Federer must make the switch or he will descend even more

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Now it is safe to say, Federer got blown out of the water by a determined, confident Berdych..and the mishits and weak returns will cause and lead Federer to make the switch to a larger raquet for 2013, if he is to remain in the top 10 in 2013 as the yougn boys are turning the page with little to no effort.

I'm sure you said this in 2010 and 2011, and here we are in 2012, and who is #1. FYI, he would have to lose 10000 points to fall out of the top 10, it's not gonna happen in 2013.

[lendlmac]

Originally Posted by jokinla

I'm sure you said this in 2010 and 2011, and here we are in 2012, and who is #1. FYI, he would have to lose 10000 points to fall out of the top 10, it's not gonna happen in 2013.

This is andy murrays us open to win. All the big hitters in the game can ocer power finesse all day

[Vcore89]

No way he's going to change his racquet at this point in time. Maybe he'll do in the senior's tour 5 - 10 years down the road but not now or 2013 or 2016.

[PCXL-Fan]

Anyone i have a question....

How many top 10 pro players in the past 15 years have been helped by switching to a larger frame?

[augustobt]

Federer was blown away by his own mind. He was keeping a stupid strategy, like the one he used against Soderling in RG'10 or against JMDP in USO'09.

Thats nothing to do with the size of his racquet head.

[Nostradamus]

Pete Sampras changed his racket so why not Federer ? before it is too late, i mean. so it isn't as far fetched of idea as some folks here think.

[Vcore89]

Pistol changed racquets after coming out of retirement playing exhibitions.

[augustobt]

And Federer already changed, no? In the past he was using an 85.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by PCXL-Fan

Anyone i have a question....

How many top 10 pro players in the past 15 years have been helped by switching to a larger frame?

None I can think of.

Agassi did switch to a SMALLER racquet late in his career though and won a lot of matches with it.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Baseline

Federer must make the switch or he will descend even more

He can not descend less.

[ENJOY TENNIS]

At Tennis.com, Jim Courier suggests that a larger frame help him and Federer should try. People, see the interview, worth a try.

[tt2003]

lendl use 75, pete uses 85, have you ever played small head racquet?

[ace0001a]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

None I can think of.

Agassi did switch to a SMALLER racquet late in his career though and won a lot of matches with it.

Agassi went to a 102" Prestige mold for a bit during the Liquidmetal line, in comparison to his usual 107" Radical OS mold, is a minor size difference if you hold the racquets together. Also around that time frame, he used a 102" Liquidmetal Instinct, again not much of a size difference when you hold a 102 and 107 next to each other. The last slam he won was the 2003 Australian Open where he was using his usual Radical OS.

As for what Jim Courier said, well he was always a PS85 user and only recently switched to the larger head Donnay racquet, so it's not like he's talking out of butt...and I recall Sampras recently saying he shouldn't have been so stubborn about his racquet.

My take on this: Federer doesn't need to change racquet size at the moment...maybe later on in his career say if he plays into his mid 30s...maybe doing what Sampras did and go to something like a Blade 98.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by ace0001a

Agassi went to a 102" Prestige mold for a bit during the Liquidmetal line, in comparison to his usual 107" Radical OS mold, is a minor size difference if you hold the racquets together. Also around that time frame, he used a 102" Liquidmetal Instinct, again not much of a size difference when you hold a 102 and 107 next to each other. The last slam he won was the 2003 Australian Open where he was using his usual Radical OS.

So 5 sq. in. is not much difference for Agassi yet people here are claiming that 5 sq. in. will make a huge difference for Federer?

Originally Posted by ace0001a

As for what Jim Courier said, well he was always a PS85 user and only recently switched to the larger head Donnay racquet, so it's not like he's talking out of butt...and I recall Sampras recently saying he shouldn't have been so stubborn about his racquet.

Yes, he should have been so stubborn because he won 14 Slams with it and was #1 for 6 straight years. You don't fix what ain't broken. If he had switched to a bigger racquet he just may have never won another Slam or dropped in the rankings. Ask Davydenko, Ljubicic or Ferrero how switching racquets worked out for them.

Originally Posted by ace0001a

My take on this: Federer doesn't need to change racquet size at the moment...maybe later on in his career say if he plays into his mid 30s...maybe doing what Sampras did and go to something like a Blade 98.

Sampras doesn't play on the tour anymore. It doesn't matter if he wins or not. He gets paid just for showing up. He can now play with whatever he wants because he now plays mainly for fun. He's not as serious about winning like he was when he was collecting Slam trophies.

[lawrencejin]

I think many people overestimate how much difference 5 square inches would make on reducing Federer's shanks or mishits. Perhaps they mistakenly think that extra 5 square inches in head size translates to extra 5 square inches in the sweet-pot?

How big is the sweet-spot on Federer's 90 square inch racket? Let's just say 25 square inches. Assuming that the sweet-spot size increases proportional to the head size (a big IF), a 95 square inch racket will have less than 1.4 square inches extra sweet-spot.

My personal experience tells me that, in fact, sweet-spot size is not significantly related to the head size at all. What this means is that a 95 square inch racket may not even have any increase in sweet-spot size. It may, but it also may not.

On the other hand, a more significant difference that a 95 square inch racket will have is the feel. That, in my view, would be more detrimental to Federer than any negligible gains that he may derive from increasing head size.

Plus, searching for a new weapon is a time-consuming and risky business. It might be worthwhile for us mortals and even lower-ranked pros, but for a GOAT like Federer it's just not an optimal move. Now that I think about it, this might be an interesting research topic for my dissertation haha.

[nethawkwenatchee]

His one handed back hand is great but still one of his liabilities against certain players on certain surfaces. If he increased the headsize this problem may be become a bigger problem (IMHO)

[ace0001a]

Just as a preface BP, we are all putting down opinions here and I was not trying to be argumentative...it's ok to be passionate about your views, but with all due respect no need to push each and everyone's opinion's aside. That said, I think we can all agree to disagree for those who are on opposite sides.

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

So 5 sq. in. is not much difference for Agassi yet people here are claiming that 5 sq. in. will make a huge difference for Federer?

When going smaller from an OS to a MP that's near OS, my opinion is that it's not much a difference when physically comparing racquet heads and I can say the same would be true going the other way...but I would agree with those and say going bigger does help more with shanks and mishits.

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Yes, he should have been so stubborn because he won 14 Slams with it and was #1 for 6 straight years. You don't fix what ain't broken. If he had switched to a bigger racquet he just may have never won another Slam or dropped in the rankings. Ask Davydenko, Ljubicic or Ferrero how switching racquets worked out for them.

Since I am not going to question the view or opinion of a 14 Slam winner, I would chose to believe his retrospective take in equipment is very much a valid one. Also would be fair to say Davydenko, Ljubicic and Ferroro are/were never at the skill level of Sampras or Federer.

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Sampras doesn't play on the tour anymore. It doesn't matter if he wins or not. He gets paid just for showing up. He can now play with whatever he wants because he now plays mainly for fun. He's not as serious about winning like he was when he was collecting Slam trophies.

Probably...but again I wouldn't question a valid retrospective opinion of said 14 Slam winner.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by ENJOY TENNIS

At Tennis.com, Jim Courier suggests that a larger frame help him and Federer should try. People, see the interview, worth a try.

Fed does try larger heads - Wilson brings him a bunch of different rackets to try every year - yet he always ends up with the 90". And based on his last 12 months, I'd say he's been making the correct decision.

A shank isn't going to be helped by a few more sq in - it's a timing thing. Can't turn back the clock...

This thread just keeps on giving the free entertainment.

[ace0001a]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

Fed does try larger heads - Wilson brings him a bunch of different rackets to try every year - yet he always ends up with the 90". And based on his last 12 months, I'd say he's been making the correct decision.

A shank isn't going to be helped by a few more sq in - it's a timing thing. Can't turn back the clock...

This thread just keeps on giving the free entertainment.

Yeah I wouldn't doubt he probably does try many racquets Wilson throws at him and agreed that based on his recent performance level, doesn't need to change.

And of course these threads are always great entertainment...though I myself have always tried to keep an open mind with everyone's opinions. Say your two cents, agree to disagree and to each their own.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by ace0001a

Just as a preface BP, we are all putting down opinions here and I was not trying to be argumentative...it's ok to be passionate about your views, but with all due respect no need to push each and everyone's opinion's aside. That said, I think we can all agree to disagree for those who are on opposite sides.

Actually, I was just asking for clarification of your opinion, that's all.

Originally Posted by ace0001a

When going smaller from an OS to a MP that's near OS, my opinion is that it's not much a difference when physically comparing racquet heads and I can say the same would be true going the other way...but I would agree with those and say going bigger does help more with shanks and mishits.

Then you must also agree that going from a Mid to a MP is not much of a difference when physically comparing racquet heads since it's the same 5 sq. in. difference, right?

Originally Posted by ace0001a

Since I am not going to question the view or opinion of a 14 Slam winner, I would chose to believe his retrospective take in equipment is very much a valid one. Also would be fair to say Davydenko, Ljubicic and Ferroro are/were never at the skill level of Sampras or Federer.

Probably...but again I wouldn't question a valid retrospective opinion of said 14 Slam winner.

I would because Sampras is clearly wrong. He's using hindsight to fantasize about what could have been. That's completely flawed logic. It's like saying I should have married that other girl instead because of course my life would be so much better today. But if you did marry that other girl instead, it's also quite possible that your life would have been even worse. She might have gotten really fat, refused to talk to you or have sex with you, spent all your money and put you in the poor house, and then divorced you and took everything you have left. It's the grass is always greener on the other side syndrome. Sampras only THINKS he would have done better with a bigger racquet. Reality could have turned out very differently. He only knows what DID happen and not not what WOULD HAVE happened. Oh, and I should have bought Apple stock back in 1997 when it was only $4 a share. But then again, I didn't because it could have very well gone to $0 a share. Hindsight is always right, isn't it?