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

dr325i

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
jokinla said:
Please list these for us.
Click to expand...

One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...
 
P

Praetorian

Professional
tistrapukcipeht said:
Completely different eras, no one is able to serve and volley nowadays and get to semis of Master Series, let alone win a slam. If Agassi played in this era for the past 7 years, He would not win a single slam, any top 10 now is better than Agassi ever was, you may disagree.

The conditions were a lot faster as well, shorter points, there is almost no way Sampras would ever rally 10 shots with a 85sq in these conditions they play nowadays, it has been changed to have more rallies unfortunately.

As for the racquet, Sampras last used that racquet more than a decade ago, since his retirement he has not used it anymore, rather a 98 as some people have seen and proven.

If a 85sq is that good and has more advantages why nobody uses it? Why doesn't Federer go back to it?? No performance at the highest level, rather a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Yes.. but if Agassi was born in 1985 and took advantage of the technology and advanced training techniques now used by the top pros, Nadal probably wouldn't have won one. The power of what-ifs...
 
J

jokinla

Hall of Fame
dr325i said:
One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...
Click to expand...

This is your list of the "many career achievements and milestones" of Lendl's that Fed is trying to catch up to?
 
S

sunof tennis

Professional
dr325i said:
One right off the bat would be that Federer had plush childhood and top notch coaching/training. Lendl -- not so much -- growing up and trining in Czechoslovakia at that time was nothing like Switzerland. And, he achieved a lot in an extremely tough competition environment.

Using simple words: Spoiled vs. not so much...
Click to expand...

How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments
 
dr325i

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
sunof tennis said:
How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments
Click to expand...

That is the base for everything else, btw. You will learn that once you grow up and have kids of your own...

IMO, you cannot compare the two -- totally different times, totally different competition, totally different strokes.
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...

That is why the whole GOAT discussion is absolute waste of time

EX: 2012 BMW (F30) runs faster, smoother, corners better, sounds and looks better than 1989 BMW (E30), but every car enthusiast knows which one to enjoy better... Different generations and standrds...
 
J

jokinla

Hall of Fame
sunof tennis said:
How in the world does that make Lendl a better tennis player? Frankly, this argument is a complete red herring. You don't list their respective records for the obvious reason that Roger's accomplishments dwarf Lendl's. You don't go through a stroke analaysis because everyone of Roger's strokes is better than Lendl's. Instead you try to divert the argument by talking about their respective childhood environments
Click to expand...

Of course, which is why neither him nor the other guy has listed the "many" achievements Fed is trying to catch, what a joke, but that pretty much sums up this place.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
dr325i said:
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...
Click to expand...
Well, he'd likely have all of Lendl's US Opens, plus Becker's from 89, Sampras' first one, McEnroe's from 84, Connor's from 82 and 83 and for sure Wilander's from 88. Give or take the odd anomaly Federer would have 7 or 8 US Opens.

One thing for sure also is Federer would also have Wilander's 88 Aussie Open and probably his 83 and 84 wins on grass too. Kreik's two Aussie Opens would be Federer's too, as would Lendl's from 89 and 90. That's 7 Aussie Opens right there - for sure - perhaps more if he snuck another off Edberg at Kooyong.

Wimbledon... you think a 17 year old Becker would beat Federer? Dream on. Or Cash? One of Edberg's wasn't particularly legendary also... That's 4 Wimbledon's right there for sure without even going back to McEnroe or Connors' in the early 80s.

French Open? Well, for sure he's got Noah, Chang and Gomez's titles without even needing to change his shirt. They were lucky chump champions there without doubt.

All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering either of Edberg's 2 Wimbledon titles or any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles.

We know for sure, for sure, that Federer would smoke a stack of majors off the historic title holders in the 80s. It's pretty much a given.

So, you're correct. Federer would not have 17 slams in his pocket if he played in Lendl's generation. He'd have 20 or more.
 
