PackardDell
Semi-Pro
I think for Rolland Garos a bigger frame would help him against Nadal. at the moment he uses 90 sq in and for RG he should use about 93 - 95 sq in.
Who thinks Fed would play better with a 95" racquet?
- Thread starter Mickey Finn
- Start date
Ripper
Hall of Fame
I've always stated that, contrary to the old myth, Mid size racquets are not good for a 1hbh... at least, not for the type of backhand Federer has (aggressive low to high topspin swing). The constant shanking of the best player in the world just makes me believe it more and more.
Edit: You're wrong Roar; a couple of milimeters is all it takes...
Edit: You're wrong Roar; a couple of milimeters is all it takes...
Last edited:
soyizgood
G.O.A.T.
Federer knows what works best for him. 11 GS titles is proof of that. If he doesn't panic, he'll do fine for the FO. Even without the FO he can get 15 GS titles. Nobody has dominated tennis in a 4 year span like Federer has. 11 GS titles in the last 17 GS played. 9 STRAIGHT GS finals appearances! UNREAL!
I have a feeling Nadal won't make it to the FO Finals next year there as there are countless clay court specialists that can analyze Nadal's game down to the butt-picking. And Fed's the 2nd best clay-court guy around.
I have a feeling Nadal won't make it to the FO Finals next year there as there are countless clay court specialists that can analyze Nadal's game down to the butt-picking. And Fed's the 2nd best clay-court guy around.
Jules
Rookie
I think he should at least test one...maybe he already has, who knows...but Sampras himself has stated that he wished he had been more willing to experiment with larger head sizes during his career (then playing 85 sq inches / now playing 90 sq inches)...Maybe the same story for Fed!? Not that his results is that dissapointing, lol...but who knows, that RG title could turn out to mean everything in eyes of history.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet? 
Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?
Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone?
Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.
Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?
Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone?
Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.
Jules
Rookie
In my opinion I think Federers game would benifit from slightly more power and spin...even if it was at the expense of a little precision, specially on clay. A slightly bigger headsize would probably also reduce the number of mishits, mainly on clay as well. Anyway, it's just a theory and I don't know if he WOULD actually play better with a bigger racquet, but in my totally subjective opinion there COULD be some benefits at the expense of others...
PimpMyGame
Hall of Fame
The right advice, support team and build-up to the FO would be far more beneficial than changing rackets IMO.
How many people on this forum would think "yeah, ok" if some nugget handed them a different racket and said "you'll play better with this".
I always thought Sampras was having a bit of fun with his comments. He didn't change and we should really be asking why he would make a pointless comment like that.
How many people on this forum would think "yeah, ok" if some nugget handed them a different racket and said "you'll play better with this".
I always thought Sampras was having a bit of fun with his comments. He didn't change and we should really be asking why he would make a pointless comment like that.
Too Poor for Grass
New User
Opinions on Federer's racquet choice. . .
Now, in the wake of Federer's fith consecutive Wimbledon, it may appear somewhat curious to question his racquet choice, but I can't help but notice that Federer commits a truly extraordinary number of mishits. I watch a good deal of tennis and can confidently say that Federer mishits far more balls than any other player in the top 10. Has anyone else noticed this?
Granted, his overwhelming talent and dedication have proved more than sufficient to overcome this tendency on most courts and against most opponents, but I can't help but wonder whether a slightly larger headsize might help him recover the considerable number of points that he loses on mishits.
This has been Federer's least-dominant year since 2003, and although he's still #1, I think we might be seeing the margin between him and the rest of the field eroding---even if by only a small margin.
Does anyone think Federer might be better served against Nadal at both Wimbledon and the French by a slightly large frame?
Now, in the wake of Federer's fith consecutive Wimbledon, it may appear somewhat curious to question his racquet choice, but I can't help but notice that Federer commits a truly extraordinary number of mishits. I watch a good deal of tennis and can confidently say that Federer mishits far more balls than any other player in the top 10. Has anyone else noticed this?
Granted, his overwhelming talent and dedication have proved more than sufficient to overcome this tendency on most courts and against most opponents, but I can't help but wonder whether a slightly larger headsize might help him recover the considerable number of points that he loses on mishits.
This has been Federer's least-dominant year since 2003, and although he's still #1, I think we might be seeing the margin between him and the rest of the field eroding---even if by only a small margin.
Does anyone think Federer might be better served against Nadal at both Wimbledon and the French by a slightly large frame?
PimpMyGame
Hall of Fame
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Wimby number 5 suggests to me that it ain't broke...yet.
Too Poor for Grass
New User
Fair enough, but sometimes I think you have to read the writing on the wall rather than bask in the deceptive comfort of a near miss.
