90 square inch too small for modern game?

R

rb120134

New User
Hi,
I am 16 years and have been playing tennis for quite a few years.
I played with the babolat pure drive gt for some time but I switched recently and now I have been using the wilson blx pro staff six one 90 for about a year. I am left handed and have a one-handed backhand. I play mostly from the baseline but I do move forward to put balls away, I am not really into volleys. I have been wondering, do you think that a 90 square inch head might be too difficult for the modern game, because when I come against a good baseliner and most people that I have encountered in competition use Babolat aeropro drive or pure drive, they start to push me around quite a bit, while I have won those matches, it is pretty tiring because you need to put in alot of power and pay attention to your setup, my trainer advised me to continue because it allows for good stroke development and my trainer likes stiffer rackets. I dont find a 90 square inch head unplayable and I really like the feel the blx offers when you hit the center of the racket as well, so do you think that I should continue to use the 90 competitive? Or is it too much for the modern game? Because I come against those 14-15 year old kids who all use those 100 square inch rackets, most that I encountered use Babolat, and it can get pretty tough.(but not too tough)
 
I think it really depends on your style of play mostly. If you are a grind it out baseliner and use alot of topspin, then the 90sq in head is probably not the best choice since you want to use alot of racket head speed and the brush up on the ball so the extra forgiveness and bigger sweetspot comes in handy for topspin. They also seem to provide more power and give you are greater margin of forgiveness for off centered shots. This tends to be the majority of the modern game players these days so you see lighter rackets with bigger head sizes.

However If you are more of a all court player and use moderate top spin, a 90 sq in head is great. It is like a scapulae to give you more feel and control. They also tend to be more on the heavy side but gives good plow through on shots so is more stable. Usually you have to provide your own power with these. Volleys are great to whip a smaller head for fast reaction time.

I personally am a 4.5 all court player so i tend to play more mid size frames. Rackets in my bag include, Yonex RDS 001 Mid, Wilson K Blade Tour, and the Blade 93. But I do have shoulder issues so have been dabbing in the lighter rackets with larger head size.
 
rb120134 said:
Hi,
I am 16 years and have been playing tennis for quite a few years.
I played with the babolat pure drive gt for some time but I switched recently and now I have been using the wilson blx pro staff six one 90 for about a year. I am left handed and have a one-handed backhand. I play mostly from the baseline but I do move forward to put balls away, I am not really into volleys. I have been wondering, do you think that a 90 square inch head might be too difficult for the modern game, because when I come against a good baseliner and most people that I have encountered in competition use Babolat aeropro drive or pure drive, they start to push me around quite a bit, while I have won those matches, it is pretty tiring because you need to put in alot of power and pay attention to your setup, my trainer advised me to continue because it allows for good stroke development and my trainer likes stiffer rackets. I dont find a 90 square inch head unplayable and I really like the feel the blx offers when you hit the center of the racket as well, so do you think that I should continue to use the 90 competitive? Or is it too much for the modern game? Because I come against those 14-15 year old kids who all use those 100 square inch rackets, most that I encountered use Babolat, and it can get pretty tough.(but not too tough)
Click to expand...

Unless you grew up playing with a midsize and your level is high enough to fully utilize a midsize frame, I truly believe a midsize frame will hold a player back. The cons outweigh the pros with this one.
 
Post #3 is the real gem.
Flatter hitters benefit from smaller headed frames.
Big spin hitters benefit from bigger headed frames.
 
Sadly the small frames are done and dusted in the modern frame . Imyself bit the bullet and moved up to 98 from 93 after 15 years
 
"NO"... definitely not at a recreational level (up to 5.5 NTPR level), but peeps will simply buy the stuff that pros are paid to endorse and because of that the answer becomes "YES"... in the sense that the commercial viability of the real midsize frames (< 93'') is indeed coming to an end.

My 2 cents.
 
John Z. said:
"NO"... definitely not at a recreational level (up to 5.5 NTPR level), but peeps will simply buy the stuff that pros are paid to endorse and because of that the answer becomes "YES"... in the sense that the commercial viability of the real midsize frames (< 93'') is indeed coming to an end.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

... You do realize that the small headsize and the heavier weight don't bother people who grew up using them, right? Regardless of market trend.
 
Which part of " commercial viability" did you not understand exactly...; this is not a prediction, it's simply happening. FYI, i'm a long time mid frame user.
 
