Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by Mickey Finn, May 18, 2007.
I am certainly not AGAINST Fed switching frames.....but I will be very suprised if he does. CC
Exactly! People can't seem to understand that the player behind the frame is what wins the grand slams.
People are putting too much credit and blame on racquets. In their minds, the next time someone wins a slam, the trophy will be presented to the racquet!
drak, i understand what you are saying but when sampras himself questions his racquet choice there has to be something there. sure, his game wasn't suited to clay. but the racquet may have exaggerated that. it is a possibility isn't it? i don't think he's making up an excuse.
see post 285. sampras felt, for some reason, mental or otherwise, that the racquet MIGHT have made a difference. he had regrets for not changing something. those are his thoughts. why should anyone here discount that? who's got a better perspective on the issue than the world's greatest player?
by the way, in the article, sampras doesn't mention once that he would have changed his style of play. he focussed on the racquet and what benefits that MAY have provided. even his coach mentioned he should try a different racquet and said nothing about changing the way he played.
if the racquet wasn't the issue why did he chose to focus on talking about racquet choice and not his style of game?
The bigger head size will give him a bigger sweet spot and more power/spin. More room for error/slight miss hits would also be a benefit.
I went on to the ATP site last night and put together Sampras' clay court prepartions year by year from 2002 - 1993. The post was unfortnately deleted.
Sampras averaged 6 matches a year in preparation for the French. Given that it was not even close to being his favorite surface, I don't think this is even close to enough time on the dirt.
Sampras was also looking past the French every year to....the big W. He was the odds on favorite there and looking to break records. IMO, he thought he had a much better chance at Wimbledon and because of that and clay being so slow, I pretty much think he just dialed in his clay court season. If you look back, he played hard court events and then maybe two clay court events.
It wasn't that he couldn't win on clay as evidenced by his victory in DC over Kafelnikov in Moscow. But I really believe that his motivation was Wimbledon, not Paris. Further, I think now he realizes that 7 Wimbledons is great, but 1 French and 5 Wimbledons may have made him an undisputable GOAT.
Why does he blame his racket? Same reason we do. He, like us, would rather look for any other reason than an inward one to blame a failure on. Fact is, his rackets were probably finer tuned to him than most pros and he wouldn't have done as well with a bigger frame. But, then again, Sampras in his prime could probably serve most everyone off the court with anything. Problem was for him, most anyone didn't include Agassi or Kraijcek, or Safin, or whoever was in the top 10. It does no good to beat 6 guys at a Grand Slam...
That's pure speculation since you are actually looking "inward" from your own perspective. Don't think otherwise. Also, Sampras has talked about age being an issue for his power game, and I'm sure he knows more about his own needs than you do.
I have to agree (reluctantly) that Sampras repeatedly harping on the advantages of his new bigger racquet is a way of saying that he could have played much better and won the French if he had access to this before. His peers like Courier and commentators repeat it like a parrot, probably to imply it was also the case with them.
They obviously were stubborn and stuck with a demanding frame that was taxing on their games. Their hindsight proves that.
Or they are trying to make themselves look better. "If I had Internet when I was growing up, I would be far more intelligent."
He wasn't going to change his style of play at that stage of his career, thus, he may have been looking for other "solutions". But that wouldn't have worked anyway as his biggest problem was his style of play, his inability to move on clay as well as the dirtballers, and his blood condition which made him ill suited to playing long grinding matches on slow red clay.
Some people were just meant to win the French, while others were just not, and it has nothing to do with their racquets. Europeans and South Americans who grew up playing on red clay and learned how to move on the the stuff stand a much better chance of winning the French than someone like Sampras who grew up playing on the hardcourts of Southern California and never felt comfortable moving on clay. Guys like Nadal, Muster, and Kuerten were groomed to win the French from the day they first picked up a racquet. Guys like Sampras, Rafter, and Henman were not. That's just a fact of life and it had nothing to do with their racquets.
Just ask Roddick or Blake if they think their racquets are the reason they can't get past the early rounds at the French. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you it's the movement.
Then why didn't Courier also think a bigger racquet would be a benefit for him as well? Wouldn't his baseline bashing style of play benefit him even more? Yet, he still won two French Opens and made the final of a third, and stuck with his 85 sq. in. racquet throughout his entire career and even into the seniors tour (only last year did he finally switch).