Let's face it: Federer came very close to losing today's match, and even if you don't believe that, you have to accept that he was pushed as far as he's been pushed at Wimbledon in many years. Then, there's the matter of his rather apparent regression at the French. Apparently, Federer began preparing for the French the day after he won the Aussie, but in the final, he showed no improvement at all. Add on the fact that his 2007 winning percentage is lower than at any time since 2003, and you have to wonder whether he might be slipping just a tad. Now Federer is so good that he can slip a little and still be a favorite in grand slams, but it seems that the margin is closing.
I think it's now apparent that Nadal is closer to winning Wimbledon than Federer is to winning the French. That said, Federer tends to give away a significant number of points with mishits, and it seems to me that some of that might be attributable to using such a small frame.
Too Poor for Grass
New User
Even if that's true, shouldn't that be more than enough to concern him? After all, it's about winning, right? Were second place good enough, he'd be thrilled about his performance at the French. Federer has made no progress whatever against Nadal at the French and now appears to have lost ground to Nadal at Wimbledon.
He just seems to make more errors than someone of his talent and precision should, and many of these are caused by mishits that might be due to using such a small frame.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
I disagree. This year Federer had so many more breakpoints he was far closer to winning two sets against Nadal compared to last year.
Too Poor for Grass
New User
Even if we grant your point, wouldn't you agree that nadal is closer to winning Wimbledon than federer is to winning the French? If that's true, then Nadal is gaining on Federer.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I've said this a million times but I'll say it again.
A bigger racquet will NOT make Federer mishit less! He mishits because of his incredible racquet head speed and NOT because of the size of his racquet. When he mishits he usually hits the ball off of the edge of his frame. He would be doing the same thing with a 95, perhaps even more since I don't know of any 95 frames that are as thin as his 90, as most have even wider beams. And any shots near the frame with a 90 will still be near the frame on a 95 and still be a mishit.
The only way for him to mishit less would be to slow down his swing but then that would take away the awesome spin, power, and control he gets from his shots. His fast swing speed obviously works for him. His 11 Grand Slam titles prove that. Why does he need to change?
A bigger racquet will NOT make Federer mishit less! He mishits because of his incredible racquet head speed and NOT because of the size of his racquet. When he mishits he usually hits the ball off of the edge of his frame. He would be doing the same thing with a 95, perhaps even more since I don't know of any 95 frames that are as thin as his 90, as most have even wider beams. And any shots near the frame with a 90 will still be near the frame on a 95 and still be a mishit.
The only way for him to mishit less would be to slow down his swing but then that would take away the awesome spin, power, and control he gets from his shots. His fast swing speed obviously works for him. His 11 Grand Slam titles prove that. Why does he need to change?
Last edited:
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet?
Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?
Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone?
exactly. in fact a small head size has a unique direct feeling and much more more or less subjective features.
Your posting something like this wont get you much love on the forum. why? because it makes sense
It's a tribute to how good Fed really is that he can donate so many free points to his opponents by frame balls and misshits from using the frame he uses and still beat most everyone. I can understand how he would be reticent about making a racquet change in light of his success, but really do think he would be an even better player if he didnt give away so many points...a larger headed frame would cause him to misshit less provided the sweetzone is larger..that's not even disputable and has little to do with him having batspeed....ALL the pros operate w. high batspeed and relatively very few of them use mids anymore, and almost none use a k90 (not that Fed really uses a k90 anyway). If the k90 was all that, more pros woul be using one. I would say Nadals batspeed is higher than Feds, Blakes def is, Gonzo, etc..all use 98 or 100 headsizes and none seem to have the 'donate a bunch of free points thru misshitting' syndrome that Fed has
There is nothing that you can do with a Mid which cant be one with a MP, plus none of the disadvantages..thats why most of the really good and smart players choose MP's
AAAA
Hall of Fame
No need to grant me anything because it's fact Federer had more break points this year than last year at the FO against Nadal. The rest of what you wrote isn't relevant to the point I was making.
lethalfang
Professional
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet?
Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?
Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone?
Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.
No one has asked if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet, because he had played with a smaller racquet already: PS85.
D
Deleted member 19728
Guest
The only problem with the whole k90 = Fed mishits argument is that Fed played some of the best tennis of his career at the Austalian open this year. I even have it on my tivo and watch it back every once in a while as it is about as close to perfect tennis as I have seen in probably my life. And he was playing with the k90 at that time (or for those who think it is a pj the pj of the k90). I think he has just been a bit of a slump since the australian open, probably a little too complacent about being so great and little too much mirka. (although I probably should not use the word little and mirka in the same sentence). As every poster knows, you don't play your best tennis every time you hit the court and sometimes you can get in a slump that lasts a couple months, it happens to the best players as well as the rest of us mortals. Well that and Nadal is playing some of the best tennis of his career
Richie Rich
Legend
But what exactly makes everyone assume and think that Federer would play better with a bigger racquet?
