Fed said he likes his racket on serve, but...
- Thread starter PDR
- Start date
Justin Gimelstob interviewing Roger Federer in Cincinnati
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNVuuO9QZLE
@5:15 What about the new racquet? How's that helping you?
I think I have a bit more margin on my serve, in particular. I think I have more spin, more air on it, more pop, as well. I guess, overall, I'm still looking for that perfect rythm from the baseline still. But then again, here in Toronto we are extremely fast, you can't expect to make no errors. ... I think every week that goes by, I'm playing better & better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNVuuO9QZLE
@5:15 What about the new racquet? How's that helping you?
I think I have a bit more margin on my serve, in particular. I think I have more spin, more air on it, more pop, as well. I guess, overall, I'm still looking for that perfect rythm from the baseline still. But then again, here in Toronto we are extremely fast, you can't expect to make no errors. ... I think every week that goes by, I'm playing better & better.
Dear Djordje
Rookie
Fed needs to switch to Babulat! :twisted:
burn1986
Banned
TennisLogic
Semi-Pro
Like Sampras?
burn1986
Banned
The RF97 Autograph is too big and heavy for him. Why someone insisted that he needs a bigger, heavier, and harder to swing and control racquet is beyond me. Sure, he probably needed a larger headed racquet but at least make it lighter. A player doesn't need something more demanding than what he's already using, if he's getting older.
asifallasleep
Hall of Fame
I made the point that he perhaps would have played better if he had his 90 in the windy conditions at the Open. It's a much easier racquet to get around and Fed had so many shanks getting the heavier and bigger and thicker RF97 around on his forehand. He was late sooooo often.
Yeah your right.... The 90 was really working for him over the last few years. This big 97 has caused nothing but damage and he is playing horrible.
Oh wait, you are wrong yet again - He has won the most matches on tour this year. Proof that the 97 works for him.
People need to get over this.....fast.
Since no Babolat player even reached the semis in mens or womens, your statement has no merit.
burn1986
Banned
"...most matches on tour this year." Out of who? He has won more matchess on tour this year than anyone else? Or he has won more matches on tour this year than any year in his career? Or he has more matches on tour this year, than any year that he used his tour 90?
asifallasleep
Hall of Fame
I never said one racquet was better than the other, I merely suggested in windy conditions against a hard hitter, he may have been able to get the 90 around quicker than his 97. How you want to read into or translate that into a bigger picture is up to you.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I'd say 17 Grand Slams qualifies as "working for him".
When you can't even move because of back pain, no racquet in the world is going to help you.
kingcheetah
Hall of Fame
Interesting insight from Federer. If he likes the serve, then he probably appreciates the pop one could get with a 97" racquet... and he seems to be able to handle the weight as his serve quality hasn't dropped off.
But if he's not comfortable at the baseline, maybe between the new racquet's higher swing weight and the likelihood that Fed has lost a touch of quickness due to age have led to him not being able to time his strokes as well as he could with the 90. Obviously this hasn't been a huge problem as he made a hell of a run at wimbledon and was playing well at the USO up until the Monfils match. I bet Federer will eventually gel with the new racquet... 1 year vs about 12 is a bit of a difference.
But if he's not comfortable at the baseline, maybe between the new racquet's higher swing weight and the likelihood that Fed has lost a touch of quickness due to age have led to him not being able to time his strokes as well as he could with the 90. Obviously this hasn't been a huge problem as he made a hell of a run at wimbledon and was playing well at the USO up until the Monfils match. I bet Federer will eventually gel with the new racquet... 1 year vs about 12 is a bit of a difference.
robok9
Semi-Pro
well said.
I guess it depends on what you class "a few years" - Certainly Feds Grand Slam wins wouldn't come into "the last few years" in my opinion, but appreciate its open to interpretation.
The point I was trying to make is that people who call for Fed to go back to his 90 are usually forgetting (ignorant to) the fact he's slower, older and lacking in power compared to "a few years ago". There was no way he was going to regain his winning ways going down that route!
0d1n
Hall of Fame
His specs are customized to his exact needs and dialed in so the racquet swings to his preference.