Last edited:
John Z. said:
Which part of " commercial viability" did you not understand exactly...; this is not a prediction, it's simply happening. FYI, i'm a long time mid frame user.
Click to expand...

And which part of OP's discussion did you not understand exactly? OP didn't ask about "commercial viability".
 
John Z. said:
"NO"... definitely not at a recreational level (up to 5.5 NTPR level), but peeps will simply buy the stuff that pros are paid to endorse and because of that the answer becomes "YES"... in the sense that the commercial viability of the real midsize frames (< 93'') is indeed coming to an end.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

But the youngster's not asking about commercial viability, is he? ;-)

And regardless of what the pros are endorsing, no one is playing anything smaller than 95, even if many are using PJs, meaning they use the exact racket they want.

It's the same effect you see on golf courses: people packing small muscleback blade irons, where looks and (perceived) feel trumps reason. The people making a living playing golf, are steadily changing their irons over to the more forgiving cast irons.
 
Matters very little.
Use it now, you can change any time you want. This is a free world, and the quest for the Holy Grail is never ending.
 
Play with what you want, but equipment advantage matters. More folks will have an advantage wiith a bigger stick than will with a 90. Unless you can dictate the game their greater equipment advantage will tilt the odds in the favor of someone using a larger racquet.
 
rb120134 said:
Hi,
I am 16 years and have been playing tennis for quite a few years.
I played with the babolat pure drive gt for some time but I switched recently and now I have been using the wilson blx pro staff six one 90 for about a year. I am left handed and have a one-handed backhand. I play mostly from the baseline but I do move forward to put balls away, I am not really into volleys. I have been wondering, do you think that a 90 square inch head might be too difficult for the modern game, because when I come against a good baseliner and most people that I have encountered in competition use Babolat aeropro drive or pure drive, they start to push me around quite a bit, while I have won those matches, it is pretty tiring because you need to put in alot of power and pay attention to your setup, my trainer advised me to continue because it allows for good stroke development and my trainer likes stiffer rackets. I dont find a 90 square inch head unplayable and I really like the feel the blx offers when you hit the center of the racket as well, so do you think that I should continue to use the 90 competitive? Or is it too much for the modern game? Because I come against those 14-15 year old kids who all use those 100 square inch rackets, most that I encountered use Babolat, and it can get pretty tough.(but not too tough)
Click to expand...
I would use a Mid+ leaded up so you get the best of both worlds.

I think you're setting yourself back because you're not learning to control the power of a powerful racquet.
 
Doesn't matter 85, 90, 93, 95, 97, 98 or 100 sq in. Use what you're comfortable with. No harm for you to venture out and demo some bigger frames to see if you benefit from the change or not.

Just played against someone who hit with way more spin and weight on both serves and groundies than everyone else on the courts last night. He was using a PS90. Everyone else there was using midplus and oversize.

The argument that mids have no place in the modern game is invalid.
 
"90 square inch too small for modern game?"

Yes, if you wanna win.
 
From what the OP is describing about his game... the 90 would be handicapping his game and not helping it. In general, playing the modern game at any level using a 90 does not make a ton of sense. Just look at what the top 5, 10 or 20 ATP pro. How many 90s are they playing with? Go watch a DI match... who many 90s do you see? Outside of the one I use for fun.. I have not seen one on a local court in years. Not saying a few select players will and can win with a 90...but.. less.. and less.. and less,,,
 
SteveI said:
From what the OP is describing about his game... the 90 would be handicapping his game and not helping it. In general, playing the modern game at any level using a 90 does not make a ton of sense. Just look at what the top 5, 10 or 20 ATP pro. How many 90s are they playing with? Go watch a DI match... who many 90s do you see? Outside of the one I use for fun.. I have not seen one on a local court in years. Not saying a few select players will and can win with a 90...but.. less.. and less.. and less,,,
Click to expand...


I agree with this sentiment, particularly if we are referring to the modern game in competitive terms. Compared to a few years ago, where you would see a few people playing with 90s (mainly due to the Federer effect no doubt), there are fewer and fewer people playing with 90s at my club. In fact, I only see one person using it in competitive matches.

Don’t get me wrong, I too occasionally dabble with my pro staff 90 and even my woodie for fun but would I play a competitive match with it. No.
 
I have to say, I am quite a flat hitter,
I play with moderate topspin but mostly
I play pretty flat, my winners are always flat balls
with lots of pace and a little bit spin. I am not like Nadal
a monster spinner. I can play balls with lots of spin,
But usually I plat pretty flat.
 