Both of them play with big racquets already, so they are not going to mention that.
Like I said earlier, and rabbit and Breakpoint have pointed out>>> it's an excuse.
Again, no frame in the history of tennis was going to magically make Sampras a baseline basher. None. ZERO.
He had to change his style. Period.
Here is an example for you. When you have a type of opponent you can't beat, lets say a serve and volleyer, do you go to the tennis store and ask them for a list of frames to beat serve and volleyers??? Or if you can't beat a pusher, do you ask them for a list of frames to beat pushers?? The answer is no, because there is no such thing.
Only way for you to beat these type of players is to change your strategy. Not your frame, or strings, or shoes, or cap.
Design a new 95 si racquet for Federer to revamp his game
You need to specify length, static weight, balance, swing weight, composition, string pattern, stiffness.
Length - 30 inches.
Weight - 129g unstrung
Balance - 22.4567801pts head heavy
Swing Weight - 98
Composition - 100% AEROGEL
String pattern - 8 M, 10 C
Siffness - 345RA
12.2 oz strung
16 X 19
8 pts HL strung
RA 65 strung
^ Too demanding. Mine is much easier to use.
Here's one that I think would be perfect for Federer:
Stop posting these ***************** threads which indicates that pro's don't know how, or with what to play tennis!
i think a good racket for him would be maby the kblade tour because its a little bigger but not by much. Or the k95
This is fed's home now that he read all this stuff, unfortunately he can't fit the racket through the door so he hangs it outside.
I heard that he's going for the French next year with this baby THE Volkson KDNX Tour 100K90.
Thats in Melbourne!
^Yeah, that is how much these "Fed doesn't know **** about tennis" threads affected him...
i agree this one should be good
BTW this just might be the new Sampras racket...
He should start with the stock K95 (make sure it really has stock specs LOL) and proceed from there.
or maybe you shuold let the pro decide what the pro wants to use, instead of pretending to know what might possibly work better for him, since you know absolutely everything about federer. right?
Take the ProStaff 6.1 Classic and add an extra string to make it 16 x 19.
PS6.1 + 16x19 = Best stick EVER!
Wow!!! Where did you find this? That looks to be a PS 6.0 95 with the K90/K95 paintjob. It's the first time I've seen one. I've seen the PS 6.0 95 with the PS Tour 90/95 and with the nCode 90/95 paintjobs on them and I figured they must have made them with the K90/K95 paintjob too as many people still love this racquet, but this is the first time I've seen it.
So where can I get one of these?
Made in China.
What is the difference between this one and the K95?
round beams first straight beams, flares at the throats versus straight non-flares, weight distribution, thickness in beam...but other than all that, they are exactly the same.
So what is this racquet? And how can you tell weight distribution from a pic?
It's a PS 6.0 95 with a K90 paintjob.
No, its actually fake K90...(that's how the bay seller advertised it)
So some guy (other than Wilson) painted this as a K90 for fun? Or was it something that Wilson really put out?
I know that's how he advertises it. But my source tells me that it's actually a REAL PS 6.0 95 with a K90 paintjob.
Wilson does this for their sponsored pros that want to still play with the PS 6.0 95, just they they paintjob other older racquets with current models' paintjobs. However, I understand that this seller had these paintjobs done by an outside source and not by Wilson.
BP this isnt a PS95. I also bought the same model off the auction site for about £8! Its looking a little worse for wear these days but heres a pic. the beam was about 22m, it weighed about 310 strung and had a 16*19 string (even tho the frame said 16*18!). the bumper/gromet was awful quality and the I dont think the strings had been done on a machine, reckon someone had just pulled them as tight as they could!!!
Also this it the only racket that I have (and ever will) break. Dont think it counts as its a fake though!
Hmmm...but both your pic of your broken racquet and the pic above clearly show a 16x18 string pattern.
Here's the above pic again:
It must have been the other way around then, said 16*19 but actually had 16*18, my point was that it did match. It also came with a very thin/cheap syn grey grip, and a fake almost see through wilson dumbie. the full length case did not even match up to wilsons poor quality control! If i'd have kept it i would have sent it to you to!
Great photo, that one of the best tennis stores in the world!!!
Separate names with a comma.