SO...how can a SMALLER hitting surface help against a hard hitter in windy conditions, with the smaller margin for error and all that, when in windy conditions you need MORE margin.
How does that logic work in your mind ??
TennisLogic
Semi-Pro
You are right.
He should play with this http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_Two_BLX_/descpageRCWILSON-BLX2.html
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I don't understand the correlation between age and size of one's racquet? Why can't older people use small racquets? Why is it necessary to use big racquets? I kept switching to smaller and smaller racquets as I got older: 98 to 95 to 90 to 85 over the past 15 years.
Heck, all-time great Pancho Gonzales was still using a 60 sq. in. racquet into his 40's on the pro tour:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
You need even more control in windy conditions. Smaller racquets give you more control.
Some of the older folk on this forum don't understand that mate lol.
Tennis has evolved, people have evolved (bigger, stronger, faster), there are more athletes playing than ever before (perhaps not as good "tennis" players, but definitely more "athletes").
No offense BP, but I highly doubt you are playing serious players. If you were, you certainly wouldn't keep getting a smaller racket.
Its great that you can keep up with other guys of your standard with the racket you want - But for Federer, he openly admitted he needed to go bigger.
Please stop all of this bitterness towards bigger rackets. Just be happy you are still amazing with yours......
michaelscoots
Rookie
Here's my assessment:
Marin is hot right now, but even still, RF needs to go back to what really works with HIS game; the 90! RF’s fitness is great; his movement is great; his drive is there – but he’s not gelling with the newer 97sq in. racquet.
Slices and Ground strokes:
With the new frame, most slices don’t drive down into the ground like with the 90. Instead they pop up so the opponent can tee off, or sail or go into the net. The same is true at the baseline: Many of RF’s shots that would usually be very flat and fast (taking time away from the opponent), are now sitting up; right into the strike zone of a guy like Marin Cilic!
Forehand:
Arguably one of the most lethal forehands in the business; RF doesn’t seem comfortable in swinging out almost half the time. Yeah, they’ve increased the tension, but with the bigger beam and head size, RF is still getting too much of a trampoline effect. This works for many guys with certain strokes, but not with RF’s natural strokes. Especially when he’s in the air hitting an air forehand…those are so lethal with the 90…the kinetic energy from his legs travels through his body and through the racquet pounding the ball into the court; many times this is flat shot. With the 97, it sits up much of the time as another tee off shot for the opponent or just sails.
Approach:
These are the shots RF can’t wait to get; he has one of the best approaches in the game, but with a 97 sq. in frame he’s just like everyone else outside of the top 10 on that shot; it’s just not as reliable.
Volleys:
Not as accurate, and can’t deaden the ball as easily with the bigger frame/beam.
Half volley:
A true weapon when RF is on a fast surface against a heavy hitter. The 97 doesn't direct is as well…often sending it sailing and/or not where he intended. With the 90, this is a lethal and accurate shot (way more control on this shot than with a bigger frame).
The Power Argument:
As you get older isn't it about having a great accurate serve and volleying when possible to end the point? So, that implies that one would want more control. I'm not sure, getting into as many power baseline rallies as possible is the right strategy to take. And I would argue, since RF can swing out more freely with the 90, that he would have a more powerful/linear shot when he needs to end the point with a winner (while having more control).
Conclusion:
RF should go back to what really works for his game. Especially now that he has addressed his back issues with the proper PT regimen. It was important to try the experiment b/c you never know the outcome. It’s almost as if he has to work harder to create similar results, but doesn't have all the weapons/shots.
As BP once posted, RF beat a healthy Nole and a healthy Andy to capture the Wimbledon title in 2012, and had a minor back issues at that time. And, RF was using the 90; the same frame he won 16 other slams with in the past. Now that he's healthy imagine what he can do with it again? I say bring the racquet back that was like an extension of his arm!
Wilson created the PS85 for Connors. He tried it, then went back to the stick that worked for his game; the Wilson T2000. Many called it a dinosaur back then, but Connors still holds the record for the most titles won! Much of that has to do with the fact that he stayed with the racquet that was like an extension of his arm, all of those years.