Last edited:
Borrelli

Borrelli

Semi-Pro
Bobby Jr said:
All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering either of Edberg's 2 Wimbledon titles or any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles.
.
Click to expand...

Borg eh? I think that might be pushing it a little, considering he can't beat Nadal on clay and many believe that Borg was equal or even better.
 
T

Tennusdude

Semi-Pro
It seems when Federer gets nervous he hits his forehand out by at least 2 feet at times. It would seem if he had a bigger frame he would be able to hit them out by at least 3 feet. Just a thought. :)
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Borrelli said:
Borg eh? I think that might be pushing it a little, considering he can't beat Nadal on clay and many believe that Borg was equal or even better.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read what I wrote again. It says: "All this is without even being overly ambitious in the early 80s or commandeering ... any of Wilander, Borg or Lendl's French Open titles."

I.e. not taking any of Borg's titles on clay.
 
W

Wilander

Rookie
Its getting harder with every year. Never have so many players trained professionelly. For Lendl half of his early round matches have been like a walk in the park. Today the top-guys cant take the first rounds easy, as they would be in troubles soon. The difference from a player ranked 100 to a guy ranked 10, has become closer every year. To say it was harder during Lendl's time, is wrong.
 
S

sunof tennis

Professional
dr325i said:
That is the base for everything else, btw. You will learn that once you grow up and have kids of your own...

IMO, you cannot compare the two -- totally different times, totally different competition, totally different strokes.
We can speculate what if. One thing for sure, Federer would not have 17 Slams in his pocket if he were playing during Lendl's generation...

That is why the whole GOAT discussion is absolute waste of time

EX: 2012 BMW (F30) runs faster, smoother, corners better, sounds and looks better than 1989 BMW (E30), but every car enthusiast knows which one to enjoy better... Different generations and standrds...
Click to expand...

Wow. Reading your post would be a shock to my eldest daughers who are in their 20s.
It is not my fault you can't come up with any facts to support your erroneous assertion that Lendl was a better player than Federer. Further, I have never heard any tennis expert make such a claim. Most experts don't even place Lendl in the same tier of greatness as Federer, Laver, Sampras, Borg.
I don't disagree that there is a difficulty in comparing players accross generations which is one of the reasons I don't believe that Federer is the undisputed GOAT. However, Federer started his career with a PS85 with gut strings which is not very different from the racquets that Lendl played with in the late 80s. Never saw Lendl do the things that Roger can do with the ball.
 
J

jokinla

Hall of Fame
Wilander said:
Its getting harder with every year. Never have so many players trained professionelly. For Lendl half of his early round matches have been like a walk in the park. Today the top-guys cant take the first rounds easy, as they would be in troubles soon. The difference from a player ranked 100 to a guy ranked 10, has become closer every year. To say it was harder during Lendl's time, is wrong.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I laugh when people try and compare Laver to Fed, he certainly wasn't facing the type of competition early on that Fed is, not to mention he won 3 of his 4 on grass, certainly something Fed could have done numerous times.
 
dimeaxe

dimeaxe

Semi-Pro
Nole suggests...this one
1463573-img-novak-djokovic-kuerten-tenis.jpg
 
gplracer

gplracer

Hall of Fame
Federer shanks balls because he hits so early on the rise so much. Also, a shank on a 90 inch frame still would not be a good shot on a 95 inch frame. For us it might make a difference but not for him.
 
Mick

Mick

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

probably because all the players that Federer have lost to have used bigger racquets :)
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
lendlmac said:
Now we can all agree!

I guess we can all agree then. Federer at his age, will not surpass the greatness of Ivan Lendl..... Lendl dominated men's tennis and to this day, Federer is still trying to "catch up" toovertake Lendl in many career achievements and milestones....

Federer needs a larger racquet to compete...
Click to expand...
Yes, because Lendl won 17 Slams during his career. :???: He didn't even win HALF as many!

