Why do people say Federer needs a bigger racquet whenever he loses...........

[BreakPoint]

........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer?

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

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

Just asking.......

[Sentinel]

Good question. Perhaps, some people need a larger brain

[CrackerJack]

Federer wins in spite of persisting with outdated equipment.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

[RFRF]

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

[CrackerJack]

Originally Posted by RFRF

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

I love the way those racquets feel the pro staff, prestige, max 200g, jack kramer staff....all classics. They have all won bucketloads of grand slams in bygone eras. No comparison in todays game though, even in the hands of the most skilled user. All the fundamentals of the modern game, retrieving, heavy groundstrokes, spin, are all at a disadvantage with smaller classic racquets. No doubt change is a scary proposition, often met with reluctance even cynicism but in my opinion he has more to gain by doing so.

[Satch]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer?

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

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

Just asking.......

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

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

[OTMPut]

Originally Posted by Satch

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

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

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

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

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

[phnx90]

Can you imagine Roger playing with a Babolat tweener hitting double backhands? This is blasphemy! This is madness!

[Wilander Fan]

Its hardly ever the racket that causes a shank. Its usually footwork and tired legs.

[Satch]

Originally Posted by OTMPut

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

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

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

[stoo]

Originally Posted by Satch

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

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

Exactly!

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

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

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by CrackerJack

.......Larger headed frames are better suited to the faster modern game. Everyone else from bygone eras have been able to switch since retirement. My hope is that fed does so before he retires.

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

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

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

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

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by RFRF

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

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

[themitchmann]

Does anyone have any direct knowledge that Fed has actually tried a larger head, or more open pattern?

[Bartelby]

Federer himself decided he needed a bigger racquet quite late in his development, so that was a decisive move for his future success.

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

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

[Audiophile]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

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

Sure about that? What about the Wilson Prostaff 85?

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

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by themitchmann

Does anyone have any direct knowledge that Fed has actually tried a larger head, or more open pattern?

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

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

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

[Bartelby]

They did this because the serve-volley game had become a serve-serve game, but it has created a problem of another kind.

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

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

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

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

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

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

[vsbabolat]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Sure about that? What about the Wilson Prostaff 85?

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

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