I go back to a point I made in a similar thread a while ago.

I think the ultimate racquet of personal choice is the one that you can hit the difficult shots with the most effectively.

On the assumption that we can hit our standard forehand and backhand shots with just about any racquet, it's the racquet that we can hit those tricky shots with or shots when we are under pressure most effectively that can help us decide what works best.

That's the way I decide which racquet to use anyway.

The other argument is, that until there is serious prize money involved or tennis is how we earn our living, use the racquet that gives you the most enjoyment.

I often use a 90 and whilst my 98 is better for my allround game, the 90 is great fun to use.
 
I always look at the wear patterns on my strings. When I'm using a multi or full gut, you can tell where you are making contact the majority of the time. My contact point is less than the size of a standard coffee mug. If you play enough a 90 is fine.

I think that if you are a consistent hitter and completely comfortable with a stick then you will be fine. You will have to play a lot of hours per week to keep this up though.

What you lose in head size, you make up for with stability and maneuverability. I know racquet designers know this, but it doesn't help when so few pros use these types of sticks.

If there was a top pro player still using 90s they would come back in style.
 
JJam2112 said:
I think it really depends on your style of play mostly. If you are a grind it out baseliner and use alot of topspin, then the 90sq in head is probably not the best choice since you want to use alot of racket head speed and the brush up on the ball so the extra forgiveness and bigger sweetspot comes in handy for topspin. They also seem to provide more power and give you are greater margin of forgiveness for off centered shots. This tends to be the majority of the modern game players these days so you see lighter rackets with bigger head sizes.

However If you are more of a all court player and use moderate top spin, a 90 sq in head is great. It is like a scapulae to give you more feel and control. They also tend to be more on the heavy side but gives good plow through on shots so is more stable. Usually you have to provide your own power with these. Volleys are great to whip a smaller head for fast reaction time.

I personally am a 4.5 all court player so i tend to play more mid size frames. Rackets in my bag include, Yonex RDS 001 Mid, Wilson K Blade Tour, and the Blade 93. But I do have shoulder issues so have been dabbing in the lighter rackets with larger head size.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it.

Of course, my first racquet was a Victor wood and I used a Bancroft wood and Head red head alumnimumimin in high school.
 
I think there are a lot of good comments and advice.

One thing I'd like to add, is to consider whom you are (or are going to be) playing. The PS 90 might be precision tool, but against faster pace and bigger hitters, that does not come into play if your athletic prouess is not up to speed.

Modern, bigger rackets neutralize a major part of what used to be an advantage when mids were king. The modern return game would not exist without these frames.
 
Where does string pattern fit into this discussion?

I played yesterday with the Pro Staff 95 and I was hitting topspin like crazy, felt huge forgiveness due to the rather open 16x19 pattern, and I felt like I could have grinded from the baseline all day long if I wanted too.

Whereas if I'd pulled my Microgel Radical MP, with its super tight 18x20 pattern, I would not have liked baseline bashing very much I think.

My point is: if you don't want to be ''pushed around'', other than being good, you usually need a rather heavy racquet with preferably an open pattern to better absord pace and get at least a bit of trampoline effect. Head size don't matter so much to me. And if you frame a lot with a mid, it's probably a sign that you're not a very developed player, and wil be ''pushed around'' anyway with any racquet as soon a you face a better player.
 
struggle said:
I don't think any/many rec players are really playing "the modern game" so yes I think a 90 holds up just fine.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree. Although it is not the modern game we see on tv with the pros, recreational players are taking advantage of the new technologies that are available creating their version of the modern game.

It's never too late to start MTM.
 
Slothsicle said:
I'd have to disagree. Although it is not the modern game we see on tv with the pros, recreational players are taking advantage of the new technologies that are available creating their version of the modern game.

It's never too late to start MTM.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in general. However, I play at the 4.0 level.......I see lots of "modern" rackets and very few players really utilizing them, or the poly strings they are being sold.

At the 4.5 level i see alot more traditional "players" frames and even less modern strings, much more syngut/nylon etc.

Just my observation, not the gospel by any means.
 
struggle said:
I don't disagree in general. However, I play at the 4.0 level.......I see lots of "modern" rackets and very few players really utilizing them, or the poly strings they are being sold.

At the 4.5 level i see alot more traditional "players" frames and even less modern strings, much more syngut/nylon etc.

