Schuettler too.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 07:18 PM
btw Drakulie, your point about how everyone below Roger would have to switch to a larger racquet if he has to..... that is an inherently fallacious argument.

What's applicable to Roger is uniquely aimed at his style of game and equipment. He is the only one that plays with the 90 sq in racquet as far as I know among most of the Top 100. He's also the only one who plays a one hander with such a small head size among the top pros.

So to suggest that a larger head size would help with his problems with consistency and penetration does not trickle down to others. Most would have already maximized (given they are not as talented as Roger) what they can get from their equipment for the current enviroment of baseline, slow court, high top spin tennis.

I don;t think it is heresy to suggest Roger try this approach. If anything it is with respect to his massive talent that we believe he could easily make that adaptation (like Chrissy did or Graf did) and reap any late career benefits he can.
Then maybe the rest of the Top 100 should switch to smaller racquets so they can also win 16 Slams, just like Federer. :)

Oh, it's not about the racquet, did you say? :oops:

Chrissy and Graf had no choice but to switch because they stopped making their previous racquets. Besides, the Wilson that Graf switched to was about the same size as her Dunlop Max 200G: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=163673

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 07:22 PM
He did CHANGE racquets. And whatever that change was, it was attributed as the reason for a lot of his disappointing results at the time. I trust what was written about his change in the media more than your speculations.

You keep claiming this all this insider knowledge like you know it firsthand. Sorry to tell you, no matter what how hard you think you're right, you don't really know that Djoker's racquet is a paint job or that Roger is not changing because it'll affect his timing.

I think its time for you to STFU.
You must believe everything you hear on TV. Sad. What Djokovic changed was his service motion and some other things about his game, not his actual racquet. All he did was go back to the Head racquet he's always used from the Wilson clone he used for a couple of years. If you do a search you'll find a quote from Djokovic himself that his Wilson racquet was nothing but an exact copy of his previous Head racquet.

Guess who's time it is to STFU? I'd say, not mine.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 07:22 PM
http://bubblecaption.com/edited_files/e55e5e06c895e9277ad2d9ba14e0d66f.jpg (http://www.bubblecaption.com)

drakulie
05-24-2011, 07:26 PM
btw Drakulie, your point about how everyone below Roger would have to switch to a larger racquet if he has to..... that is an inherently fallacious argument.

What's applicable to Roger is uniquely aimed at his style of game and equipment. He is the only one that plays with the 90 sq in racquet as far as I know among most of the Top 100. He's also the only one who plays a one hander with such a small head size among the top pros.

So to suggest that a larger head size would help with his problems with consistency and penetration does not trickle down to others. Most would have already maximized (given they are not as talented as Roger) what they can get from their equipment for the current enviroment of baseline, slow court, high top spin tennis.

I don;t think it is heresy to suggest Roger try this approach. If anything it is with respect to his massive talent that we believe he could easily make that adaptation (like Chrissy did or Graf did) and reap any late career benefits he can.

Uhmmm, how do you know if they have "maximized" anything. Using your argument, a "larger" more powerful frame could perhaps help them play better wouldn't it? Maybe Davydenko could consitently hit 140 MPH serves with a larger frame. Or perhaps Roddick could hit 180 MPH serves with a more powerful larger frame, and perhaps it would also improve his return game.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 07:32 PM
Uhmmm, how do you know if they have "maximized" anything. Using your argument, a "larger" more powerful frame could perhaps help them play better wouldn't it? Maybe Davydenko could consitently hit 140 MPH serves with a larger frame. Or perhaps Roddick could hit 180 MPH serves with a more powerful larger frame, and perhaps it would also improve his return game.

Perhaps! If their biggest stumbling block was power, then yes! If it was something else, then that feature would have to change, like this example -

You may or may not remember, but it was exactly a change to the feature of his Prince racquet (a denser string pattern) that Davydenko attributed to his solid play at Miami a couple of years ago where he defeated Nadal for the title.

Kolya, the guy who never ventured near the net and was dreadfully bad at serve consistency, was serving lights out and also playing touch tennis at the net. He attributed all of that to the improved control he got from the denser string pattern.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/gear.aspx?articleid=1290&zoneid=24

So to suggest that the right change to equipment alone would make a huge difference has complete precedent.

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 07:40 PM
btw Drakulie, your point about how everyone below Roger would have to switch to a larger racquet if he has to..... that is an inherently fallacious argument.

What's applicable to Roger is uniquely aimed at his style of game and equipment. He is the only one that plays with the 90 sq in racquet as far as I know among most of the Top 100. He's also the only one who plays a one hander with such a small head size among the top pros.

So to suggest that a larger head size would help with his problems with consistency and penetration does not trickle down to others. Most would have already maximized (given they are not as talented as Roger) what they can get from their equipment for the current enviroment of baseline, slow court, high top spin tennis.

I don;t think it is heresy to suggest Roger try this approach. If anything it is with respect to his massive talent that we believe he could easily make that adaptation (like Chrissy did or Graf did) and reap any late career benefits he can.

Look, its impossible to use any sort of logic with these guys/girls that could be seen riding the "short" bus to school. They either want to be a diehard with their frame that they think makes them like The Fed, or are afraid that if Fed did change and it actually worked... not only are they completely wrong about their game and his he would go on to dominate Ralph who maybe is their hero?, and be further proof that only the racket made Nadal better than The Fed.

drakulie
05-24-2011, 07:41 PM
Perhaps! If their biggest stumbling block was power, then yes!



Isn't "their" (meaning everyone who plays tennis) biggest stumbling block their opponent?

But since you seem to want to cherry pick, I'll do it too.

Roddick misses an easy volley in the Wimbledon final against Federer, which surely would have put that final away for him. Later, in the final game, he shanks a forehand to give Fed the title.

Surely, neither one of these points/shots had anything to do with power, but as you are suggesting, a larger frame's assistance. So, wouldn't Roddick have won with a larger frame???

nikdom
05-24-2011, 07:43 PM
Going by the Kolya example.... by BP's logic, no none should have had the temerity to think any change in his racquet specs would make a difference in his game. But apparently not!

And to your point Drak, just because Kolya benefitted from a denser pattern because he potentially had problems with control ,does not mean everyone below him would need to do the same!

mellowyellow
05-24-2011, 07:46 PM
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This is Fed, and soon to be Nadal.....
AND drak and BP failed arguments.

drakulie
05-24-2011, 07:48 PM
nikdom, pros DO make changes in equipment. Strings, tension balance on their frame, static weight, etc.

and NO, your logic still doesn't work. A larger frame will not necessarily translate to winning more. Just ask mellowyellow who has yet to beat the 90-year-old lady at his local club, even though he is now using a Weed racquet.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 07:49 PM
Isn't "their" (meaning everyone who plays tennis) biggest stumbling block their opponent?

But since you seem to want to cherry pick, I'll do it too.

Roddick misses an easy volley in the Wimbledon final against Federer, which surely would have put that final away for him. Later, in the final game, he shanks a forehand to give Fed the title.

Surely, neither one of these points/shots had anything to do with power, but as you are suggesting, a larger frame's assistance. So, wouldn't Roddick have won with a larger frame???

Where did I suggest that?

My prescription for a larger racquet is for Roger alone because he seems to have issues with penetration and consistency on his groundstrokes, especially the BH side. I don't see the possibility of him returning to the athleticism and speed of his early 20's, therefore the prescription for an equipment change that will help him in HIS CURRENT SITUATION - which is that of a champ on the latter half of his career.

Also, we are discussing what element would make the biggest difference to someone's game given their current ailment. I don't think Roddick's problems have ever been equipment related... he just doesn't have the game.

drakulie
05-24-2011, 07:54 PM
Where did I suggest that?

My prescription for a larger racquet is for Roger alone because he seems to have issues with penetration and consistency on his groundstrokes, especially the BH side.

Really? Guess you haven't watched many Fed matches. By the way, Nadal has always had problems with hitting his FH consistently with depth. Still, he has won 9 majors. But I guess he should listen to you and go to a larger frame, even though, he has one of the greatest FH's of all time.

Also, we are discussing what element would make the biggest difference to someone's game given their current ailment. I don't think Roddick's problems have ever been equipment related... he just doesn't have the game.

How do you know he doesn't have the game if he doesn't try a larger frame?

See how easy it is to use your argument against you using every pro on the ATP.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 08:03 PM
Really? Guess you haven't watched many Fed matches. By the way, Nadal has always had problems with hitting his FH consistently with depth. Still, he has won 9 majors. But I guess he should listen to you and go to a larger frame, even though, he has one of the greatest FH's of all time.



How do you know he doesn't have the game if he doesn't try a larger frame?

See how easy it is to use your argument against you using every pro on the ATP.

You're just being argumentative for the sake of doing so. This same argument was made when Fed fans were suggesting Roger should hire a coach back in 2008-09.

"Why do we lowly TW rookies think Roger needs a coach? If the great champion needed help, he would have done so already. Doesn't a 14 time GS champion know what he needs? etc etc etc"

Look what happened. Roger DID hire a coach in Annacone. He DID see an improvement in his flagging results.

If I applied your argument of "if Roger needs a new coach after winning 15 slams, then the whole frikking atp needs one" to that time, he shouldn't have done it! But here he is, trying to get the most out of his talent and remaining career. A change in equipment would do just that.... give that small leg up he needs.

nikdom
05-24-2011, 08:04 PM
^^ That's the last I'm going to say on this thread. Even if you guys want to debate this to high heaven, I don't think I can add any more worth saying.

drakulie
05-24-2011, 08:05 PM
Look what happened. Roger DID hire a coach in Annacone. He DID see an improvement in his flagging results.



really??? Improvement??

How many slams has he won with Annacone vs when he was alone??

1970CRBase
05-24-2011, 08:11 PM
Really? Guess you haven't watched many Fed matches. By the way, Nadal has always had problems with hitting his FH consistently with depth. Still, he has won 9 majors. But I guess he should listen to you and go to a larger frame, even though, he has one of the greatest FH's of all time.



no no, Nad should listen to suresh and get a heavier frame, who also advises Fed on a larger racquet.

Next, Novak will be counseled on procuring a racquet with a longer handle.

aimr75
05-24-2011, 08:24 PM
really??? Improvement??

How many slams has he won with Annacone vs when he was alone??

When Annacone breaks out the demo sticks at their next training session you know his job is on the line ;)

NamRanger
05-24-2011, 08:25 PM
really??? Improvement??

How many slams has he won with Annacone vs when he was alone??



Oh come on. Let's not be silly here; Federer before could rely on his pure talent to win matches before, but hiring Annacone was necessary because he can't do that anymore.

drakulie
05-24-2011, 08:41 PM
^^Honestly, what the hell has annacone done for Fed's game? Has his BH improved? NO. Footwork? No. Forehand? No. Serve? No.

Only thing that could be argued is he has helped him change tactics, which has zero to do with equipment. And those "tactic" changes still haven't shown any results.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:30 PM
http://bubblecaption.com/edited_files/e55e5e06c895e9277ad2d9ba14e0d66f.jpg (http://www.bubblecaption.com)

Is that a pic of Federer?

Because it's FEDERER who's convinced that he's right! Not you!

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:37 PM
Perhaps! If their biggest stumbling block was power, then yes! If it was something else, then that feature would have to change, like this example -

You may or may not remember, but it was exactly a change to the feature of his Prince racquet (a denser string pattern) that Davydenko attributed to his solid play at Miami a couple of years ago where he defeated Nadal for the title.

Kolya, the guy who never ventured near the net and was dreadfully bad at serve consistency, was serving lights out and also playing touch tennis at the net. He attributed all of that to the improved control he got from the denser string pattern.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/gear.aspx?articleid=1290&zoneid=24

So to suggest that the right change to equipment alone would make a huge difference has complete precedent.
Um...you do realize that a smaller head also gives you more control just like a denser string pattern gives you more control, don't you?

Are you suggesting that Federer give up more control despite your example that Davydenko benefits from more control, not more power? :oops:

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:40 PM
Look, its impossible to use any sort of logic with these guys/girls that could be seen riding the "short" bus to school. They either want to be a diehard with their frame that they think makes them like The Fed, or are afraid that if Fed did change and it actually worked... not only are they completely wrong about their game and his he would go on to dominate Ralph who maybe is their hero?, and be further proof that only the racket made Nadal better than The Fed.
Then why is it that the other 2000 pros using racquets larger than Federer's also haven't been able to dominate Nadal? According to you, all one needs is a larger racquet in order to dominate Nadal, right? :???:

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:43 PM
Going by the Kolya example.... by BP's logic, no none should have had the temerity to think any change in his racquet specs would make a difference in his game. But apparently not!

And to your point Drak, just because Kolya benefitted from a denser pattern because he potentially had problems with control ,does not mean everyone below him would need to do the same!
So how's Davydenko been doing since he switched to that new Dunlop racquet? :oops:

That new racquet sure has made a difference to Davydenko's game, hasn't it? His game has gone straight down the toilet! :(

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:46 PM
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This is Fed, and soon to be Nadal.....
AND drak and BP failed arguments.
If you've won 16 Grand Slams, why on earth would you want "different results"? :confused:

Maybe all the pros using bigger racquets who haven't won even a single Slam should switch to smaller racquets in hopes of "different results"?

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:50 PM
Where did I suggest that?

My prescription for a larger racquet is for Roger alone because he seems to have issues with penetration and consistency on his groundstrokes, especially the BH side. I don't see the possibility of him returning to the athleticism and speed of his early 20's, therefore the prescription for an equipment change that will help him in HIS CURRENT SITUATION - which is that of a champ on the latter half of his career.

Also, we are discussing what element would make the biggest difference to someone's game given their current ailment. I don't think Roddick's problems have ever been equipment related... he just doesn't have the game.
Then what makes you think Federer's problems are equipment related? :confused:

Doesn't he have the talent and the game?

And what makes you think using a bigger racquet will help Federer with his backhand? His small racquet is extremely stable which allows him to half-volley his backhands from the baseline, something very few other one-handed backhand players are able to do with bigger racquets.

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:54 PM
You're just being argumentative for the sake of doing so. This same argument was made when Fed fans were suggesting Roger should hire a coach back in 2008-09.

"Why do we lowly TW rookies think Roger needs a coach? If the great champion needed help, he would have done so already. Doesn't a 14 time GS champion know what he needs? etc etc etc"

Look what happened. Roger DID hire a coach in Annacone. He DID see an improvement in his flagging results.

If I applied your argument of "if Roger needs a new coach after winning 15 slams, then the whole frikking atp needs one" to that time, he shouldn't have done it! But here he is, trying to get the most out of his talent and remaining career. A change in equipment would do just that.... give that small leg up he needs.
Are you KIDDING me? How many Slams has Federer won since he got his new coach? ZERO! How many Slam finals has he even made after he got his new coach? ZERO!

How many Slams did he win, how many Slam finals did he make, and how many Masters Series did he win before he got his new coach? TONS!!

BreakPoint
05-24-2011, 09:56 PM
Oh come on. Let's not be silly here; Federer before could rely on his pure talent to win matches before, but hiring Annacone was necessary because he can't do that anymore.
And after hiring Annacone, Federer can now do even less!

TheNatural
05-25-2011, 12:17 AM
Um...you do realize that a smaller head also gives you more control just like a denser string pattern gives you more control, don't you?

Are you suggesting that Federer give up more control despite your example that Davydenko benefits from more control, not more power? :oops:

Feds solution could be a bigger head with a denser string pattern.

BreakPoint
05-25-2011, 12:52 AM
Feds solution could be a bigger head with a denser string pattern.
Or a smaller head with a more open string pattern....oh, wait....that's what he's already using! :shock: LOL

TheNatural
05-25-2011, 01:31 AM
Or a smaller head with a more open string pattern....oh, wait....that's what he's already using! :shock: LOL

He needs a heavier racket with a bigger head and a denser string pattern. With a bit more weight in his racket he could hit through the ball and end points quicker instead of extending the rallies too long and hitting with so much whip and wrist which requires more precise timing, and with the bigger head he could swing out more on returns with out worrying about so many frame shots.

In his rallies v Lopez he was whipping the ball like Berasategui , he needs to hit through the ball more.The heavier racket would help with that. He should be able to adjust to a bit of extra weight pretty fast.

Maybe he should give Agassi a call and test out his racket.He could get the extended length 28 or 29" version so that it feels more similar to his current racket in proportion as the length to width ratio would be close to his current racket so it will still feel something like his old wand. The extra length would also save him a bit of running on the wide balls, so he would feel like he has gained half a step in speed.

mellowyellow
05-25-2011, 04:12 AM
Feds solution could be a bigger head with a denser string pattern.

Ohh, so their is more than one way to get control from a racket? Who would have thought?

drakulie
05-25-2011, 04:17 AM
Ohh, so their is more than one way to get control from a racket? Who would have thought?

Yes. Like stringing with higher tension. Being that you have already acknowledged that you are a beginner, we forgive you for your ignorance.

mellowyellow
05-25-2011, 04:20 AM
So the question for drak and BP is: Are you saying in the matchups with Fed vs Djoko/Murray/Davy/Nalby that his backhand is better or worse than those players?
The next question is when he plays Nadal, is it better or worse than those 4 just mentioned?
Their is only 1 answer to those questions........
Their is only 1 glaring difference as to why that is.

drakulie
05-25-2011, 04:51 AM
So the question for drak and BP is: Are you saying in the matchups with Fed vs Djoko/Murray/Davy/Nalby that his backhand is better or worse than those players?
The next question is when he plays Nadal, is it better or worse than those 4 just mentioned?
Their is only 1 answer to those questions........
Their is only 1 glaring difference as to why that is.

Is your backhand better with the Weed racquet when playing that 90 year old lady you keep losing to?

mellowyellow
05-25-2011, 09:00 AM
just so everybody has a true understanding of drak and BP logic,
1.A bigger players frame has no advantages over a smaller player frame. Even though it would have a bigger sweets pot.
2. There is no way to make a bigger more powerful frame have as much control as a smaller frame even though the bigger frame does have a bigger sweet spot.
3. No player has ever switched equipment in their careers because its too detrimental to the style they must play from infancy to death.
4. Fed, arguably the greatest player in tennis history is incapable of making small grip/swing changes to compensate for a slightly larger, possibly more powerful player frame, when in fact he has already done so in his career and is possibly play testing other frames.
5.At 30 Fed should still play like he did 6 years ago, and should use equipment that used to be popular on tour but is now considered archaic.
6.

mellowyellow
05-25-2011, 09:05 AM
double post

dominikk1985
05-25-2011, 09:10 AM
Federer said in an interview that he occasionally tests bigger rackets. I think he just doesn't like them.

TheNatural
05-25-2011, 09:31 AM
just so everybody has a true understanding of drak and BP logic,
1.A bigger players frame has no advantages over a smaller player frame. Even though it would have a bigger sweets pot.
2. There is no way to make a bigger more powerful frame have as much control as a smaller frame even though the bigger frame does have a bigger sweet spot.
3. No player has ever switched equipment in their careers because its too detrimental to the style they must play from infancy to death.
4. Fed, arguably the greatest player in tennis history is incapable of making small grip/swing changes to compensate for a slightly larger, possibly more powerful player frame, when in fact he has already done so in his career and is possibly play testing other frames.
5.At 30 Fed should still play like he did 6 years ago, and should use equipment that used to be popular on tour but is now considered archaic.
6.

Here is proof that Freddy should use a bigger extended length racket with a tighter string pattern.This is the racket that Freddy first started playing with and with which he developed his natural swings.it looks like it has a tight string pattern and if you look at the length and size of this racket relative to little Freddy it would be equivalent to 6'1" Freddy using an extended length oversize racket.He needs one like this with a narrow throat, not one of those big clunky oversize rackets with a huge wide throat.

http://images.bonbonita.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/300x300/SE0-8QoKCh8AABncquc1/young%20federer2.jpg?et=qsBmdj%2C5G5ntezB2VoVPwg&nmid=0

Sartorius
05-25-2011, 09:40 AM
Here is proof that Freddy should use a bigger extended length racket with a tighter string pattern.

Here is proof that Federer should keep using the racket he has been using for years.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0906/tennis.alltime.mens.grand.slam.leaders/images/roger-federer-16-grand-slam-trophies.jpg

You can't see the racket here but if you look closely Federer seems happy with everything.

TheNatural
05-25-2011, 09:46 AM
Here is proof that Federer should keep using the racket he has been using for years.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0906/tennis.alltime.mens.grand.slam.leaders/images/roger-federer-16-grand-slam-trophies.jpg

You can't see the racket here but if you look closely Federer seems happy with everything.

Imagine how much he would have won with a bigger extended length racket with a tight string pattern. His collection of Slam trophies in the past year is proof he needs a change.

Sartorius
05-25-2011, 09:50 AM
Imagine how much he would have won with a bigger extended length racket with a tight string pattern.

Okay.

*imagines*



My imagination says "less".

TheNatural
05-25-2011, 10:16 AM
Okay.

*imagines*



My imagination says "less".

why less, he probably would have started winning slams 5 years earlier with his bigger racket with a tight string pattern. The 90" he uses now isn't the optimal choice for him its just an improvement on the 85 that he only chose because he saw his Idols Edberg and Sampras using it on tv.

stevewcosta
05-25-2011, 10:19 AM
why less, he probably would have started winning slams 5 years earlier with his bigger racket with a tight string pattern. The 90" he uses now isn't the optimal choice for him its just an improvement on the 85 that he only chose because he saw his Idols Edberg and Sampras using it on tv.

I would rather quit tennis than play with any extended racquet. Awful.

TheOC
05-25-2011, 11:14 AM
Federer needs to switch racquets as much as any anorexic Hollywood starlet needs liposuction

BreakPoint
05-25-2011, 11:30 AM
So the question for drak and BP is: Are you saying in the matchups with Fed vs Djoko/Murray/Davy/Nalby that his backhand is better or worse than those players?
Um....and what does that have anything at all to do with his racquet?? :confused: Are you telling us that if Federer switched to a bigger racquet that all of a sudden his backhand would become better than Djoko/Murray/Davy/Nalby's? How come the other 2,000 pros that are using bigger racquets don't have backhands as good as Djoko/Murray/Davy/Nalby's? :oops:

The next question is when he plays Nadal, is it better or worse than those 4 just mentioned?
Their is only 1 answer to those questions........
Their is only 1 glaring difference as to why that is.
Again, what the heck does that have to do with his racquet? Changing racquets will turn Federer into Djokovic? :???:

jones101
05-25-2011, 11:30 AM
Here is proof that Federer should keep using the racket he has been using for years.

You can't see the racket here but if you look closely Federer seems happy with everything.

This is the real reason he shouldnt change:

http://tennisconnected.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/federer-cincy-43.jpg
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1277/federervsfish2010082233.jpg
http://www.sport24.com/var/plain_site/storage/images/media/images/tennis/diaporamas/roger-ferderer/roger-federer-cincinnati/1814548-1-fre-FR/roger-federer-cincinnati_diaporama.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1046/1179180912_deb4362ecc.jpg

BreakPoint
05-25-2011, 11:34 AM
just so everybody has a true understanding of drak and BP logic,
1.A bigger players frame has no advantages over a smaller player frame. Even though it would have a bigger sweets pot.
2. There is no way to make a bigger more powerful frame have as much control as a smaller frame even though the bigger frame does have a bigger sweet spot.
3. No player has ever switched equipment in their careers because its too detrimental to the style they must play from infancy to death.
4. Fed, arguably the greatest player in tennis history is incapable of making small grip/swing changes to compensate for a slightly larger, possibly more powerful player frame, when in fact he has already done so in his career and is possibly play testing other frames.
5.At 30 Fed should still play like he did 6 years ago, and should use equipment that used to be popular on tour but is now considered archaic.
6.
Ask Agassi after every time he got his *** whipped by Sampras at the US Open and at Wimbeldon if his big OS racquet with the big sweetspot was an advantage over Sampras's tiny Mid with the tiny sweetspot. :oops:

Ronaldo
05-25-2011, 11:36 AM
I would rather quit tennis than play with any extended racquet. Awful.

