Fed said he likes his racket on serve, but...

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Well it seems everybody has more or less switched to bigger rackets over the later years.
The metal racquets at the time were no bigger than the wood racquets of the time. Most people didn't like the feel or playability of metal racquets so they stayed with wood.
 
The metal racquets at the time were no bigger than the wood racquets of the time. Most people didn't like the feel or playability of metal racquets so they stayed with wood.
I did not say they were bigger. It is just that you said everybody changing to something is an indication that it is great.
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
even though federers results are good a lot of his matches seem pretty hot and cold i.e. inconsistent where hes struggling to execute even some of the simpler shots. I don't know if its because of the racquet or him getting older though.

like a lot of people are saying, maybe the forehand is struggling more with the new racquet. if you watch his old matches he used to run around his backhand a lot and be very aggressive with his forehand, now he doesn't seem to do that anymore
 

coloskier

Legend
If it wasn't better, why would you change to it? :confused:
BP, as I said before, after playing with both the 97 and the 90, the control on the 90 is 10 times what it is on the 97. You can see that in Fed's forehand now. He is much more consistent with the BH, but his forehand is all over the map.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
BP, as I said before, after playing with both the 97 and the 90, the control on the 90 is 10 times what it is on the 97. You can see that in Fed's forehand now. He is much more consistent with the BH, but his forehand is all over the map.
I'm not that surprised. Smaller racquets tend to have better control than larger racquets, especially when both have the same string pattern. If Federer wanted to mimic the control of the 90, he should have chosen an 18x20 string pattern for the RF97A.

I agree about his backhand. It does appear to be more consistent with the 97. The funny thing is, he was also more consistent on the BH with the PS 6.0 85 than with the 90. So his backhand was more consistent with the opposite ends of the size spectrum than with the middle one. :shock:
 

Vcore89

G.O.A.T.
Federer will revert back to his old 90 racquet before his career is over. He's clear past that 'Had I switch to a larger headed racquet I wouldda won a couple slams with it!''. However, he would definitely regret not going back and claim at least one last slam (or 3) with his 90.
 
Last edited:
Federer will revert back to his old 90 racquet before his career is over. He's clear past that 'Had I switch to a larger headed racquet I wouldda won a couple slams with it!''. However, he would definite regret not going back and claim at least one last slam (or 3) with his 90.
Can I get an 'AMEN?!' Dig it!
 

Bendex

Professional
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.
Yeah, the old 6.1 was quite tough on the arm, I assume it's even worse now with a bit of extra wind resistance. But I think the plow through makes his forehand what it is. He can't have it both ways.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I have not said it has anything to do with it. It is just that you said:So if more or less everybody is playing with bigger rackets now, it seems it according to your logic must be because it is pretty great.
Compared to a 65 sq. in. wood racquet? Yes, an 85 sq. in. graphite racquet is easier to use.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
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.
No they weren't. You're being facetious and basing it on one hugely flawed comparison used during the Aussie Open or some other tournament earlier this year. Also, 'better' could mean more spin and/or accuracy. A larger head size should give a larger sweet spot resulting in more serves being struck more optimally which, as anyone who cares to understand tennis and not rely on fringe, outlier arguments like you always do, will understand to equate to increased control and consistency.

If it's easier to hit with more consistent levels of spin it increases the control.
 

superstition

Hall of Fame
A larger head size should give a larger sweet spot resulting in more serves being struck more optimally which, as anyone who cares to understand tennis and not rely on fringe, outlier arguments like you always do, will understand to equate to increased control and consistency.

If it's easier to hit with more consistent levels of spin it increases the control.
So why aren't pros using the 135 square inch Weed racquets, or even the 125 sq in racquet size?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
No they weren't. You're being facetious and basing it on one hugely flawed comparison used during the Aussie Open or some other tournament earlier this year. Also, 'better' could mean more spin and/or accuracy. A larger head size should give a larger sweet spot resulting in more serves being struck more optimally which, as anyone who cares to understand tennis and not rely on fringe, outlier arguments like you always do, will understand to equate to increased control and consistency.

If it's easier to hit with more consistent levels of spin it increases the control.
Yes, they were. I'm right and you're wrong. Again.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Yes, they were. I'm right and you're wrong. Again.
Nope. The comparisons were limited and easily distinguishable from each other. Unless of course the person relying on the comparison for their argument is a moron in which case they make perfect sense.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Nope. The comparisons were limited and easily distinguishable from each other. Unless of course the person relying on the comparison for their argument is a moron in which case they make perfect sense.
See? I knew it made sense to you. :oops:
 

kingcheetah

Hall of Fame
Let's bring this thread back to the topic... the fact that Fed likes it for serving but hasn't fully adjusted on groundstrokes. It seemed that initially the playtesters had the opposite issue (granted they aren't at Roger's level) but it's interesting to see how they thought groundstrokes were a breeze and getting all the mass to accelerate on serve was difficult.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
So why aren't pros using the 135 square inch Weed racquets, or even the 125 sq in racquet size?
It's called 'diminishing returns' - your homework assignment; Google is your friend.

No they weren't. You're being facetious and basing it on one hugely flawed comparison used during the Aussie Open or some other tournament earlier this year.
+1. Typical @Breakpoint. Even though Federer makes a definitive statement, @BP pulls some number from a miniscule sample size that fits the line he has deemed defines the Tennis Universe.

Fed gets easier power and spin from the slightly larger head size. This boosts his confidence; thus he's hitting his spots more often. A few mph's aren't going to matter when the returner only has a few hundredths of a second - might frame one back that Fed has to wander up and crush.

Fed is 55-10 on the year...
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
+1. Typical @Breakpoint. Even though Federer makes a definitive statement, @BP pulls some number from a miniscule sample size that fits the line he has deemed defines the Tennis Universe.

Fed gets easier power and spin from the slightly larger head size. This boosts his confidence; thus he's hitting his spots more often. A few mph's aren't going to matter when the returner only has a few hundredths of a second - might frame one back that Fed has to wander up and crush.

Fed is 55-10 on the year...
And what was his record using the Tour 90 before he got mono?

Hmmm....maybe a few mph on his serves does make a difference? Not that I ever claimed that it does. Please follow along......
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
And what was his record using the Tour 90 before he got mono?

Hmmm....maybe a few mph on his serves does make a difference? Not that I ever claimed that it does. Please follow along......
Please tell me you are not comparing 33 year old Fed to 27 year old Fed and calling them equal players... :neutral:
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Please tell me you are not comparing 33 year old Fed to 27 year old Fed and calling them equal players... :neutral:
And we also can't compare what his record so far this year would have been with the Tour 90 vs. the RF97A since he hasn't used the Tour 90 this year. That was my point.

Comparing last year doesn't count because he could barely move with his back injury.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Better than it was before the percentage of credible peers were using 95 sq in or larger head sizes. As that increased, his record got worse.

Go figure.
Hmmm....weren't Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Soderling, Roddick, Ferrer, Gasquet, Robredo, Lopez, Haas, Kohlschreiber, etc. all using the same size racquet back then as they do now?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Hmmm....weren't Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Soderling, Roddick, Ferrer, Gasquet, Robredo, Lopez, Haas, Kohlschreiber, etc. all using the same size racquet back then as they do now?
Read what I wrote again: "as that increased, his record got worse."

So, as more people opted for larger head sizes Federer's record on tour got worse. This conflicts completely with your "smaller heads are better" narrative.

Or does Federer occupy a part of the universe where physics work the opposite way from everyone else?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Why not? If it's tougher to swing through the air, it takes more work for the arm to swing it.
But they can easily make it a little lighter to negate that aspect.

Because, only a small part of "toughness" on the arm is related to drag - probably 1/100th that of stiffness, if even that. Ditto for technique.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Read what I wrote again: "as that increased, his record got worse."

So, as more people opted for larger head sizes Federer's record on tour got worse. This conflicts completely with your "smaller heads are better" narrative.

Or does Federer occupy a part of the universe where physics work the opposite way from everyone else?
But I just said that they are using the same size racquets as they did before, so how did Federer's record get worse due to his opponents' racquet size? :confused:

How about, Federer has gotten older and slower and more injured so that's why his record has gotten worse? Nothing to do with the size of his opponent's racquets. Even Agassi couldn't beat him with his massive 107 sq. in. racquet, yet Safin beat him with his 89.5 sq. in. racquet, so how is a bigger racquet better at beating Federer? :???:
 

Bendex

Professional
But they can easily make it a little lighter to negate that aspect.

Because, only a small part of "toughness" on the arm is related to drag - probably 1/100th that of stiffness, if even that. Ditto for technique.
When I used the 6.1, my forehands could penetrate like a bomb (when I could get the timing right :? ). With a more standard racket, my forehand is a different animal.

I'm sure he tried different weights, but they didn't suit him. We can be sure it wasn't a rash decision.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
But I just said that they are using the same size racquets as they did before, so how did Federer's record get worse due to his opponents' racquet size? :confused:
He encountered an increasing amount of players who use larger head sizes.

What is so hard to grasp of that completely elementary concept?

You say: a larger head size hurts player's games.

The proof says: it doesn't.

How about, Federer has gotten older and slower and more injured so that's why his record has gotten worse?...
I see, it's the classic Breakpoint divert attention to a new topic bull*******y. You really are a senile prat aren't you? Learn to debate a topic on the narrative you yourself laid down without going off on tangents when you have painted yourself into a corner with your facetious style of argument.
 

Vcore89

G.O.A.T.
Fed is older yet he is better than his opponents, not because of his bigger (he was better wielding his smaller 90 racquet, no if or but) racquet but because his opponents are just plain inferior to him to begin with. One would think Fed is aging yet fail to realize his contemporaries are declining at an even earlier age.

Bigger is not always better!
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Yes Federer is older and slower and yet he has a superior record against the top 10 with his new bigger racket.
Compared to what? Wasn't he beating plenty of Top 10 opponents with his Tour 90 over the past 11 years? Or do you mean ONLY compared to 2013 when he was injured?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
He encountered an increasing amount of players who use larger head sizes.

What is so hard to grasp of that completely elementary concept?

You say: a larger head size hurts player's games.

The proof says: it doesn't.
What "proof"? I haven't seen any.

How many opponents can you name that ONLY started beating Federer because they SWITCHED to a larger racquet? I'm still waiting for this "proof".

His opponents have NOT been increasing their head sizes since Federer was in his prime. You have no proof of that. And if there were a couple of them, Federer was still beating them so their headsize didn't matter one iota.

Instead, he was losing to guys with smaller headsizes (<95 sq. in.) and beating guys with larger headsizes (>96 sq. in.).
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
What "proof"? I haven't seen any.

How many opponents can you name that ONLY started beating Federer because they SWITCHED to a larger racquet? I'm still waiting for this "proof".
None... That's not what I said nor implied, rather as the amount of players using larger head sizes increased Federer's win/loss record softened. This is undeniable.

As a meta-data overview, this trend plays true for his career. And when when he changed to a larger head size his own record started to improve again relative to his previous 12 months of results - and notably versus top 20 players.

But I know you're going to play the bad back card here, or the ageing one. But unless you can provide evidence of how his new racquet has not had any net-positive impact to his game (i.e. the benefits outweigh the negatives) then I expect to see more typical Breakpoint hilarity in the near future.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
None... That's not what I said nor implied, rather as the amount of players using larger head sizes increased Federer's win/loss record softened. This is undeniable.

As a meta-data overview, this trend plays true for his career. And when when he changed to a larger head size his own record started to improve again relative to his previous 12 months of results - and notably versus top 20 players.

But I know you're going to play the bad back card here, or the ageing one. But unless you can provide evidence of how his new racquet has not had any net-positive impact to his game (i.e. the benefits outweigh the negatives) then I expect to see more typical Breakpoint hilarity in the near future.
That's what I meant. You have no proof that the amount of players using larger heads has increased during Federer's career. In the early half of Federer's career, there were still lots of pros using oversize racquets (e.g., Agassi, Chang, Nalbandian, Spadea, etc.), whereas today, almost no pros use oversize racquets any more. So I'd say on average, the average size of the racquets used by pros during Federer's career has not increased at all. Most of the top pros were using 95 sq. in. racquets then and most of the top pros still use 95 sq. in. racquets today (under their paintjobs) (e.g, Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Cilic, Del Potro, Nishikori, Haas, etc.). Besides, if he didn't play against those pros with the larger racquets or if he beat them anyway, then it's irrelevant. You ought to do your homework first before posting.
 
Compared to what? Wasn't he beating plenty of Top 10 opponents with his Tour 90 over the past 11 years? Or do you mean ONLY compared to 2013 when he was injured?
He is doing better, and he puts it down partly to the racket himself. Besides:
If metal racquets were so great, why didn't everybody permanently switch to them in the 60's?
Everybody has changed to bigger rackets, so it must be because they are so..?
 
Last edited:

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
He is doing better, and he puts it down partly to the racket himself.
I've only heard him say he's moving better because his back doesn't hurt anymore like it did last year. I've never once heard him say - "I won this match because of my new bigger racquet."

Besides:Everybody has changed to bigger rackets, so it must be because they are so..?
Yes, a 75 sq. in. graphite racquet is indeed better than a 65 sq. in. wood racquet or a 70 sq. in. metal racquet. So what was your point?
 

President

Legend
^Don't you always say that your serves, backhands, and volleys are OBJECTIVELY better with a wooden racquet these days than with a graphite?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
^Don't you always say that your serves, backhands, and volleys are OBJECTIVELY better with a wooden racquet these days than with a graphite?
No, when did I ever say that?

There's a reason why nobody uses wood racquets any more. I'd like to see them come back to return the game back to what it was originally meant to be, not today's wham bam thank you ma'am video game tennis.
 
Top