Oh, and Lendl dominated men's tennis with a 72 sq. in. racquet so CLEARLY Lendl needed a 98 sq. in. racquet in order to compete. :???:
 
L

lendlmac

Rookie
The writing is on the wall!

If Federer wants to compete with the younger kids with bigger frames, he has to uprade! He wont be Dimitrov, Wrawrinka, Dolgopolov and all the young kids at his avanced aged.

Dimitrov, with cramps, easily dispatched the world' #1 player with cramps, while Djoker was 100% healthy! Federer needs a bigger raquet!
 
vandre

vandre

Hall of Fame
lendlmac said:
The writing is on the wall!

If Federer wants to compete with the younger kids with bigger frames, he has to uprade! He wont be Dimitrov, Wrawrinka, Dolgopolov and all the young kids at his avanced aged.

Dimitrov, with cramps, easily dispatched the world' #1 player with cramps, while Djoker was 100% healthy! Federer needs a bigger raquet!
Click to expand...

you do know that fed owns a 13-1 h2h vs. wawrinka (he's beaten stan 13 times and lost only once) so i think he's competing just fine against him. he's 1-0 versus dolgo (fed's won the only time they've played). fed and baby fed have never squared off in a match yet so who knows how that will go down

we do all understand that a larger racquet is not the fountain of youth, correct? like someone else posted, shanks off a 90 in stick don't automatically turn into screaming winners with a 95. any time there is a bump up in headsize there is a slight chance that the serve might be negatively affected (it was rumored aa shaved a couple of inches off his sticks near the end of his career to try to get more out of his serve). is that worth risking some cheap and easy points off the serve?
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
lendlmac said:
The writing is on the wall!

If Federer wants to compete with the younger kids with bigger frames, he has to uprade! He wont be Dimitrov, Wrawrinka, Dolgopolov and all the young kids at his avanced aged.

Dimitrov, with cramps, easily dispatched the world' #1 player with cramps, while Djoker was 100% healthy! Federer needs a bigger raquet!
Click to expand...
So why isn't the logical conclusion that Djokovic also needs to switch to a bigger racquet? :confused:
 
jackcrawford

jackcrawford

Professional
I used to say he should switch after he had a bad patch, but after he won Wimbledon last year I finally figured out he must know what frame is best for him:wink:
 
H

HIGHER_PRIMATE

Banned
When someone comments in this section on a top 4 player, you can immediately consider it non-sequitor if the poster has anything to do with a top 4 player in there avatar or username.
 
M

monfed

Guest
I do believe Fed could use a bigger racquet,what's he got to lose? Try something different,who knows he may feel more in control of the rallies against the grinders.
 
Carolina Racquet

Carolina Racquet

Professional
So funny reading all of the comments from the armchair quarterbacks in the forum.

Don't you think a legend like Federer knows what kind equipment he needs?

Yeah, once in a while he shanks a few backhands. The answer is 5-10 more inches in frame size? Hardly.

Let him keep winning 90+% of his matches, even at age 31, and just enjoy watching him while we can.
 
mightyrick

mightyrick

Legend
monfed said:
I do believe Fed could use a bigger racquet,what's he got to lose? Try something different,who knows he may feel more in control of the rallies against the grinders.
Click to expand...

He should have done this two years ago. I don't think he should have went to a 100 sq. in. head, but going to the PS95 would have been great.

His serve these days needs more pop. I've played with both the PS90 and PS95. The PS90 has *zero* power. You have to be a liquid whip with iron wrists to create any action while serving using that stick.

I strongly feel if he used the 95, he wouldn't have to push his back so hard on the serve. I bet he'd add 5mph... which would do wonders for him. More power in the racquet means less energy expended by the body to make up for it.

Roger hates changing things, though. I guess he can hardly be blamed given his results.

But that PS90 has seriously taken a toll on his body.
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
mightyrick said:
He should have done this two years ago. I don't think he should have went to a 100 sq. in. head, but going to the PS95 would have been great.