Used a Head Prestige Classic XL, was as flexible as a Garcia Ugly stick.

mellowyellow
05-25-2011, 03:19 PM
This is why he should switch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjw0Unm8OY&playnext=1&list=PL7FB393A1CE3D1D64

BreakPoint
05-25-2011, 05:01 PM
This is why he should switch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjw0Unm8OY&playnext=1&list=PL7FB393A1CE3D1D64
No, he should switch because you said so.

Sid_Vicious
05-25-2011, 05:06 PM
Goodness, that is the most irrelevant and nonsensical argument ever.

Here is why Rafa should switch racquets:
http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2009/06/01/svNADAL_wideweb__470x338,0.jpg

Why Djokovic should switch racquets:
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/sports/photos/2009/01/27/djokovic-novak-090127.jpg

Why Roddick should switch racquets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ivf3TOUY78&feature=player_detailpage#t=135s

Why Murray should switch racquets
http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/feb2010/5/8/andy-murray-pic-getty-images-852821445.jpg

drakulie
05-25-2011, 07:27 PM
This is why he should switch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjw0Unm8OY&playnext=1&list=PL7FB393A1CE3D1D64


http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x89/edwardbayntun/gifs/SavingPrivateRyan2.gif

mellowyellow
05-27-2011, 04:23 AM
Did you hear? Even Mac pays attention enough to know Fed has switched to a larger head already, and said its certainly plausible as he gets older for the bigger sweetspot, but what would John know?

hoodjem
05-27-2011, 05:22 AM
Gamma Big Bubba with BLX pj.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Gamma_Big_Bubba_29/descpageRCGAMMA-GBB29.html

Nice.

BreakPoint
05-27-2011, 09:27 AM
Did you hear? Even Mac pays attention enough to know Fed has switched to a larger head already, and said its certainly plausible as he gets older for the bigger sweetspot, but what would John know?
What would John know? Not much. He still calls Luxilon "synthetic gut" and that racquets less than 13 oz. are unusable.

Yeah, Federer's racquet sure looked much bigger today, didn't it? :???:

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/114830032.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF87892140FEB0FF7845C57D358B63471D61DD7B 90DB2D30511C70E7D713CB97779B5221

nikdom
05-28-2011, 06:44 PM
^^ Nobody knows anything; except BP. From now on BP will be known as the 'BP Oil Spill' - "all your shiite is covered with my grease".

BreakPoint
05-28-2011, 08:25 PM
^^ Nobody knows anything; except BP. From now on BP will be known as the 'BP Oil Spill' - "all your shiite is covered with my grease".
Um...I know a Tour 90 when I see one. I've only been using the racquet for 7 years, but what do I know.

Are you claiming that the racquet Federer used against Tipsarevic was NOT his usual 90? If so, maybe you should rephrase your sentence to read- "Nikdom doesn't know anything about anything." :)

morandi
05-29-2011, 08:06 AM
Watching the French today, it appears that Fed is playing with a bigger headsize racquet already.
In his match against Wawrinka his racquet just looked bigger to me. But what do I know.

mellowyellow
05-29-2011, 08:22 AM
Watching the French today, it appears that Fed is playing with a bigger headsize racquet already.
In his match against Wawrinka his racquet just looked bigger to me. But what do I know.
Did you notice, and maybe it was just me, the frame didn't look like box beam?

After stopping a recap, Roger hitting a ball into the stands after the win against Wawrinka I think that is still the old frame.

BreakPoint
05-29-2011, 11:19 AM
Watching the French today, it appears that Fed is playing with a bigger headsize racquet already.
In his match against Wawrinka his racquet just looked bigger to me. But what do I know.
Here is a pic from Federer's match today vs. Wawrinka:

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/114921300.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF87892140FEB0FF7845C57DD3E158D5F9F817FC BBC96F8DA54B1BDB6CE1E74BFAE1AFE5E30A760B0D811297

Certainly looks like his same old Tour 90 to me.

Povl Carstensen
05-29-2011, 12:08 PM
At least we can agree that the racket was big enough.