Why aren't there any threads asking if Federer would play better with a smaller racquet? Nor any threads asking if Roddick, Nadal, Blake or any other pro would play better with a smaller racquet?
Why does everyone just automatically assume that a bigger racquet is better for everyone?
Bigger is not always better. Not just in tennis racquets but in a lot of things in life.
then why do the pro's, the best of the best, play with 95-105 sq inch frames for the most part? these guys will use whatever headsize produces the results. other than fed who uses a 90 sq inch or less frame?
that makes no sense. only vice versa.
Mad iX
Semi-Pro
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
Federer is simply not as dominant as he used to be. His footwork for the most of the 2nd week of Wimbledon was sloppy (for his standards). He isn't setting up as well and obviously a bigger racket will not fix this.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
It's not the racket.
Federer is simply not as dominant as he used to be. His footwork for the most of the 2nd week of Wimbledon was sloppy (for his standards). He isn't setting up as well and obviously a bigger racket will not fix this.
Big Fed
Banned
Richie Rich
Legend
fed should switch to the big bubba.... or the ergonom
xtennisloverx
Rookie
did sampras have this many mishits?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
The last time I looked, the "best of the best" is Federer and he uses a 90 sq. in. frame. So I'd say it's all the other pros that are missing out and would probably also play better if they all also switched to 90 sq. in. frames. If they want to beat Federer, they'd better all switch to 90's, right?
I think the better question is: Why aren't all the other pros using 90's? Because that's what logic would dictate (if everyone here is assuming it's only the racquet that makes a pro play better).
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
To tell you the truth, if you watched his 2001 Wimbledon match against Sampras, I thought he played better with his PS 6.0 85 than he does today with his K90, especially his serves and his volleys. He was acing Sampras left and right and actually out-aced Sampras during the match (almost unheard of at Wimbledon). He also came to the net on just about every serve and volleyed even better than Sampras, and also hit tons of screaming backhand passing shots. So I think both his serving and his volleying were better with the PS 6.0 85 than with the K90. Perhaps that's why he almost never serves and volleys anymore, even at Wimbledon. His bigger racquet just does not allow him to do it as well anymore. I can't imagine how much further going to an even bigger racquet would negatively impact his game.
OK, I know people are going to say he's winning more with his 90 than he did with his 85. Well, I think most of that has to do with his mental toughness, focus, experience, stronger desire to win, and ability to now control his emotions and frustrations on court, and less do do with his strokes.
couch
Hall of Fame
This is a pointless thread. The guy just won Wimbledon, how much better does he need to be?
When the hardcourt season rolls around I bet he doesn't shank as many balls. It's called clay and grass.
I bet if you went up to a 120 sq. in. frame you'd be a lot better.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No he didn't, and even though he used an even smaller racquet at 85 sq. in.
However, Sampras' racquet was weighted up much heavier so he used more of the weight (as well as full gut strings) to generate the power rather than super-high racquet head speed. Sampras also hit a bit flatter than Federer does so it's easier not to mis-hit.
Thats true because there isnt many people that can get away with using a 90 sq inch tennis racket especially among recreational and club level players.
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
agree. sometimes he is just lunging for balls. but of course he usually does that to maintain his balance.
Duzza
Legend
Ok then
No, a bigger frame is not suited for his technique. Most of his best shots come from the whip of the small thin frame IMO.
Imagine the marketing and gimmicking money Wilson could receive if Fed actually switched to a larger head just for Clay? It'd be ridiculous.
Wilson K-factor Tour 95 Clay edition...
In truth, Fed has a stigma around other players by which they kind of "fear" him. If he switched racquets, it'd just be a chink in the armour. Why would he admit to a weakness? I mean he's gotten to the finals twice using the same size stick...
Wilson K-factor Tour 95 Clay edition...
In truth, Fed has a stigma around other players by which they kind of "fear" him. If he switched racquets, it'd just be a chink in the armour. Why would he admit to a weakness? I mean he's gotten to the finals twice using the same size stick...
Richie Rich
Legend
Federer takes the rough with the smooth
Federer's forehand is more prone to error than that of many of the other top players, and yet it's still the greatest forehand in the world. Why? Because he has probably the best ratio of winners to unforced errors. In my view, the error comes from the way he rolls the racquet over the top of the ball on impact to give great topspin without having to whip the ball up. If you look at the trajectory of the ball after leaving the racquet it seems to fly flat and then suddenly dip as the topspin kicks in. It's almost like a table tennis shot. I don't know whether anyone else was watching the BBC's coverage yesterday but, putting footage of the two side by side, they showed how similar the stroke mechanics of Federer's forehand are to Borg's forehand. Looking at the shot in slow motion, I wonder how he ever gets one in, since, if he's early by the smallest fraction of a second, he's going frame first into the ball (and would be with any size head); if he's late, he'll get no topspin.
As for the backhand; well, perhaps he should just try to avoid getting into crosscourt rallies with a lefty forehand.
Federer's forehand is more prone to error than that of many of the other top players, and yet it's still the greatest forehand in the world. Why? Because he has probably the best ratio of winners to unforced errors. In my view, the error comes from the way he rolls the racquet over the top of the ball on impact to give great topspin without having to whip the ball up. If you look at the trajectory of the ball after leaving the racquet it seems to fly flat and then suddenly dip as the topspin kicks in. It's almost like a table tennis shot. I don't know whether anyone else was watching the BBC's coverage yesterday but, putting footage of the two side by side, they showed how similar the stroke mechanics of Federer's forehand are to Borg's forehand. Looking at the shot in slow motion, I wonder how he ever gets one in, since, if he's early by the smallest fraction of a second, he's going frame first into the ball (and would be with any size head); if he's late, he'll get no topspin.
As for the backhand; well, perhaps he should just try to avoid getting into crosscourt rallies with a lefty forehand.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Well, people here seem to think it's all about the racquet and not about the pro so that Federer would instantly get better by switching racquets. If so, then since Federer is the best player in the world with his 90, wouldn't logic dictate that switching to a 90 would also make other pros better?all the pro's would probably play better with a 90? you can't really be serious
If everyone else in the world is worse than Federer, why would he want to switch to a racquet that makes all these other pros play worse than him? It's not logical. Logic says all these other pros should switch to the racquet that makes Federer play better than them. I mean because it's all about the racquet and not the pro, right? :roll:
lacostetennis3
New User
You also have to consider the incredible amount of outright winners Fed hits. I'm sure he would have less misshits with a slightly larger frame, but he might also have a little bit less control for those countless line-touching winners
Richie Rich
Legend
as usual, you've twisted things around. point was that pro's use what is best for THEM. they decide what they use to get the most out their games. i'm sure if using a 90 sq inch frame resulted in a benefit to them they would change. the fact that only a handful of pro's use such small headsizes should tell you something. but you're missing the point
BTW, I'm agreeing with what you wrote in post #7. frame size shouldn't be a debate. pro's use what works for them and only them.
Last edited:
LafayetteHitter
Hall of Fame
I agree with Breakpoint, that is what Roddick and Nadal need to do. They should both switch to an 85" Pro Staff 6.0 so they can catch up with Federer. Wouldn't the logic of competition be that the lower ranked players tend to mimic the #1. I mean in drag racing the World Champion Top Fuel dragster driver surely isn't sitting on the finish line thinking I definately need to switch to what the other guys are using?
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
No.
By the way, I've done stats on several Fed matches where people are "assuming" the same thing you are stating here>>> that Fed has a lof of mishits, and although he does have mishits, so do his opponents. Of all the macthes I've done, there is only one where he had more mishits than his opponent, and that was the French Open Final this year against Nadal.
I haven't done the stats for this Wimbledon final, but I would venture to say nadal and fed were about equal. Additionally, nadal had a mishit in the last game of the match that gave Fed a match point.
Unfortunatley, it doesn't make sense. Why?? Because you are convenitently forgetting his oponents also haver many mishits.
Again, not true. If this were the case, then his opponents would be using 105 square inch frames to make them better players as well.
They may not "seem" to but the fact of the matter is>>>> they do have as many, if not more mishits than Fed, and I have proven this with fact, rather than rhetoric.
I guess that eliminates Federer and Sampras :roll:. (25 Grand Slam Victories)
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, this ain't saying much becaue other than Fed and Nadal>>> none of these other pros you are speaking about using these larger frames are doing much on tour. Perhaps they should go to a larger frame??? :roll:
Like you said, pros are going to use the headsize that produces the best result. Fed is using a 90 and I would say with 11 slams under his belt (which blows away all current pros and many past pros), it is pretty good.
Not too many pros are using 105-110 square inch frames either. And I can't remeber the last one to win a slam with one. I think the 90 is doing much better.
Last edited:
