Best racquets for serve and volley playing
- Thread starter jorge306
- Start date
louis netman
Hall of Fame
Slaz X1, Prince Precision Response Ti & Warrior...
jorge306,
I asked a similar question a little while ago and got a standard list of the 'usual suspects' - X1 etc. What I found, when I went to try them, is that those racquets don't work for everyone (I disliked all of the suggested racquets). However, they do lead you to a couple of generalisations that will be useful.
Firstly, look for something reasonably head light - obviously important for volleying.
Secondly, look for something with a lowish swing weight (I prefer around 315-320) which is necessary for manoeuverability. Too high and it will be sluggish at net.
Apart from those two areas I would suggest ignoring all suggestions and, working around a lower swingweight and balance (more head light), just trying things for yourself to see what produces the best results.
Flex is a key issue, however, it is a very personal thing. A firm flex might seem best for the volley (was always traditional thinking) but I prefer higher flex as, without it, I lose 'feel'. So, see what you prefer.
Headsize is another personal preference. I get a bit more precision with a smaller headsize but a bit more power and 'hitting space' with a larger one. Whichever you choose, I wouldn't recommend something very low powered unless you're hitting with enormous pace.
Accept that one of the biggest problems we serve-volleyers deal with today is that our opponents are using larger, more powerful racquets. So, after we hit a good serve and come to the net behind it they find it very easy to just stick out the racquet and let it do the work. End result is our good serve or approach has turned into a tougher than expected volley or smash. As a result I lean towards something that gives me a little extra available power without becoming uncontrollable. Still looking for that perfect balance though LOL.
Also, make your choice based on the surface you play most of your matches on. Unfortunately, I play solely on Rebound Ace which is a pain in the bum for a serve-volley player. Just an absolute nothing surface that slows balls down but doesn't give me any bite on slice approach shots or serves. So, I have to modify my game slightly, eliminate most touch shots (bounce up too high) and trade some extra grunt on serves and volleys for control. On Rebound Ace, a controlled volley is still getable and forces you to hit closer to the lines so increases your likelihood of error. So, a more powerful frame might produce a couple more errors but it balances out against my not having to hit quite so finely to win points. Do an appraisal of the surface you play on and see if it makes that much difference to your game.
I asked a similar question a little while ago and got a standard list of the 'usual suspects' - X1 etc. What I found, when I went to try them, is that those racquets don't work for everyone (I disliked all of the suggested racquets). However, they do lead you to a couple of generalisations that will be useful.
Firstly, look for something reasonably head light - obviously important for volleying.
Secondly, look for something with a lowish swing weight (I prefer around 315-320) which is necessary for manoeuverability. Too high and it will be sluggish at net.
Apart from those two areas I would suggest ignoring all suggestions and, working around a lower swingweight and balance (more head light), just trying things for yourself to see what produces the best results.
Flex is a key issue, however, it is a very personal thing. A firm flex might seem best for the volley (was always traditional thinking) but I prefer higher flex as, without it, I lose 'feel'. So, see what you prefer.
Headsize is another personal preference. I get a bit more precision with a smaller headsize but a bit more power and 'hitting space' with a larger one. Whichever you choose, I wouldn't recommend something very low powered unless you're hitting with enormous pace.
Accept that one of the biggest problems we serve-volleyers deal with today is that our opponents are using larger, more powerful racquets. So, after we hit a good serve and come to the net behind it they find it very easy to just stick out the racquet and let it do the work. End result is our good serve or approach has turned into a tougher than expected volley or smash. As a result I lean towards something that gives me a little extra available power without becoming uncontrollable. Still looking for that perfect balance though LOL.
Also, make your choice based on the surface you play most of your matches on. Unfortunately, I play solely on Rebound Ace which is a pain in the bum for a serve-volley player. Just an absolute nothing surface that slows balls down but doesn't give me any bite on slice approach shots or serves. So, I have to modify my game slightly, eliminate most touch shots (bounce up too high) and trade some extra grunt on serves and volleys for control. On Rebound Ace, a controlled volley is still getable and forces you to hit closer to the lines so increases your likelihood of error. So, a more powerful frame might produce a couple more errors but it balances out against my not having to hit quite so finely to win points. Do an appraisal of the surface you play on and see if it makes that much difference to your game.
Coda,
Rebound Ace is a pain in the bum for serve-volley play, no doubt about that one. Modern age tennis, however, I still find manageable. Most people today hit the ball at a million miles an hour but they hit very much 'up and down' the court. Overly powerful and stiff racquets allow them to generate pace but they have a lot harder time working angles. I find the best serve-volley play these days (on medium-fast to fast courts) is to serve right at the receiver. They'll definately get something on the ball but 99% can't control it. So they pop up a smash or an easier put-away shot. Cramp them up and they struggle. Give them any room and they'll knock it past you. Also, there's a higher number of people using extended length racquets these days. Serve it right at them and you'll find out the limitation of the extra-long frame. Doubles is still a serve-volly affair but you have to remember to serve to the benefit of your partner. Too many people just slam the first serve and then throw in a short one instead of trying to move the receiver around and force him to hit a shot that their partner can intercept. You need good control of spin for that, which is definately an area the older racquets don't hold an edge over the newer ones. Oh, and if you like to play the net then you need to know how to lob. People drill the ball on groundstrokes but they're as bad as they ever were at getting back for a lob and throwing up one of their own. Racquets have improved but people haven't. They still don't move their feet enough so you have to take advantage of that, try to blunt the power some way (I've got the feeling that a lower powered oversize might be the best option) and make them hit shots that the more powerful racquets don't excel at - the lob.
Rebound Ace is a pain in the bum for serve-volley play, no doubt about that one. Modern age tennis, however, I still find manageable. Most people today hit the ball at a million miles an hour but they hit very much 'up and down' the court. Overly powerful and stiff racquets allow them to generate pace but they have a lot harder time working angles. I find the best serve-volley play these days (on medium-fast to fast courts) is to serve right at the receiver. They'll definately get something on the ball but 99% can't control it. So they pop up a smash or an easier put-away shot. Cramp them up and they struggle. Give them any room and they'll knock it past you. Also, there's a higher number of people using extended length racquets these days. Serve it right at them and you'll find out the limitation of the extra-long frame. Doubles is still a serve-volly affair but you have to remember to serve to the benefit of your partner. Too many people just slam the first serve and then throw in a short one instead of trying to move the receiver around and force him to hit a shot that their partner can intercept. You need good control of spin for that, which is definately an area the older racquets don't hold an edge over the newer ones. Oh, and if you like to play the net then you need to know how to lob. People drill the ball on groundstrokes but they're as bad as they ever were at getting back for a lob and throwing up one of their own. Racquets have improved but people haven't. They still don't move their feet enough so you have to take advantage of that, try to blunt the power some way (I've got the feeling that a lower powered oversize might be the best option) and make them hit shots that the more powerful racquets don't excel at - the lob.
Coda
Semi-Pro
Andrew,
I think you're absolutely right about the modern game in terms of people not being able to work the angles. I also find that your technique of hitting it at them is quite effective. People have definetly lost proper footwork/effort that if you hit it towards the middle of their body they are to lazy(generally) to move one way or the other so they can try to hit a stronger more orthodox stroke. Rather they can only block it back. It's somewhat interesting to me at least that you find it more effective to put the ball into the body rather than to try and make them reach for it. I do that as well, but I do also make them reach for low and high backhands as well as low forehands. I find that spinning the ball out of their strike zone is very effective as well because they still try to bang it as hard as they can with their Pure Drive and end up with an error or an easy put away for me. Regardless, if everyone played with a player's racket it'd sure be easier.
I think you're absolutely right about the modern game in terms of people not being able to work the angles. I also find that your technique of hitting it at them is quite effective. People have definetly lost proper footwork/effort that if you hit it towards the middle of their body they are to lazy(generally) to move one way or the other so they can try to hit a stronger more orthodox stroke. Rather they can only block it back. It's somewhat interesting to me at least that you find it more effective to put the ball into the body rather than to try and make them reach for it. I do that as well, but I do also make them reach for low and high backhands as well as low forehands. I find that spinning the ball out of their strike zone is very effective as well because they still try to bang it as hard as they can with their Pure Drive and end up with an error or an easy put away for me. Regardless, if everyone played with a player's racket it'd sure be easier.
Coda,
If they're using longer racquets their reach is increased so I find jamming them works best. Actually, in general, I find that kicking the ball is almost futile. These days, with so many using double handed backhands, wielding powerful, stiff racquets and using semi-western to western grips the last thing you want to do is kick the ball UP. That just puts it into their strike zone. The slice serve is, I find, the most effective serve. The ball is moving away from the receiver but it is moving away LOW so they're going to have to connect with it from a lower point than is comfortable given their grip. If you're on a medium to medium-fast surface they've got way too much time to punish the kicker. I agree that a perfect one is a great weapon, however, I don't think we very often hit them perfectly. I prefer to keep it as the change-up or surprise serve. If they're starting to pick the slice or if I see them cheat a little bit over to cover the slice, that's when I throw in the kick serve.
Basically, that's what I love about the serve-volley game, even today. It's all about out-thinking your opponent on serve and out hustling him on returns. It's also a wonderful challenge for my opponent. He knows Im coming in on almost everything so, if he wants to win, he's got to pass me or get to the net first.
Paul Annacone and Marty Davis (anyone remember him?) were my favourite players as a kid and I guess their style of play (especially Annacone's) really left a mark LOL
Should also say that after a long time using midsize and a few midplus frames Im going to throw my lot in with the Oversize crowd (at least for a few months). Just thought it was time to experiment a little bit if I want to keep playing my s&v game style.
If they're using longer racquets their reach is increased so I find jamming them works best. Actually, in general, I find that kicking the ball is almost futile. These days, with so many using double handed backhands, wielding powerful, stiff racquets and using semi-western to western grips the last thing you want to do is kick the ball UP. That just puts it into their strike zone. The slice serve is, I find, the most effective serve. The ball is moving away from the receiver but it is moving away LOW so they're going to have to connect with it from a lower point than is comfortable given their grip. If you're on a medium to medium-fast surface they've got way too much time to punish the kicker. I agree that a perfect one is a great weapon, however, I don't think we very often hit them perfectly. I prefer to keep it as the change-up or surprise serve. If they're starting to pick the slice or if I see them cheat a little bit over to cover the slice, that's when I throw in the kick serve.
