Who thinks Fed would play better with a 95" racquet?

Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by Mickey Finn, May 18, 2007.

  1. Richie Rich

    Richie Rich Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,274
    BTW, about 20 of the top 100 ATP players use 1 handed backhand. The number could be a few higher because there are some players in the 75-100 area that I'm not familiar with

    20% is more than I thought would still use 1hbh.
     
  2. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    haha why not?

    Well I mean both types of backhands have their distinct advantages. I can't say one is better than the other because we all differ player to player.

    A solid one hander is a rare thing though, gotta have a lot of natural talent to pull that off at the ATP level, that's what fascinates me so much about Federer, Gasquet, and now Kohlschreiber.
     
  3. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    Location:
    Arkansas
    It is a silly notion that the one handed back hand is becoming extinct. For the two hander to replace the one hander, the former would have to be better, or more appropriate to the modern game for it to supersede. As one is not better than the other this will not occur. Silly. . .

    -SF
     
  4. Richie Rich

    Richie Rich Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,274
    but 40 years ago i don't think anyone used a 2 hander. who knows how many will opt to use the 1 hander in the future?
     
  5. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    Nobody knows, so let's not make assumptions. All I know is a one hander is in no way inferior and illogical to go away.
     
  6. s_andrean

    s_andrean Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    London
    How many of these threads are we going to have...
     
  7. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,066
    It is not a question of being inferior. Playing with a continental grip on the forehand like JMac or having a straight racquet takeback is not inferior, it is just not done today anymore.
     
  8. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,243
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    that's true. but your example of why the 1hbh is phasing out was that both henin and federer were beaten this year at the AO by people wielding 2hbh, namely Sharapova and Djokovic. but we all also know that both federer and henin have dealt out equally effective thrashings to both players, so it just goes to show that while more players prefer the two hander, possibly b/c it is easier to teach, and thus was instilled in them at a young age, the 1hbh is still alive and kicking. and your example also smacks of callin the 1hbh inferior, though you just claimed that it isnt. so you're contradicting yourself somewhat.
     
  9. leon505

    leon505 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Does anybody know if fed is tinkering with his racquet? i noticed that he displayed overall displeasure hitting with his kfactor at the start of this year. Is there possibly something that he tried to tweek in the off season?

    As to my earlier comment about sampras using an 88sq in, i apologize for my mistake. A friend of mine had heard in the news about this as a rumour only. Terribly sorry for the mistake.

    I still think fed plays with an 88sq in though :)
     
  10. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,066
    I go by what the pros say. John Isner was asked why he used a 2 hander, and he said he prefers it because he can make aggressive service returns. That is the kind of remark you should go by - not some theory or the other. Most people who post here are not remotely near the pro level.
     
  11. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    They should ask Federer about the one hander. :)
     
  12. coloskier

    coloskier Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,541
    If some of you would stop and actually measure the difference in circumference (not diameter) between a 90 and a 95 all this talk about not shanking by going to a slightly larger frame would disappear. I believe that the circumference difference is less than 1/2 inch. That is not the difference between shanking and not shanking. The reason why Federer shanks is because he picks up the ball so much closer to the baseline than other players and his reaction times have to be much quicker to pick up the ball earlier. He would shank just as much with a 95 as he would with a 90. If he goes to a 105 he will lose a lot of his touch. A bigger sweet spot means more power and maybe more control, but not necessarily more touch/feel.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2008
  13. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    Exactly, some people like to overcompensate though. :)
     
  14. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The return of serve is one piece of the game. No player chooses their backhand based on one piece of the game. Isner? Is that your authority? He's not even in the top 100. He singles record is 8 - 6, doubles is 1 - 7. You are going to need a better example than him. No offense John Isner, you're far better than me. Respects.

    -SF
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2008
  15. Gasquetrules

    Gasquetrules Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    414
    For boys and weak women...

    The two hander is for boys and small women.

    Real men hit one-handed backhands.

    Glad that issue is settled.

    Now... I believe racquet stiffness has as much to do with shanked balls as head size.

    And thicker frames have as much to do with less feel and control as larger frames do.
     
  16. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    lol agreed!
     
  17. leon505

    leon505 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    a little much, but i do agree to an extent. I find it funny how a thread about federer switching frames turned into one about backhands and such :)
     
  18. Rafanatic

    Rafanatic Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    Buffalo NY
    I don't think he would ever change.
     