His serve these days needs more pop. I've played with both the PS90 and PS95. The PS90 has *zero* power. You have to be a liquid whip with iron wrists to create any action while serving using that stick.

I strongly feel if he used the 95, he wouldn't have to push his back so hard on the serve. I bet he'd add 5mph... which would do wonders for him. More power in the racquet means less energy expended by the body to make up for it.

Roger hates changing things, though. I guess he can hardly be blamed given his results.

But that PS90 has seriously taken a toll on his body.
Click to expand...
Most people say they can serve better with smaller racquets than with larger racquets, myself included. That's why the PS 6.0 85 is still one of the best serving racquets ever. The Dunlop AG100 (90 sq. in.) is also a great serving racquet, as is the K90. It's also why Phillipoussis could serve just as big with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet as he could with his regular graphite racquet.
 
2

2Hare

Semi-Pro
mightyrick said:
He should have done this two years ago. I don't think he should have went to a 100 sq. in. head, but going to the PS95 would have been great.

His serve these days needs more pop. I've played with both the PS90 and PS95. The PS90 has *zero* power. You have to be a liquid whip with iron wrists to create any action while serving using that stick.

I strongly feel if he used the 95, he wouldn't have to push his back so hard on the serve. I bet he'd add 5mph... which would do wonders for him. More power in the racquet means less energy expended by the body to make up for it.

Roger hates changing things, though. I guess he can hardly be blamed given his results.

But that PS90 has seriously taken a toll on his body.
Click to expand...

You have to play it leaded up at 12 like Federer and use gut/alu rough at low 50s or you haven't used PS90 at all! At this setup, PS90 is a completely different beast! It's so much more powerful and spinny. It's a very string sensitive racquet.

As for if Federer should've switched to a bigger head. I don't think so. That would require him changing years of muscle memory and tactics fitted for the racquet. It's hard for a recreational player, I can imagine that it's even harder for a pro who used the racquet since he's a teenager.
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
scotus said:
Every shank is pretty much a point lost. Reduce that, he might have a better chance.

Yes, a larger-head racquet will help him reduce the shanks.
Click to expand...

BreakPoint said:
If that were true I'm sure Federer would have switched to a larger-head racquet already.

It may help you reduce your shanks but it wouldn't help Federer reduce his shanks because no one else on the planet hits the ball the way that he does. Besides, most of his shanks are off of the side of the frame and a larger head racquet has more side to the frame to shank. :)

Heck, even I shank just as many balls with a larger racquet as with a smaller racquet and I don't take the ball nearly as early nor do I swing nearly as fast nor do I roll over the ball on contact like Federer does. I'm sure this is even more true with Federer.
Click to expand...
Another old post of mine. ^^^

Well, looks like I was right about Federer's shanking. :)
 
S

scotus

G.O.A.T.
I haven't watched his matches since the racquet switch, but forgive me if I am reluctant to trust your account of how many shanks he is hitting now vs in the past based on what "seems" to you.

Anyway, stuff your childish celebrations for now and get back to me in a few months when Federer has had the time to adjust to the new frame.
 
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
scotus said:
I haven't watched his matches since the racquet switch, but forgive me if I am reluctant to trust your account of how many shanks he is hitting now vs in the past based on what "seems" to you.

Anyway, stuff your childish celebrations for now and get back to me in a few months when Federer has had the time to adjust to the new frame.
Click to expand...
Seriously, you need to watch the matches. Or at least go though the match threads and the other threads in this gear forum about his racquet switch. I'm not the only one talking about his shaking. Heck, I didn't even mention it until all these other people kept bringing it up.

Here's one thread for example: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=470730

And I said "seems" because, no, I don't sit around and count the exact number of shanks he hits per match for every match throughout his career.

To "adjust" to this new frame to stop shanking would mean he needs to change something about the way he hits the ball with the new frame. Heck, if he could do that, he would have changed something about the way he hits the ball with his old frame to stop shanking.
 
Last edited:
P

Praetorian

Professional
scotus said:
I haven't watched his matches since the racquet switch, but forgive me if I am reluctant to trust your account of how many shanks he is hitting now vs in the past based on what "seems" to you.

Anyway, stuff your childish celebrations for now and get back to me in a few months when Federer has had the time to adjust to the new frame.
Click to expand...

LOL... as opposed to the childish celebrations, of posters, for just about switching to a racket even before even playing a match. I just find hilarious.:):):)
 
P

paulcd77

New User
BreakPoint said:
To "adjust" to this new frame to stop shanking would mean he needs to change something about the way he hits the ball with the new frame. Heck, if he could do that, he would have changed something about the way he hits the ball with his old frame to stop shanking.
Click to expand...

from watching the practice clips and his matches vs. hajek and mayer, it's clear that he has changed something. he's had to adjust his swing to compensate for the differences in the new racquet compared to the old. the adjustments are subtle, but they're there.

i don't see any relevance in all the arguments/debates about racquet size, composition, physics, etc. people are naive to believe that another racquet will drastically improve federer's fortunes. the issue is much more basic. federer isn't the player he once was, and djokovic and murray (and others) have either hit or are reaching their primes. during wimbledon, patrick mcenroe noted the increasing parity in the game, that "the big four" aren't nearly as formidable in the minds of the rest of the tour players as they once were. tennis is as much psychological (some would say more) as it is physical, and federer's attempted racquet switch is evidence of that. many will judge (they've been doing so a lot around here already, which is ridiculous) whether the change is a net positive or not based on the match results. he's ultimately the only one who can answer that question, and his barometer is likely going to include factors other than his win-loss record.

(btw, mr. prokes' outrageous predictions aside, the Wall Street Journal article being cited in other threads offers a lucid perspective.)
 
Last edited:
HRB

HRB

Hall of Fame
BreakPoint said:
........but nobody ever says that his opponent needs a SMALLER racquet whenever they lose to Federer? :confused:

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.......
Click to expand...

You really struggle with this???

Now you kinda make sense to me since I read this idiotic statement: "Isn't the rationale here that the winner is using the superior racquet"...Now I kinda understand most of your dumb stubborn post all over this board maniacally defending Roger sticking with a stick "spec" that has proven to be outdated (NEWS FLASH...that is what we call a fact, when less than 15% of a given sports professionals use something, that defines OUTDATED!!!!!

In short..NO ..that is not the rationale..the rationale is that the winner played better, or at least good enough to win. If people had that rationale, they'd be changing sticks every damn tourney when someone beats them.

The actual reason for mentioning the stick switch is it is ATTAINABLE change that may prolong a career and take care of some deficiencies as Roger ages. Roger realizes that SAMPRES REGRETTED NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO OPPORTUNITIES TO TRY NEW STICKS (then again, you'll ignore that because Roger has a few more slams...like a fool..LMAO).

He CAN'T...get younger, quicker, and have more drive and hunger (kinda tough when you've won everything to win), but he CAN experiment with equipment...so THAT is why it is suggested.

Apparently the mere thought of Roger changing something gets your panties all in a bind! CHANGE HAPPENS DEAL WITH IT.

Damn...this is chuck full of logic, you sooo hate that...looking forward to your dumb-***, stubborn, can't ever admit you're wrong response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BreakPoint
Why do most pros today use 95 to 100 sq. in. racquets?
2
Replies
65
Views
11K
TennisHound
TennisHound
O
Federer needs a new racquet!!!
2
Replies
87
Views
10K
hurworld
H
J
Federer needs to switch to a bigger racquet
2 3
Replies
135
Views
8K
abmk
abmk
L
Put to Rest, that Federer needs a bigger racquet, forever thread!
2 3
Replies
142
Views
10K
BreakPoint
BreakPoint
T
Federer needs a new racquet
2
Replies
86
Views
11K
junk
junk
Top