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.
Federer must make the switch or he will descend even more
- Thread starter The Baseline
- Start date
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
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
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.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
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
Legend
He can not descend less.
ENJOY TENNIS
New User
At Tennis.com, Jim Courier suggests that a larger frame help him and Federer should try. People, see the interview, worth a try.
ace0001a
Semi-Pro
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
Bionic Poster
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?
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.
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
Rookie
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.
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
Professional
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
Semi-Pro
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
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
Semi-Pro
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
Bionic Poster
Actually, I was just asking for clarification of your opinion, that's all.
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?
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? :wink:
volleynets
Hall of Fame
Good points Breakpoint.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Yep.
I took Sampras' comments on him wishing he'd tried a larger head size with a grain of salt anyway. It's the strings which have changed the most and which he has elsewhere said are tantamount to cheating - implying the gains made have been significant. Frames really haven't changed all that much by comparison - and a half cm of extra hoop size here or there certainly doesn't make a world of difference compared to other factors (weight, balance, flex, strings, tension).
I've used a PS85 exclusively (other than testin frames) since I was a teen and I'm 100 leagues below Sampras - but with the strings available nowdays they have never played so well, especially in the spin department.
lawrencejin
Rookie
I think Ace makes a fair point. We should agree to disagree, since at the end of the day, we're only speculating and presenting our own opinions.
For example, Ace said: "...I wouldn't question a valid retrospective opinion of [Sampras]"
BP said: "I would because Sampras is clearly wrong"
To me, both statements are much stronger than what we can substantiate with evidence. Is Sampras' retrospective opinion unquestionably valid? No, as BP argued. But then, does that mean Sampras is clearly wrong? Again, no. The answer is: we don't know, so we cannot rule anything out in such a confident manner.
I wish we could somehow turn the time back and conduct an experiment: let Sampras play with a larger head, and see how many slams he wins. Since we cannot do that, we'll never know the answer... and I guess we'll continue to have entertaining, heated, and opinionated debates on this forum
For example, Ace said: "...I wouldn't question a valid retrospective opinion of [Sampras]"
BP said: "I would because Sampras is clearly wrong"
To me, both statements are much stronger than what we can substantiate with evidence. Is Sampras' retrospective opinion unquestionably valid? No, as BP argued. But then, does that mean Sampras is clearly wrong? Again, no. The answer is: we don't know, so we cannot rule anything out in such a confident manner.
I wish we could somehow turn the time back and conduct an experiment: let Sampras play with a larger head, and see how many slams he wins. Since we cannot do that, we'll never know the answer... and I guess we'll continue to have entertaining, heated, and opinionated debates on this forum
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I didn't mean that Sampras was clearly wrong that he couldn't have done as well or even better with a bigger racquet during his pro career. He may or may not have. What I'm saying is that his logic is clearly wrong because it's flawed logic. You can't say AFTER the fact that you would have done better if you had switched to a bigger racquet because the truth is that you just don't know. You may have done better but you may have also done worse. So it's Sampras's logic that was clearly wrong.I think Ace makes a fair point. We should agree to disagree, since at the end of the day, we're only speculating and presenting our own opinions.
For example, Ace said: "...I wouldn't question a valid retrospective opinion of [Sampras]"
BP said: "I would because Sampras is clearly wrong"
To me, both statements are much stronger than what we can substantiate with evidence. Is Sampras' retrospective opinion unquestionably valid? No, as BP argued. But then, does that mean Sampras is clearly wrong? Again, no. The answer is: we don't know, so we cannot rule anything out in such a confident manner.
I wish we could somehow turn the time back and conduct an experiment: let Sampras play with a larger head, and see how many slams he wins. Since we cannot do that, we'll never know the answer... and I guess we'll continue to have entertaining, heated, and opinionated debates on this forum
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Then how about stopping the questioning of an opinion (and choice) from a 17 slam winner.
Since he keeps playing with his current racquet, it is clear that his opinion is that it's the best racquet for him.
Makes sense ?!?!??
ace0001a
Semi-Pro
Well BP, you and everyone else are and should be entitled to an opinion. I think it's obvious here we can agree to disagree, simple as that.
OP right now is playing tennis with a badminton racket
I am going to reiterate that everyone's entitled to an opinion, we can all agree to disagree and to each their own which is what makes sense...
Maybe the OP is playing tennis with a racquetball racquet!
Lambsscroll
Hall of Fame
Courier, Edberg, Federer and Sampras could have played with the Pro Staff 95 since it was available at the same time as the PS85. But all 4 Grand Slam winners preferred the PS85. Keep in mind that now with the advent of poly strings players are stringing lower so the sweet spot has increased without sacrificing control. Also the heavier the stick the more of a sweet spot you'll have.
Last edited:
M
monfed
Guest
I'm actually starting to think he should switch. Seriously what's he gotta lose? He ain't winning squat in 13' with that paintbrush anymore,sadly.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
What does holding an opinion have anything to do with the validity of that opinion with regards to how it may work out in "real" life? I can hold the opinion that a person jumping head first off of the top floor of the Sears tower with no type of protection will survive the faceplant into the concrete sidewalk. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that doesn't mean their opinion should be given any weight in an argument.
In the case of this thread, the opinion that Federer switching to a bigger head size else he descend even more, is fallacious. If he were to switch and start winning more there is no way one can attribute that to being the primary reason, or even any part of really, for the "renewed" success. The only way this issue would even have a chance at entering a real debate would be for scientists to study Fed during the course of one or two seasons where Fed is constantly switching between head sizes during each match he plays.
To put this more succinctly, the burden of proof is on those who believe Fed changing to a larger head size would improve his game. The reverse isn't true for those who say changing will not matter because Fed has enjoyed unparalleled success with his current racquet. Those who believe no change will matter have evidence on their side. Those who believe changing will help have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up their claim at this point in time. All have a right to form an opinion but not all opinions get to enjoy the same weight in a discussion. So, there is no "agreeing to disagree". Either get some evidence to back up one's opinion or it will be treated as the joke it's put forth to be.
ace0001a
Semi-Pro
Yeah well, I am just going to agree to disagree with you...it's my perogative, 'nuff said, Peace Out!
PrimeChoice
New User
The Fed is in condition and will be in contention for another Wimbeldon Title.
The Fed is in condition and will be in contention...
The Fed is in condition and will be in contention...
PrimeChoice
New User
Fed loves his racquet, he will NOT SWITCH!
Blaxican10s
Banned
Fed needs to switch otherwise he's going to fall....down to #3 in the world. Oh no, the horrors!
PrimeChoice
New User
Ya, I bet whoever started this thread serves like a little baby.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, he played great with the 85 Original, full gut.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Ferrer doesn't hit his ground strokes with nearly as much power as Federer does, yet he is able to beat bigger guys who hit with much more power, such as Del Potro and Berdych. It ain't the power!
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Regardless of the size of his racquet, Federer will descend from now on. How many pros over the age of 32 have won Slams regardless of the size of their racquets?
Tennis is a game of the legs, not of the size of your racquet.
dominikk1985
Legend
I sometimes wonder if those guys who start those threads ever played tennis.
It is a question of his rate of descent.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Sampras already retired by the time he was Federer's age. Even if Federer just remains on the tour, that's already an improvement in the rate of descent.
PhrygianDominant
Hall of Fame
Actually, for goat considerations, all of your slams are valued in proportion to the sqare inches of your head, so federer's slams are worth more. He should go even smaller for the last 2 before he retires.
At 31 he was #1 and currently #2, I'd say that's a frozen state of descent.
Similar threads