  19. OZE FedFan

    OZE FedFan New User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    3
    Are you kidding me?? Thirteen pages on this topic??

    That is funny. Now i'm not going to read though all thirteen pages so my two cents worth may have already been dealt with, accepted, refuted whatever earlier, but, i think his issue with framing his backhand comes down to that fact that he plays it single-handed. When it's driven though to you and doesn't bounce up around your shoulders, my own single-handed backhand is quite good. But seeing as I can play both (to varying degrees of success) I find that a heavily spun ball up around my shoulders is much easier to come down on with a two-fister (no sexual innuendo intended :twisted:)

    That's why he gives up that baseline, he has to wait for it to drop a little or risk "shanking" it.

    Anyway, isn't joke o'vic using a 93sq? Is this a mid or mid+
     
  20. bsandy

    bsandy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,990
    I disagree with this statement. There's always the straw that breaks the camel's back.

    Having more leverage when returning high (kick) serves on your back hand side, is single best reason I can think of.

    . . . Bud
     
  21. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    Both backhands have their advantages, Who's kicker serve is giving Federer trouble?

    There are things that the one hander does better than the two such as more reach and creating more angle, though I'm not discounting the 2hander as an effective weapon as well.
     
  22. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    Location:
    Arkansas
    They will weigh the advantages along with the disadvantages. It is rare to find someone so equal in their ability to hit a one or two handedback hand, at a high level, that one facet will be the deciding factor. Yes, as you put it, the straw that breaks the camel's back, but it isn't the last straw that does it alone, it's all the straws before it as well.

    -SF
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2008
  23. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Kick serve or not, Fed has won 12 slams, so his one-handed backhand and his frame choice seems to not be hindering him.
     
  24. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,100
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    Agreed.

    There is no better way to slice a ball ON THE PLANET than by using a one handed backhand, which while it may not be a laser beam crowd pleaser, it can be one of the most effective shots in tennis if executed properly. Fed is the perfect example of this when returning serves (kick or flat) to his backhand side.
     
  25. Lotto

    Lotto Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,217
    If I recall correctly, this Federer guy (whoever he may be) did return a 140 mph serve with his inferior one handed backhand. I mean, I've never seen a guy with a two handed backhand do that, am I dreaming or did that actually happen, god, to think that this Federer guy only having won 12 grand slam titles, being number one in the world for the past four years, using a 90 in. sq. frame and returning a 140 mph serve with a one handed backhand. God! That is shocking! He should be shot for using a frame with a smaller head then most of the others and he should be shot for having one of the best single handed backhands in the world. Heck he should be shot just for being Roger Federer, but the thing about that is that if he was shot people on this board wouldn't be able to critique him....wouldn't that be a shame?
     
  26. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    Ah yes, took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks.
     
  27. kalidor

    kalidor New User

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    9
    I absolutely agree. The original poster has some observations but those are not tied to any solid logical explanation. Shanking a ball is due to poor body placements or lack of time not racquet headsize. I play with 85 and 90 sqin racquets myself and I can't imagine myself playing with a 95 or bigger.

    -hs
     
  28. RoddickistheMan

    RoddickistheMan Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,068
    I remember some guy asking me to post some evidence of pete sampras stating his regret about not switching to a bigger frame sooner in his career. Well heres the evidence.
    "I regret it a lot, I do," he said. "Especially on the clay, I would have loved to put the bigger racquet with the sort of string everyone's using, you can get so much power from way beyond the court. The combination is incredible. I used a small racquet with the same specs my whole career, and at the end it started to catch up with me -- I'm playing Roddick with the big Babolat racquet, serving 140. I believe federer will be in this same situation soon as he continues to age. He will need to rely on more power since his mobility will steadily decline.
    http://tennisworld.typepad.com/travelblogue/2008/02/san-jose-sampra.html
     
  29. Sup2Dresq

    Sup2Dresq Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,032
    Location:
    South Florida

    A little more:

    "If I was going to continue to play, I would have had to change my equipment. But looking back at it now, I would have experimented more, not been so mentally stubborn.
    "Actually, [well-known coach Jose] Higueras recommended it... and I said no. I should have taken that advice, at least tried it. But I was too stubborn.
    Now, he's armed himself with a bigger Wilson frame and hybrid strings. "I experimented a bit and kind of found of combination that I like -- you can still swing hard and have control," he said. "It's a great combination. It's almost like cheating."

    P.S. Wonder if Pete had the option of a Poly during his glory days. Gut still reigned supreme on the tour.
     