Wilson will no doubt sell tons of the new frames. Most folks play with frames that are 95/98/100. Why not create a 90 version – many always wanted his exact frame anyway (so more sales for Wilson); but more importantly he can be reunited with the tool that gels with his game so well! Get it ready for the year end final, then release it to the public during the Australian Open next year.
Those of you who play with the 90 or 85, and like how those smaller frames work with your game most likely know what I'm referring to above. The 90 isn't for everyone, but it most certainly has worked for RF. Bring it back baby!
Marin is hot right now, but even still, RF needs to go back to what really works with HIS game; the 90! RF’s fitness is great; his movement is great; his drive is there – but he’s not gelling with the newer 97sq in. racquet.
Slices and Ground strokes:
With the new frame, most slices don’t drive down into the ground like with the 90. Instead they pop up so the opponent can tee off, or sail or go into the net. The same is true at the baseline: Many of RF’s shots that would usually be very flat and fast (taking time away from the opponent), are now sitting up; right into the strike zone of a guy like Marin Cilic!
Forehand:
Arguably one of the most lethal forehands in the business; RF doesn’t seem comfortable in swinging out almost half the time. Yeah, they’ve increased the tension, but with the bigger beam and head size, RF is still getting too much of a trampoline effect. This works for many guys with certain strokes, but not with RF’s natural strokes. Especially when he’s in the air hitting an air forehand…those are so lethal with the 90…the kinetic energy from his legs travels through his body and through the racquet pounding the ball into the court; many times this is flat shot. With the 97, it sits up much of the time as another tee off shot for the opponent or just sails.
Approach:
These are the shots RF can’t wait to get; he has one of the best approaches in the game, but with a 97 sq. in frame he’s just like everyone else outside of the top 10 on that shot; it’s just not as reliable.
Volleys:
Not as accurate, and can’t deaden the ball as easily with the bigger frame/beam.
Half volley:
A true weapon when RF is on a fast surface against a heavy hitter. The 97 doesn't direct is as well…often sending it sailing and/or not where he intended. With the 90, this is a lethal and accurate shot (way more control on this shot than with a bigger frame).
The Power Argument:
As you get older isn't it about having a great accurate serve and volleying when possible to end the point? So, that implies that one would want more control. I'm not sure, getting into as many power baseline rallies as possible is the right strategy to take. And I would argue, since RF can swing out more freely with the 90, that he would have a more powerful/linear shot when he needs to end the point with a winner (while having more control).
Conclusion:
RF should go back to what really works for his game. Especially now that he has addressed his back issues with the proper PT regimen. It was important to try the experiment b/c you never know the outcome. It’s almost as if he has to work harder to create similar results, but doesn't have all the weapons/shots.
As BP once posted, RF beat a healthy Nole and a healthy Andy to capture the Wimbledon title in 2012, and had a minor back issues at that time. And, RF was using the 90; the same frame he won 16 other slams with in the past. Now that he's healthy imagine what he can do with it again? I say bring the racquet back that was like an extension of his arm!
Wilson created the PS85 for Connors. He tried it, then went back to the stick that worked for his game; the Wilson T2000. Many called it a dinosaur back then, but Connors still holds the record for the most titles won! Much of that has to do with the fact that he stayed with the racquet that was like an extension of his arm, all of those years.
Wilson will no doubt sell tons of the new frames. Most folks play with frames that are 95/98/100. Why not create a 90 version – many always wanted his exact frame anyway (so more sales for Wilson); but more importantly he can be reunited with the tool that gels with his game so well! Get it ready for the year end final, then release it to the public during the Australian Open next year.
Those of you who play with the 90 or 85, and like how those smaller frames work with your game most likely know what I'm referring to above. The 90 isn't for everyone, but it most certainly has worked for RF. Bring it back baby!
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
What does transportation have anything at all to do with a sport?
SouthboundAgain
Rookie
The new frame is not the problem. The problem is he's getting into the twilight of his career and is not quite as sharp. He has more ups and downs than he used to, which is completely normal and happens to all athletes as they age.
I think he shanks less backhands with the new frame, and serves slightly better. He also volleys very well with it.