Basically, that's what I love about the serve-volley game, even today. It's all about out-thinking your opponent on serve and out hustling him on returns. It's also a wonderful challenge for my opponent. He knows Im coming in on almost everything so, if he wants to win, he's got to pass me or get to the net first.
Paul Annacone and Marty Davis (anyone remember him?) were my favourite players as a kid and I guess their style of play (especially Annacone's) really left a mark LOL
Should also say that after a long time using midsize and a few midplus frames Im going to throw my lot in with the Oversize crowd (at least for a few months). Just thought it was time to experiment a little bit if I want to keep playing my s&v game style.
fedex27
Professional
6.1 classic or i did a search on racquet finder http://www.racquetfinder.com/FMPro?...&swMax=320&fMin=50&fMax=80&rbMin=-15&rbMax=-8
Coda
Semi-Pro
Andrew,
I agree that kicking the ball up can be a risky proposition, but I think our difference is that I play on fast hardcourts. A good speed, good action kicker out wide to their backhand remains my best 2nd serve next to my down the t flat serve. I think the most important variable here is the ball speed. If it's slow and kicks up, say byebye. That's when I get my serves crushed. If it has some nice speed and kicks up, they can say bybye. If it doesn't kick up at all and has some nice speed then the point is determined by the return. I must also agree that in spite of the modern game I still love S&Ving. Very, very few players around here S&V predominately, and it's always fun to see people lose their first few return games quite quickly out of confusion and inexperience against the S&Ver and try to react and adapt. S&Ving definetly becomes a wonderful challenge in a match with a solid baseliner.
I guess I was lucky in the fact that I grew up as a kid watching Pete S&V his way to greatness at Wimbledon. He really opened my eyes up to the fun and the challenge of the S&V game. If I hadn't watched him I'm pretty sure I'd be a bang-bang baseliner as well.
Andrew, what oversize are you moving to? I'm going to try and stick to my guns on this one and always stay with a midplus or lower.
I agree that kicking the ball up can be a risky proposition, but I think our difference is that I play on fast hardcourts. A good speed, good action kicker out wide to their backhand remains my best 2nd serve next to my down the t flat serve. I think the most important variable here is the ball speed. If it's slow and kicks up, say byebye. That's when I get my serves crushed. If it has some nice speed and kicks up, they can say bybye. If it doesn't kick up at all and has some nice speed then the point is determined by the return. I must also agree that in spite of the modern game I still love S&Ving. Very, very few players around here S&V predominately, and it's always fun to see people lose their first few return games quite quickly out of confusion and inexperience against the S&Ver and try to react and adapt. S&Ving definetly becomes a wonderful challenge in a match with a solid baseliner.
I guess I was lucky in the fact that I grew up as a kid watching Pete S&V his way to greatness at Wimbledon. He really opened my eyes up to the fun and the challenge of the S&V game. If I hadn't watched him I'm pretty sure I'd be a bang-bang baseliner as well.
Andrew, what oversize are you moving to? I'm going to try and stick to my guns on this one and always stay with a midplus or lower.
Coda,
You're a lucky man. I'd love to be playing on a fast hardcourt, or anything other than the Rebound Ace. I actually grew up playing on dirt courts down in Melbourne and that surface (en tous cart) gave more assistance to the serve-volley game. Also, I miss sliding into a slice backhand or forehand LOL. Our hardcourts were plexi-pave (not sure if you have that in the States) and there was nothing better than slamming down a first serve laced with some kick, following it in and then finishing the point with a smash or waist high volley. None of this ball-sitting-up business after you've hit a deep approach of volley with good slice.
I have the suspicion that I will end up going back to a midsize-midplus frame but I thought it couldn't hurt to experiment. Also, I've been unimpressed with almost every midplus racquet Ive tried in the last 12 months (few exceptions from different firms but probably only about 5 or 6). So, while Im not playing serious comp, why not give the OS a try. If I don't like it (too many errors, not enough feel, etc) I'll drop back.
I've got no idea what I'll be transitioning to. There's another thread at the moment asking about good Prince OS frames so I might have a look to see what is recommended. I did use the POG OS for a little while but just swings too heavy up at net.
Any suggestions for an OS stick? The TT Warrior seems the logical choice but thought there might be something else. Wish we could still get the CTS series. Now they were brilliant frames, especially the CTS lightning.
Actually, Im kind of curious about the i-Radical OS. Any idea about that one?
You're a lucky man. I'd love to be playing on a fast hardcourt, or anything other than the Rebound Ace. I actually grew up playing on dirt courts down in Melbourne and that surface (en tous cart) gave more assistance to the serve-volley game. Also, I miss sliding into a slice backhand or forehand LOL. Our hardcourts were plexi-pave (not sure if you have that in the States) and there was nothing better than slamming down a first serve laced with some kick, following it in and then finishing the point with a smash or waist high volley. None of this ball-sitting-up business after you've hit a deep approach of volley with good slice.
I have the suspicion that I will end up going back to a midsize-midplus frame but I thought it couldn't hurt to experiment. Also, I've been unimpressed with almost every midplus racquet Ive tried in the last 12 months (few exceptions from different firms but probably only about 5 or 6). So, while Im not playing serious comp, why not give the OS a try. If I don't like it (too many errors, not enough feel, etc) I'll drop back.
I've got no idea what I'll be transitioning to. There's another thread at the moment asking about good Prince OS frames so I might have a look to see what is recommended. I did use the POG OS for a little while but just swings too heavy up at net.
Any suggestions for an OS stick? The TT Warrior seems the logical choice but thought there might be something else. Wish we could still get the CTS series. Now they were brilliant frames, especially the CTS lightning.
Actually, Im kind of curious about the i-Radical OS. Any idea about that one?
doriancito
Hall of Fame
for volley id say any oversize! LOL
doriancito said:
Yes and no. I can volley with a plank of wood but I can't volley WELL with it. Same with any racquet, oversize or not. Have a read of what Coda and I have been discussing. It's not just any oversize, it's a very specific type.
Wish it was that easy though. Id just grab myself one of the Weed racquets and let the good times roll LOL.
TennsDog
Hall of Fame
I am not sure I would recommend the Shark for s/v. It seems like it has too much power and is meant more for baseline bashing. I won't say don't get it or it is bad, I just think that it would not generally be partnered with the s/v game style. You want something that gets above average reviews for serving and feel. The serve is one of, if not the biggest part of a s/v game, and so the racket needs to accomodate that. And at net, feel is key. Therefore, poly strings probably wouldn't be the way to go either. Back to rackets, though, too much power, and you will be missing serves and sending long volleys. No feel, and the volleys may go in, but you don't know where.
there is no such thing as a better racquet for the serve or a better racquet for the volley..it's a very individual thing. i've seen high level serve/volleyers using a really vast array of gear. better serve and volleyers can play good serve and volley with just about anything reasonable...it's more about tweaking and there really isnt so much need for tweaking and fine tuning until you hit the 4.5 or 5.0 levels. there's such a myriad of factors involved....it's whatever works best for the player and could really be just about anything
Coda
Semi-Pro
AndrewD said:
Andrew,
You're right, I am lucky. I don't get any of this...if I hit a good shot it'll do what it's supposed to. As to the racket recommendations, I think I should be the last to ask about a good S&V OS racket. To me that's like an oxymoron almost, kinda like jumbo shrimp. Anyway, if I were forced to pick an OS racket I'd probably go with my Prince Woodie...although I haven't had too much experience with modern day OS rackets. I guess the seemingly obvious choice would be the POG OS, as it will still have an "old school" feel. Have you tried that one yet Andrew? I believe what doriancito says about volley and OS is for me anyway not true. The PS Original has given me the best volleys I've ever had in my life. Simply, it had the best feel and the best control. Good luck with your OS experiment, although I believe that you will really miss the control and the predictability of smaller headed rackets.
louis netman
Hall of Fame
Andrew:
I chopped a C10 Pro OS down to 27" for a pupil of mine who SV's...Seems to be working...
I chopped a C10 Pro OS down to 27" for a pupil of mine who SV's...Seems to be working...
I mix it up and serve and volley about 50% and chip and charge about 50% of the time to put pressure on baseline bashers. My serve and volleys are good enough to s&v on every point but I find that if you mix it up you can get so many errors because a opponent is afraid your going to come in and that scares them. My racket right now is the flexpoint and i find it suitable for volleys. I put about 20 grams of weight in the head and I think a whole pack of lead tape in the handle to keep it very maneuvarable. I
LafayetteHitter
Hall of Fame
My coach is a former S&V player. His favorite racquet for S&V is an oversive Hammer 6.2 which I hated when I used it at the net. I've read quite a few other people who thought that racquet was great on volleys. Like NBMJ said it's very individual. I like a mid to midplus at the net and since I hit lots of approach shots and lots of net play I have to keep myself with the racquets that I am comfortable with. I guess alot of it might be what some guys grew up using like the others said. I used the X1 for a very short period and did not like it at all but it was strung with Babolat syntronic brio which i've never used before so I wish it had been strung with my normal string as so many like it for this style of play. So far the Volkl V-engine Mid was a joy at the net and the Estusa Power Beam Braided was just a dream for volleys.
Mr wontong 007
New User
.....20 grams?....how many ounces is that?
K. Wilson Moose
Semi-Pro
Of the current racquets, the Pro-Kennex Laver S and SX are excellent, as is the type "R". Nice frames. The Prince Diablo MP is not bad either, although I prefer some of the older Prince frames like the DB24 and Precision Response.
oldguysrule
Semi-Pro
Andrewd
You will be back to a midsize in a month. Get a 6.0 95. Your description of what to look for in a racquet was that one. Right balance, weight, swingweight, feel, etc. If you cant find one down under, someone on the board would sell you one.
You will be back to a midsize in a month. Get a 6.0 95. Your description of what to look for in a racquet was that one. Right balance, weight, swingweight, feel, etc. If you cant find one down under, someone on the board would sell you one.
My personal observations through testing... Generally, the smaller headsizes work better for my serving as well as my volleys. For some reason, I'm able to serve harder with a Vantage 90" 63 flex, 16x28, 27" racquet than with the Prince Diablo Mid. Statistically, the Diablo should have more power, but I think the 3sq" factors into it. (The Diablo even had Laserfibre Supreme, a rather powerful string, in it and the Vantage has PSGwD 18g both at 53). Yet, the Vantage yielded more control and power at the same time with good manueverability at the net.
jorge306 said:
Some lighter racquets that have done well for me playing serve and volley:
Wilson nSurge
Volkl Catapult 8 Vengine
Wilson Pro Staff Tour 95
The Liquidmetal 4 was not a really good SnV racquet for me.
As for the other half of this thread - why it's harder to play an effective SnV game now than it used to be - I have some thoughts:
1) Modern racquets and technique produce harder shots, giving the net player less time to react.
2) Modern racquets produce harder serves and returns, reducing the amount of time the serve-and-volley player has to get into position at the net. A quick guestimate based on an having an 8 second time in the 40-yard dash shows that shaving 1/5 a second off the serve and return time costs the serve-and-volleyer 3 feet of court position.
3) Modern racquets and technique produce more topspin, which hurts the net player three different ways:
a) You have to hit more hard shots below net level (the dipper).
b) The baseline player can hit sharper angles, increasing the amount of court you have to cover.
c) Topspin lobs are easier to hit, which is a real killer since the only solution for a) and b) is to get closer to the net.
An illustration of the above happened to me just Monday. I hit a good deep slice approach shot down the middle of the court (allegedly reduces the angles available on the passing shot) and came to net. My opponent hit an inside-out forehand from behind the baseline, with decent pace, that landed a couple inches inside the sideline and just inside the service line in the ad court. I had no chance.
Tuesday, I again approached on a deep approach shot down the middle, although this one stood up way too much. My opponent whacked a topspin forehand with decent pace that hit just inside the side and service lines in the deuce court. Again, I had no chance.
So, between those two shots, as the net player, I have to defend the entire width of the singles court on an approach shot down the middle. That's not humanly possible.
This is why I'm trying to move to more of an all-court game. I want to be agressive and come to net, but it's obvious that being at the net is no longer the overwhelming advantage it used to be. So I need to choose my spots better, come in behind better shots and mix things up more so opponents can't anticpate me so well.
Guys,
something you do need to consider is that, while it is incredibly difficult to serve-volley or constantly come in to the net at the pro level it is still the percentage play in club tennis. People seem to hear commentators making a statement about the professional game and think it automatically relates to the level of tennis most of us play. The average club player still can't consistantly make passing shots off both wings, still has a decidely weaker second serve and has a noticably weaker backhand. Those are all things that encourage serve-volley tennis and chip-charge tactics. Sure, players can hit harder because of the racquets but they still lack control. Yes, they hit with more topspin but they don't hit it consistantly deep. Perhaps at the 4.5-5.5 level there is a noticable difference but, really, most people don't play at that standard.
volleyman,
two approach shots that your opponent hit for winners isn't cause to stop attacking. You've got to expect to be passed and both times he hit the winner off his forehand. Sure, you went down the middle of the court but obviously gave him enough room to hit the forehand and, as you said, the second one sat up. If you're playing on a court that gives you no assistance then you have to be more judicious in your choice of approach. Mix up the pace on your approach shots. Put on some heavy slice, take all the pace off, drive one, drop a few short. Just test him out and stick to the old rule of approaching down the line. It's far easier to read the passing shot than if you come in down the middle of the court plus you'll be able to transfer a lot more of your weight into the shot and be in better position for the lob or volley. If he can keep making the passing shots then congratulations to him, just too good. The odds though, aren't in his favour.
something you do need to consider is that, while it is incredibly difficult to serve-volley or constantly come in to the net at the pro level it is still the percentage play in club tennis. People seem to hear commentators making a statement about the professional game and think it automatically relates to the level of tennis most of us play. The average club player still can't consistantly make passing shots off both wings, still has a decidely weaker second serve and has a noticably weaker backhand. Those are all things that encourage serve-volley tennis and chip-charge tactics. Sure, players can hit harder because of the racquets but they still lack control. Yes, they hit with more topspin but they don't hit it consistantly deep. Perhaps at the 4.5-5.5 level there is a noticable difference but, really, most people don't play at that standard.
volleyman,
two approach shots that your opponent hit for winners isn't cause to stop attacking. You've got to expect to be passed and both times he hit the winner off his forehand. Sure, you went down the middle of the court but obviously gave him enough room to hit the forehand and, as you said, the second one sat up. If you're playing on a court that gives you no assistance then you have to be more judicious in your choice of approach. Mix up the pace on your approach shots. Put on some heavy slice, take all the pace off, drive one, drop a few short. Just test him out and stick to the old rule of approaching down the line. It's far easier to read the passing shot than if you come in down the middle of the court plus you'll be able to transfer a lot more of your weight into the shot and be in better position for the lob or volley. If he can keep making the passing shots then congratulations to him, just too good. The odds though, aren't in his favour.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Coda said:
I agree with Coda. The PS 6.0 95 has the best feel and control on volleys for me, too. The X-1 has a bit less feel but a little more putaway power on volleys.