  30. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Sup, yes Polys were around back then, but not widely used.

    As for the "bigger frame" and Pete regretting it>> Courier won 2 French Opens with the exact frame Sampras now states he regretted using on clay.

    Sampras' problems on clay were not his frame of choice, but rather his game not being suited to beat the baseline grinders of those days on that slow surface.
     
  31. BounceHitBounceHit

    BounceHitBounceHit Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,952
    Location:
    In the moment.

    Exact-o-Mundo. ;) CC
     
  32. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,616
    Why can't you imagine yourself playing with a 95 square inch racket or bigger? Majority of people use rackets around this range.
     
  33. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    you dont seem to understand that Courier is not the same person as Sampras so therefore your analogy is meaningless. furthernmore, you are implying that you know more about tennis than Sampras and know more about the sampras game than sampras himself..either that, or you are calling him a liar. absolutely absurd
     
  34. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    **You ** seem to not comprehend what you read.

    I stated very clearly, that the problem with Sampras not winning the French was not his frame of choice, rather **HIS GAME** not being suited to win against baseline bashers of the day. ie; Courier,Guga, etc.

    To make it simple for you::

    Sampras= not a baseline player/grinder.


    No, your comprehension skills need some work. I guess you were absent from school the day they taught reading comprehension.


    I'm stating the obvious.

    Courier using a PS85 won 2 french opens.
    Sampras using a PS85 won zero.

    So, by virtue of elimination, we conclude that it was not the PS85 that was lacking anything to win the french, rather the style of play. So, sampras making excuses that he didn''t do well at the French because of the PS85 is just that>>> a poor excuse.

    You get it?

    Class Over.

    You could go home now and check your students string tension.
     
  35. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,572
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    I get Darkulie's anaology and agree with it. For Sampras not winning the French, it wasn't his frame as much as it was a) bad luck, b) bad preparation (most years), and c) bad match ups. Sampras' game was not really suited to the French and guys whose names ended in vowels who came out of the woodwork.

    Granted the French's surface has changed from the first time Sampras played until now. Pat Cash made reference to this when interviewed on the Tennis Channel during coverage last year. Cash noted that the surface didn't have the hard slate under it, that it was much more mushy and soft than today. He also noted that they used pressureless balls then compared to the more lively balls now. So, Sampras may have really struggled at first and pretty much written the tournament off when he became the pre-emminent grass court player of his era. Much like Borg skipped the French to prepare for Wimbledon, Sampras really phoned in much of his clay court season.

    While Sampras has noted that he may have done better with a bigger racket, he also says that if his kids played tennis, they would be taught and grow up playing with wood as that is the only way to learn proper technique. Please don't flame me personally as these are Sampras' words and not my interpretation. So, Sampras is playing both sides of the fence on this one.

    Again, I agree that Sampras' racket had little to do with his failure at the French based on what I saw and heard during his professional career.
     
  36. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,572
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    Really and truly, if you look at the PS85, it is probably second to only the Dunlop Maxply Fort in terms of success in Grand Slams. Users of the frame are as varied as the surfaces they won on:

    Jimmy Connors
    Chris Evert
    Stefan Edberg
    Pete Sampras
    Jim Courier

    you can also add Roger Federer

    some might add Graf to this list as her frame is about as close to a PS85 as you can get without being painted like one.

    In any event, the frame won on grass, clay, hard, and at one time was one of 3 frames that dominated the tours, the others being the Head Prestige and the Prince Graphite. Hell, at one time, I think every ATP player in the top 50 or 100 used one of these 3 frames.
     
  37. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    wow..that's some real interesting logic.
     
  38. Richie Rich

    Richie Rich Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,274
    but wasn't that the point though? because his game was so much different than couriers the 85 was a hinderance, in his mind, to not winning the french. maybe hinderance is a poor choice of words.

    for courier the frame didn't matter because he had the game to win the french regardless.

    pete might have needed that little extra that a slightly larger head might have given him. it might have compensated for his style of play and put him on more of a level playing field with some of the other grinders on clay. the alternative to changing racquets was to drastically change his game (which wasn't going to happen). i guess a slightly larger racquet would have been the lesser of 2 evils for him?
     
  39. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    No, it was his game, not his frame. If it was as simple as that and that were the case, then all the Clay court specialists who didn't do well at Wimbledon would have gone to a smaller headed frame to win Wimbledon.

    Exactly. Had nothing to do with the frame but the style of play, which Sampras lacked.
     
  40. Richie Rich

    Richie Rich Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,274
    since his game lacked something what alternative did sampras have then? he could have changed his game and skipped tournaments (like Lendl did to try and win wimbledon and we know how successful he was).

    i'm not trying to stir the pot. i'm just not sure what sampras could have done, besides moving up to a 90 maybe, that would have helped him have a better opportunity at winning the french without totally re-tooling his game. what would have gotten him over the hump?
     
  41. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Like Rabbit suggested earlier, he could have prepared better, perhaps gotten a bit of luck (out of his control), and he could have changed his strategy a bit.

    Again, Sampras' game unfortunately was just not suited for this style of play. He also had to contend with his physical coniditon. he has some rare blood disorder??? that prevented him from playing this grinding style of play day after day.

    yeah, this guy is in total non-denial denial.
     
  42. RoddickistheMan

    RoddickistheMan Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,068
    I think what the op to darks argument are trying to say is taht yes sampras style of game wasnt suited for the clay soobviously sampras wouldn't totally try to learn a grinding style of tennis jsut to play the french. However a somewhat minute changte liek a bgiger frame could have helped deal with some of the flaws that his s&v game had on clay. Maybe the extra power would have negated the power loss that clay causes. Also yes courier did have success with the same frame at the french however courier is a different player with a different style that was suited to clay. Even sampras the GOAT admits that a bigger frame would have helped and we have some posters believing they know more than sampras about tennis and his game, which I find unbelievably ignorant. I think sometimes a bigger frame does indeed help, I mean when chang switched to the longbody it helped his serve tremendously or when hewitt switched to the 95 from his 90 I mean the power increase was fairly noticeable. Also what I found great in the article was feds explanation on why he doesn't serve and volley anymore, he states that its not that the grass is slower its that hes just more comfortable hammering away form the baseline.
     
  43. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    How?? Even when he switched, his ranking continued to spiral down.

    I didn't notice it, and neither did his results. He wasn't serving any faster or hitting his grounides with more pace.
     
  44. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,468
    Maybe a larger racquet like the K90 would have helped him win one French but how many Wimbledons and US Opens might he have sacrificed instead? The PS 6.0 85 was perfectly suited to his game and style of play, i.e., mostly serve and volley. Notice that Federer served and volleyed on almost every point when he played against Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 using his PS 6.0 85, but now that he uses a Tour 90, he hardly ever serves and volleys anymore. Hmmmmm....

    Besides, the Tour 90's didn't exist when Sampras was on tour so the point is moot. The PS 6.0 95 was too big for him. He tried it and hated it. Given his options back then, the PS 6.0 85 was clearly the best choice for him. Nothing else feels or plays quite like the Wilson ProStaff 6.0 series (which also include all the various Tour 90's)
     
  45. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,616
    When did Sampras try out the PS 6.0 95? Also it seems the people who are against Federer from switching to a larger frame are the ones who use a mid size racket.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2008
  46. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,468
    Back in the '90's when he was still on the tour.
    Yes, because we understand how capable Mids are so we understand why Federer doesn't need to change. Those who are only able to use larger racquets will probably never understand.
     
  47. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,468
    Changing racquets for the French would not have been a solution for Sampras just like changing racquets was not a solution for Lendl at Wimbledon. Some people's games are just more naturally suited for clay, while others are more naturally suited for grass. Why do so many people want to blame the racquet? :confused:

    If some people think that Sampras would have won the French with a bigger racquet, do these same people think that Chang would have won Wimbledon with a smaller racquet? See how ridiculous this argument is?
     
  48. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,468
    So did Chang ever win another Grand Slam after switching to a longbody? Did Hewitt ever win another Grand Slam or even make another semi or quarter at a Slam after switching to a bigger racquet?

    I rest my case.
     
  49. (FEDERER)vs(NADAL)

    (FEDERER)vs(NADAL) Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    586
    Location:
    wellington, nz
    haha excellent. what a stupid thread though
     
  50. BounceHitBounceHit

    BounceHitBounceHit Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,952
    Location:
    In the moment.
    I think there is a myth that says something like, when you want to serve harder or hit heavier shots, or improve your volleys, switch to a bigger racquet. This is a fantasy. Faster serves, heavier groundies, more accurate approaches and volleys, etc, etc, etc are to be found in good footwork and technique, itself predicated on supreme fitness. Period. CC
     

Share This Page