I think he shanks less backhands with the new frame, and serves slightly better. He also volleys very well with it.
sixone90
Hall of Fame
What does transportation have anything at all to do with a sport?
Wait...you've never heard of an analogy?
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't understand the correlation between age and size of one's racquet? Why can't older people use small racquets? Why is it necessary to use big racquets? I kept switching to smaller and smaller racquets as I got older: 98 to 95 to 90 to 85 over the past 15 years.
Heck, all-time great Pancho Gonzales was still using a 60 sq. in. racquet into his 40's on the pro tour:
Really high sweetspot on that frame. That would be like a 28 inch modern frame.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I have. But an analogy has to be relevant to each other.
People need transportation to get from point A to point B quickly. Nobody needs tennis. Tennis is nothing but a game made up by people with rules. The rules can be anything people decide it should be. People can easily decide that tennis can only be played with 50 sq. in. racquets on a court the size of a football field and a net that's 10 feet high. Rules and regulations are decided by people for any sport. People don't ride horses anymore for transportation for numerous reasons, none of which have anything to do with rules nor regulations.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
That's true. The smaller the hoop, the further the sweetspot is away from your hand so the greater your reach. Maybe that's why as your speed and footwork degrade as you get older you get to more balls with smaller racquets.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
The weight is not related to the head size. They can make frames weigh (and balance) whatever they wish within reason.
Ditto to the above. I don't even think it has a higher swingweight from the cals I've seen.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Say what?
Seriously, there is some rubbish posted on this site but to suggest the 97 wont be as easily swung in the wind as easily as a 90 is just mind-boggling.
He played a guy who was redlining and didn't slump in the match. Federer himself may have been a bit below par given his previous match -the racquet most likely made about 0.001% difference. If anything there is as much evidence he should do better when struggling since his serve in particular will benefit.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
That makes sense in a mid-week Breakpoint brainfart logic kind of way.
And so was everyone else on tour back then, there wasn't much other choice, that is the difference. Pancho's concession to his advancing age was to switch from a wood frame to an aluminum one for more power and maneuverability--but it's not like he had a lot of other options. Federer's concession to his advancing age is to switch to a larger headed frame. Pancho did what he had to do to remain competitive and Federer is doing the same. It's naïve to believe Federer would suddenly return to the form he had 5 or 6 years ago simply by returning to his 90--he'd only have a chance if everyone else were using 90 sq. in. frames. But they're not. Everyone here has a cow whenever he loses but the reality is Federer would not be winning has much as he currently is with the old frame. He's not switching back--get over it already.
Last edited:
Pancho also famously remarked, after hitting with brother-in-law Andre Agassi's oversize, "If I had played with this I would have never missed a volley."I don't understand the correlation between age and size of one's racquet? Why can't older people use small racquets? Why is it necessary to use big racquets? I kept switching to smaller and smaller racquets as I got older: 98 to 95 to 90 to 85 over the past 15 years.
Heck, all-time great Pancho Gonzales was still using a 60 sq. in. racquet into his 40's on the pro tour:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If you don't understand that regardless of the size of the hoop, the racquet length is still 27 inches so that the racquet with the smaller hoop has the center of it's stringbed further away from your hand then I can't help you.
Wow, look at how long that shaft is on the racquet with the tiny head:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
He also wouldn't have had as much control on his volleys. What's good about not missing the ball if the ball goes out?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Almost no one else was using a 90 when he won his 17 Slams, either.JW10S said:
BTW, those steel or aluminum frames back in the '60's and '70's were no better than the wood racquets at the time. It's not like the difference between a PS 6.0 85 and an APD. That's why the great majority of people (pros included) stuck with wood racquets until the early 80's.
He beat Philippoussis, Safin and Hewitt in the finals to win 3 Slams and they were using smaller racquets than he was. Were they the only ones he played with smaller heads on his way to the others? Hhhmmm? Don't bother, I know the answer. And since you did not make any reference to it I will assume that I totally blew your pathetic and sophomoric Pancho Gonzalez analogy out of the water. Federer has switched to a larger frame, get over it little man. And your statement that there was no difference between wood and metal racquets is absolutely laughable. You sound more desperate, foolish, and out of touch with every post. I gave you too much credit calling you just naïve...