LafayetteHitter
Hall of Fame
How has the Maxply McEnroe worked out for some of you? Is it working out as a nice s&v stick?
NoBadMojo said:
Ed,
I seriously think, at the club level, one of the key shots for any player is the overhead.You get a lot more lobs than on the pro tour, that's for sure LOL.
Coda and Volleyman,
No the PS 6.0 95 isn't available out here and without being able to try it I'd be very, very loath to buy. Have the feeling, based on what people have said, that while it is an excellent racquet at the net it won't have the punch I need playing on the medium paced Rebound Ace. If I was playing on dirt courts, synth grass or anything that gave me some assistance I might try it but Rebound Ace doesn't give you much of anything. Regardless, closest I can come to it is the nSix-One 95 16x18 which I might have a hit with next week.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
AndrewD,
I thought you had mentioned in another thread recently that you had indeed tried a PS 6.0 95 and didn't quite like it much? I think your exact words were, "it wasn't even close". Am I mistaken?
I thought you had mentioned in another thread recently that you had indeed tried a PS 6.0 95 and didn't quite like it much? I think your exact words were, "it wasn't even close". Am I mistaken?
What racquets do you guys suggest for S&V that isn't too heavy, good size head, and spin friendly? The Slaz may be a bit heavy.
I don't think I hit with enormous pace so some power in the racquet would be welcomed as well.
Andrew D, you gave a good response, much appreciate.
And what is a 'PS 6.0' and does it come in a larger head?
thanks
I don't think I hit with enormous pace so some power in the racquet would be welcomed as well.
Andrew D, you gave a good response, much appreciate.
And what is a 'PS 6.0' and does it come in a larger head?
thanks
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
PS 6.0 is the Wilson ProStaff 6.0 Original. It comes in two head sizes, the 85 and the 95.
The 85 is very well known and used in the past by Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Chris Evert, among others.
Look here: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-60.html
The 85 is very well known and used in the past by Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Chris Evert, among others.
Look here: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCWILSON-60.html
Coda
Semi-Pro
Completely understand your predicament with the Original PS, Andrew. You could string it low with gut perhaps...To let you know, the nCode 6.1 has no where near the love I give the 6.0 95. Since you play on Rebound, it might be for you since it has more power than the 6.0, but it definetly has less touch and control and a very muted feel.
BreakPoint said:
I did but after reading one of your posts I realised I hadn't. The PS 6.0 95 I hit with, compliments of one of your countrymen, was the HPS 6.0 95 which I was told was merely a paintjob and played exactly the same as the standard version. However, a couple of days later I noticed, in one of your posts that you said there was some HyperCarbon added to the hoop to stiffen it and that the racquet swings lighter (plus is a little more difficult to get pace on the serve). As I said in my post, nice racquet but I didn't find the slice potential very high at all (think I said, as regards slice, it wasn't close to my Precision Mono). I'm not sure how different the two racquets are but until someone who knows better can tell me they are actually the same I don't consider what I tried to be a true PS95.
Im still a bit wary of buying the PS 6.0 95 without the chance to give it a solid work-out but that's not to say, despite all protestations, that Im not tempted.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
AndrewD,
No, the PS 6.0 95 and the HPS 6.0 95 Tour are definitely NOT the same. The PS 6.0 95 has more feel, swings a bit heavier, and the hoop is flexier. These ingredients make the PS 6.0 95 much more slice friendly than the HPS 6.0 95. It just bites the ball better and you can feel the juice behind the slice. If I remember correctly, with the HPS 6.0 95, my slices sat up more and I just couldn't feel the ball on the strings as much. I think feel is the most important component of a good slice. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, I could serve harder and better with the PS 6.0 95 than with the HPS 6.0 95. The HyperCarbon really took a lot of feel out of the racquet and the lighter weight took away some of the power. There must be a PS 6.0 95 floating around somewhere Down Under, isn't there?
No, the PS 6.0 95 and the HPS 6.0 95 Tour are definitely NOT the same. The PS 6.0 95 has more feel, swings a bit heavier, and the hoop is flexier. These ingredients make the PS 6.0 95 much more slice friendly than the HPS 6.0 95. It just bites the ball better and you can feel the juice behind the slice. If I remember correctly, with the HPS 6.0 95, my slices sat up more and I just couldn't feel the ball on the strings as much. I think feel is the most important component of a good slice. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, I could serve harder and better with the PS 6.0 95 than with the HPS 6.0 95. The HyperCarbon really took a lot of feel out of the racquet and the lighter weight took away some of the power. There must be a PS 6.0 95 floating around somewhere Down Under, isn't there?
BP,
I've never seen a PS 6.0 95 anywhere here in Australia. Actually, if it hadn't been for Equinox on this board Id never have seen a POG OS either. Think I might have mentioned in another thread that the PS 6.0 85 & 95 and the POG OS (mid was available very briefly) were never available here (maybe one or two but you know what I mean). I gather it was never part of the Wilson or Prince marketing plan.
So, what plays similarly to the PS95? Will be trying out the nSix-One 95. Gather that is same weight as the PS95 but higher swingweight, however, it is a touch more flexible.
Actually, Ive just tried the Dunlop 200G and thought it was a great frame although a touch low in terms of slice on serve (and, strangely, my arm felt a bit sore after using it). Balance, weight and power were all excellent though so, overall, can't complain about it.
Apart from that, Im stumped.
I've never seen a PS 6.0 95 anywhere here in Australia. Actually, if it hadn't been for Equinox on this board Id never have seen a POG OS either. Think I might have mentioned in another thread that the PS 6.0 85 & 95 and the POG OS (mid was available very briefly) were never available here (maybe one or two but you know what I mean). I gather it was never part of the Wilson or Prince marketing plan.
So, what plays similarly to the PS95? Will be trying out the nSix-One 95. Gather that is same weight as the PS95 but higher swingweight, however, it is a touch more flexible.
Actually, Ive just tried the Dunlop 200G and thought it was a great frame although a touch low in terms of slice on serve (and, strangely, my arm felt a bit sore after using it). Balance, weight and power were all excellent though so, overall, can't complain about it.
Apart from that, Im stumped.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
AndrewD,
Actually, the nSix-One 95 is nothing like the PS 6.0 95. The nSix-One is closely associated with the HPS 6.1 95 and the PS 6.1 Classic 95. The nSix-One 95 is actually stiffer and swings much heavier than the PS 6.0 95. Remember that the nSix-One 95 has a flat beam, whereas, the PS 6.0 95 has a box beam, making them completely different animals. Probably the closest thing to the PS 6.0 95 is the PS 6.0 85. Similar feel but lighter and more forgiving.
It's hard to believe that the POG, PS 6.0 85 and 95, three of the most popular racquets of all time, were never really marketed in Australia. Very strange. Wasn't there demand from the public just from watching the likes of Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Evert, Agassi, Chang, Sabatini, Coria, etc. using these sticks on TV?
BTW, the HM200G is also nothing like the PS 6.0 95. Big difference in string pattern and feel. The HM200G feels a bit tinny and stiff to me.
Actually, the nSix-One 95 is nothing like the PS 6.0 95. The nSix-One is closely associated with the HPS 6.1 95 and the PS 6.1 Classic 95. The nSix-One 95 is actually stiffer and swings much heavier than the PS 6.0 95. Remember that the nSix-One 95 has a flat beam, whereas, the PS 6.0 95 has a box beam, making them completely different animals. Probably the closest thing to the PS 6.0 95 is the PS 6.0 85. Similar feel but lighter and more forgiving.
It's hard to believe that the POG, PS 6.0 85 and 95, three of the most popular racquets of all time, were never really marketed in Australia. Very strange. Wasn't there demand from the public just from watching the likes of Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Evert, Agassi, Chang, Sabatini, Coria, etc. using these sticks on TV?
BTW, the HM200G is also nothing like the PS 6.0 95. Big difference in string pattern and feel. The HM200G feels a bit tinny and stiff to me.
Once again, the listings must be wrong as TW do have the PS95 rated higher in terms of stiffness.
I really have no answer as to why those 3 racquets weren't readily available here. Now, I lived down in Melbourne which is the second largest city in the country but with the largest tennis playing population, highest number of courts and the greatest number of tennis specific shops. If we'd had it then Id have either seen it in one of our stores or on the courts. Don't think it would have mattered so much with the POG OS but the PS85 would have sold like hot cakes. Edberg came to prominence in Australia - completing the junior Grand Slam, winning his first major (his first two I think) and competing in the Davis Cup- and along with Mats Wilander was enormously popular (more so than any other player of the day). Wilander's F200 was a huge seller and Edberg's PS85 would have been just as popular. Basically, Wilson stuffed up. All we got were the lower rated models like the Staff and Pro Select. Of course, Wilson's loss was Prince's and Dunlop's gain.
I'm sure there was demand but, with Wilson and Prince, we've had to suffer with second party distributors rather than a distributor who is directly connected to the company. So, all requests land on deaf ears. On the other hand, Head's policy in Australia was to make all product available. So the market that would have grabbed the PS85 and POG OS just went to the Prestige and, Id feel confident in saying, those people still use Head today (Aussies have a tendancy to be very, very brand loyal).
It is quite ludicrous as the PS85 and PS95 would have perfectly suited the conditions in Melbourne (the biggest tennis market) where play is on dirt courts. As it is, without those earlier classics, I don't believe Wilson have ever established themselves as a company that makes the highest quality racquets (even if they do). Prince managed it (the POG OS was the only one we didn't get here) right through until the end of the CTS line, Head did it with the Prestige and lately Volkl has joined that group. All of those companies have 'classics' that people here have been able to buy (excepting the POG OS) but Wilson only really came to prominance with the Profile and its from that racquet to the nCode that they're judged.
I didn't think the 200G was tinny but I could feel the firmness in the upper hoop. I think a low tension and a soft string (gut would be ideal) would play very well in it.
Still will give the nSix-One 95 a try. If I feel that I enjoy the shape but want a lower swingweight I'll know what to look at.
I really have no answer as to why those 3 racquets weren't readily available here. Now, I lived down in Melbourne which is the second largest city in the country but with the largest tennis playing population, highest number of courts and the greatest number of tennis specific shops. If we'd had it then Id have either seen it in one of our stores or on the courts. Don't think it would have mattered so much with the POG OS but the PS85 would have sold like hot cakes. Edberg came to prominence in Australia - completing the junior Grand Slam, winning his first major (his first two I think) and competing in the Davis Cup- and along with Mats Wilander was enormously popular (more so than any other player of the day). Wilander's F200 was a huge seller and Edberg's PS85 would have been just as popular. Basically, Wilson stuffed up. All we got were the lower rated models like the Staff and Pro Select. Of course, Wilson's loss was Prince's and Dunlop's gain.
I'm sure there was demand but, with Wilson and Prince, we've had to suffer with second party distributors rather than a distributor who is directly connected to the company. So, all requests land on deaf ears. On the other hand, Head's policy in Australia was to make all product available. So the market that would have grabbed the PS85 and POG OS just went to the Prestige and, Id feel confident in saying, those people still use Head today (Aussies have a tendancy to be very, very brand loyal).
It is quite ludicrous as the PS85 and PS95 would have perfectly suited the conditions in Melbourne (the biggest tennis market) where play is on dirt courts. As it is, without those earlier classics, I don't believe Wilson have ever established themselves as a company that makes the highest quality racquets (even if they do). Prince managed it (the POG OS was the only one we didn't get here) right through until the end of the CTS line, Head did it with the Prestige and lately Volkl has joined that group. All of those companies have 'classics' that people here have been able to buy (excepting the POG OS) but Wilson only really came to prominance with the Profile and its from that racquet to the nCode that they're judged.
I didn't think the 200G was tinny but I could feel the firmness in the upper hoop. I think a low tension and a soft string (gut would be ideal) would play very well in it.
Still will give the nSix-One 95 a try. If I feel that I enjoy the shape but want a lower swingweight I'll know what to look at.
federer_nadal
Professional
My coach has the PS 6.0 95 and i hit and string it regularly. It is extremely solid and is great for control, very headlight mind you.i prefer my n61 tours.
basil J
Hall of Fame
I serve and volley about 50% of the time. I have used in the past a prostaff 6.0 95", 6.1 95", a Hps 6.1 , ncode 6.1 18x 20 and the slaz X1. I also have used the Dunlop 200G MW 90 & 95" models and for the last year been using exclusivey the 200GMW 95" with 17'gauge duraflex at 64". This has given me the spin and bite for good approach shots and also has give me great feel and power from the baseline and serving. The HM does not provide the great feel and feedback that the MW has.
the best S&V stick I ever had the good fortune of uing was a 200G revelation that has been out of production and impossible to find since 1999. No bells or whistles, just a solid racquet. I have found that by using an 18 x 20 string pattern with a thinner gauge string, I have the great control, and get some of the spin capabities back that you can lose with this tight string pattern. Try it. The 200G has lost some of it's popularity I think since the HM, but if you can get a MW, it is a great stick..
the best S&V stick I ever had the good fortune of uing was a 200G revelation that has been out of production and impossible to find since 1999. No bells or whistles, just a solid racquet. I have found that by using an 18 x 20 string pattern with a thinner gauge string, I have the great control, and get some of the spin capabities back that you can lose with this tight string pattern. Try it. The 200G has lost some of it's popularity I think since the HM, but if you can get a MW, it is a great stick..
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
AndrewD said:
AndrewD,
I think it's been mentioned many times before on this board that you cannot just go by a racquet's listed specs in determining how it actually plays on the court. Some specs can be very misleading, especially the stiffness spec. That's because of the way it's measured. Although the rating is supposed to the the average stiffness of the entire frame (so I understand but not sure I really believe it), the actual measurement is taken at the throat. Thus, I believe the rating is more reflective of the frame's stiffness in the throat area. So even though TW's stiffness ratings may not be wrong, they are not indicative of how a racquet may feel in your hand when you hit the ball IMO.
For example, I believe the PS 6.0 95 feels much flexier in actual play than the PS 6.0 85, even though the 95 is rated at 67 and the 85 is rated at 66. I think you've hit with the 85 so you should have an idea of how that one feels. This is because the 95 has a much flexier hoop. Another example is the Slaz X-1, which I think you've also hit with. I find the X-1 to play much stiffer than the PS 6.0 95 even though the X-1 is rated at only 64 versus the PS 6.0 95's 67. This is because the X-1 has a much stiffer hoop than the PS 6.0 95. I feel the X-1's stiffness should be rated higher, perhaps 67 or 68, whereas, the PS 6.0 95 feels more like it should be rated around 60 or under to me.
Anyway, I think I've discussed this same subject on many occassions, so I'd bet if you did a search, you'll find what I just wrote above repeated many times over.