Just my observation, not the gospel by any means.
Click to expand...
I've actually seen the opposite on my end. Strange, what section are you in?
 
Slothsicle said:
I've actually seen the opposite on my end. Strange, what section are you in?
Click to expand...

Southern, Western NC. We are a smaller market area and don't have the depth many others in our state do but do have several very good players.

The pro at our club (reached FO round of sixteen in '89 if I recall) DOES play some sort of Babolat blaster, so there's that.
 
Slothsicle said:
Because it is a beast!
Click to expand...
I guess it is, if your signature is on the throat... For the rest of us, the lighter counterpart got to be better. At least it's possible to customize it a bit and fine tune to the preference, while that would be pretty much impossible with RF (except for those liking even heavier frames). OP asked about "modern game", which in my mind implies lots of topspin, lots of RHS, lots of running and grinding.
 
LapsedNoob said:
Most of us aren't saying they have no place. We are saying a young player wanting to achieve the highest level he can should maybe look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Point taken, hence I did say that there's also no harm for OP to give larger racquets a shot to see if they help his game, if he wishes. After all, he did say that he used a Bab Pure Drive before the PS BLX 90. On the other hand, OP also said that he can still win against the kids with midplus racquets, so it looks like it's not too small for his game anyway, for now.
 
I disagree with most things here.

I am in my mid twenties and just switched to the PS90 one year ago.
I tried ALL of those "modern" frames, APd etc., but the 90 suits me best.
I play my best tennis right now, no doubt.

And I don't understand most people here...I play a much heavier, faster, spin ner ball with the 90.
Just try different frames and take that one, you are most comfortable with, it is easy.
 
Hi,
I think it depends also on how concentrated I am,
my trainer observed me alot and told me that about
99% of my unforced errors is due to poor footwork, for instance
hitting balls to close to my body or too far away especially on the
forehand side, on that front I find the backhand swing easier.
With balls that are too close too me, with the babolat pure drive I
could just use my wrist to launch the ball back to the other side.
With the Wilson I have to remember to get in good position fast,
because sometimes I am pretty lazy sometimes. Also when
I am under presssure I have to try to take full swings at the ball
to launch them deep in the opponents court. My trainer also told
that with the Wilson you cant mess around with your wrist as much.
I have to admit if I dont get in a good position 9 out of 10 balls turn into
an error. But when I am able to hit the center of the PS 90 the feel
is incredible pure.
 
Surion said:
I disagree with most things here.

I am in my mid twenties and just switched to the PS90 one year ago.
I tried ALL of those "modern" frames, APd etc., but the 90 suits me best.
I play my best tennis right now, no doubt.

And I don't understand most people here...I play a much heavier, faster, spin ner ball with the 90.
Just try different frames and take that one, you are most comfortable with, it is easy.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity were any of those modern frames the heavier flexier things that have feel more similar to the PS90 than 'modern' posterchild like the APD and PD?
 
Well,
I tried:
Pro Staff 95S
SixOne 95S
APD
PD
Pure Control Plus
Graphene Pro
Graphene MP
Juice 100S
Steam 99S
Ezone Ai 100
Ezone Ai 98
Textreme Tour 95 (just short, about an hour, so not too representative)
Prince Tour 100
Prince Warrior
RF97 (even bought it...)

Those come to my mind right now, ghe list misses some though.


So...not too heavy.
Well, I got my second racquet when I was 11 and that one weighs 343 g (Babolat Control Team), with 18 I bought a SixOne 95 with 348 g, so I am used to those kind of frames.

Maybe I just miss the plow/stability in those "modern" frames.
Although the Textreme felt pretty nice.
 
Last edited:
It's just sheer ignorance to call smaller rackets more stable.
That is Breakpoint material.

If I were silly enough to be using a PS85, I'd need to weight it to about 400 grams to make it as stable as my Prince Tour 95 at 360 grams. This is purely because of the smaller racket's inherent lesser stability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
  • Locked
Is there any reason to pick 90 square inch over 95?
2 3
Replies
134
Views
12K
yescomeon
Y
T
Big Difference In Control From 110 to 100?
Replies
3
Views
683
LeeD
L
counter_puncher
The 98 Square Inch Racquet Club
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
Boblarryjrthird
B
R
Why did Federer stick with a 90 square inch for so long?
2
Replies
67
Views
9K
mctennis
M
zill
90 squre inch vs 100 square inch with tension differences
Replies
6
Views
768
Hmgraphite1
Hmgraphite1
Back
Top