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um...Hewitt's Yonex was a SRD 90 so it was 90 sq. in., and no one has proven that the PC600 is actually smaller than 90 sq. in.. And even if it was really 89.5 sq. in., how much performance difference is there in 0.5 sq. in.? Out of the roughly 118 matches Federer won in 17 Slams, how many opponent's were using 90 sq. in. or smaller racquets? The majority?JW10S said:
If metal racquets were so great, why didn't everybody permanently switch to them in the 60's? Why were most players still using wood racquets in the 70's and early 80's? Why were most pros like Borg and McEnroe still using wood racquets? How did they manage to keep beating Connors?
So if you want to believe that the performance difference between a T-2000 or Head Pro and a Jack Kramer Auto or Maxply Fort is at least as large as the performance difference between a PS 85 and an APD then be my guest. History has shown otherwise.
HAHAHAHA!!! I clicked on your name and read some of your posts, you are the one who says a 95" racquet feels "huge", and a 22 mm beam is all but a widebody to your oh so sensitive feel. Yet you can't tell the difference between a metal and wood racquet. Oh yeah, I forgot, you're the one who can't tell who's who if the 2 players are wearing the same color kits.
So, by your "logic" (a term I use loosely) since you say more players were using wood racquets back in the day that must mean they were better, then today since more players now use 95"+ frames that, using your same logic, must mean they are better. History does not refute that. You speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
I met and took some lessons from Pancho and he told me the aluminum racquet prolonged his career greatly. Federer will likely say the same about his new racquet.
I'm done with you little man, Federer now uses a 97" frame, DEAL WITH IT!
So, by your "logic" (a term I use loosely) since you say more players were using wood racquets back in the day that must mean they were better, then today since more players now use 95"+ frames that, using your same logic, must mean they are better. History does not refute that. You speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
I met and took some lessons from Pancho and he told me the aluminum racquet prolonged his career greatly. Federer will likely say the same about his new racquet.
I'm done with you little man, Federer now uses a 97" frame, DEAL WITH IT!
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Where did I say I couldn't tell the difference between metal racquets and wood racquets?
Oh, I could tell the difference. That's how I knew that metal racquets did not perform any better than wood racquets.No pro today would be willing to go up against Nadal with a PS 6.0 85. Yet, back in the 70's almost every pro went up against Connors with a wood racquet. If Connors's metal racquet was so superior, why did so many pros think they could beat him using a wood racquet? I'll tell you why? Because the popular opinion back then was using a T-2000 metal racquet actually put you at a disadvantage compared to a wood racquet. I was there, I know. I tried many metal racquets but didn't find that I played significantly better than with wood racquets. Most people felt the same way and that's why the great majority of players continued to use wood racquets even though metal racquets were available for over a decade. Now graphite racquets are a different story. Graphite was clearly better than wood or metal and that's why everyone switched to graphite and both wood and metal racquets went by the wayside. However, that never happened with metal racquets. Metal racquets never supplanted wood racquets because they were not clearly superior to wood racquets.
Why do so many pros continue to use old model racquets with paintjobs? Oh, could it be because they like using what they've been using for many years? And what racquet has Federer been using for many years? Oh yeah, that would be a 90. But I really don't care if he switches back to the 90 or continues to use the RF97. He's a big boy.
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Not if you're not hitting it in the sweetspot, and WIND makes that HARDER to do.
What a load of cr4p. Fed is serving better than he has in years, and his net game is better than it was in...well...just about...ever.
He's not moving like he was in 2006-2007, that's the main difference. He's still among the best...but not quite up there where he was.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Well, what do you mean by "better"? Because his first serves were faster with the Tour 90. And his net game with the RF97 is no better than when he used the PS 6.0 85. In fact, his volleys were so good with the PS 6.0 85 that his game was built around serving and volleying.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Well it is about transporting a ball.What does transportation have anything at all to do with a sport?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Ofcourse you know better than Pancho.He also wouldn't have had as much control on his volleys. What's good about not missing the ball if the ball goes out?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Well it seems everybody has more or less switched to bigger rackets over the later years.
Last edited:
