Federer, and Tough Pros Rackets

[zorg]

I would just like to know, is there anyone else on tour that uses a tough racker like Federer? I mean, it is heavy, and has a small head. With the fast pace of today's game, how can he always hit the sweet spot? Is he the only one? Also, why doesn't Federer tell Wilson to make him a racket with a larger sweet spot? He has the whole company of Wilson to work for him, they can make it identical to his current racket, just a larger head. They can make the string pattern and drill it the exact same, power, control, the weight and everything the same. Even if he were to go to a 95" racket, wouldn't that make him that much better, and cut out on his unforced errors? Its just a thought...

 

[fishuuuuu]

Marat Safin is right there with him.

 

[zorg]

Oh yeah, and Sampras said he regrets not using a bigger sized head for the French Open, I hope Federer doesn't make the same mistake.

 

[jamauss]

Oh yeah, and Sampras said he regrets not using a bigger sized head for the French Open, I hope Federer doesn't make the same mistake.

when did Sampras ever say that? your source is..?

 

[armand]

I would just like to know, is there anyone else on tour that uses a tough racker like Federer? I mean, it is heavy, and has a small head. With the fast pace of today's game, how can he always hit the sweet spot? Is he the only one? Also, why doesn't Federer tell Wilson to make him a racket with a larger sweet spot? He has the whole company of Wilson to work for him, they can make it identical to his current racket, just a larger head. They can make the string pattern and drill it the exact same, power, control, the weight and everything the same. Even if he were to go to a 95" racket, wouldn't that make him that much better, and cut out on his unforced errors? Its just a thought...

Don't worry about Federer, I think he knows what he's doing. Just worry about your own game and equipment.

 

[jura]

Oh yeah, and Sampras said he regrets not using a bigger sized head for the French Open, I hope Federer doesn't make the same mistake.

But it's not that he didn't try different rackets. I know i. e. that he made a try with the Pure Drive. But after just 30 minutes he knew, that he couldn't play with it.
And Federer: You can be sure that Wilson tries everything to get him on a 95-sq-in-racket. If he had te same control he would change. But up to now it seems they couldn't make him such a miracle stick

 

[gokou703]

yeah where did sampras say that again???i'm absolutely sure he said that comment though...he further said he was too stubborn to switch ....

 

[Lambsscroll]

Courier did fine with his Wilson PS 85 at the French. Guga with his Head racquet ( head size 93 ) did okay too. Both these guys couldn't win Wimbledon.

 

[sureshs]

Roger, there is still time - change to a 95 si head. Only way to have a chance against Rafa at the French. Already you lost in Dubai. Start right now and you can get used to it before the French.

 

[legolas]

Oh yeah, and Sampras said he regrets not using a bigger sized head for the French Open, I hope Federer doesn't make the same mistake.

what the heck is the difference, courier won 2 slams on clay using an 85 heady

 

[zorg]

Its just harder. I guess if Wilson did make a racket like this, he would switch right? Maybe he will in the near future. And I am not sure where he said this (Sampras), but I know I read it in an article about his equipment.

 

[JennyS]

I can't see why Roger would have major control issues with a 95 sq inch racquet. Then again, Roger could probably dominate the tour using an 80 sq in frame.

 

[zorg]

But it's not that he didn't try different rackets. I know i. e. that he made a try with the Pure Drive. But after just 30 minutes he knew, that he couldn't play with it.

Thats interesting. How do you know that he tried the Pure Drive? Is there an article on this?

 

[nViATi]

what the heck is the difference, courier won 2 slams on clay using an 85 heady

But back then, the 6.0 85 was a tweener racquet. It was advertised as being easy to use and light. However, switching to a bigger sized head will not help Federer get any better. He doesn't shank the ball any more than any other pro. I'm pretty sure Federer who's only THE BEST IN THE WORLD knows what's best for him more than we do.

 

[zorg]

Heh, nViATi makes a good point. But then again...(there is almost points to both sides) Agassi is older than Federer and uses a larger headed racket than him. So its not that back in the day it was a large headed racket. And really other pros Federer's age don't use similar rackets...so...Maybe Federer was one of us . He watched his idol Sampras, and wanted to play with the same racket just cause his favorite pro played with it.

 

[legolas]

oh ok thanks, but can someone make a clearer statement as to why a small headsize is not suitbale for clay, thats why pete wished to have used a bigger one?

 

[BreakPoint]

Also, why doesn't Federer tell Wilson to make him a racket with a larger sweet spot? He has the whole company of Wilson to work for him, they can make it identical to his current racket, just a larger head. They can make the string pattern and drill it the exact same, power, control, the weight and everything the same. Even if he were to go to a 95" racket, wouldn't that make him that much better, and cut out on his unforced errors? Its just a thought...

But if Wilson made the head bigger, it would no longer be "identical to his current racquet", would it?

Also, why do you think he even wants a bigger sweetspot? He seems to be doing pretty well with the sweetspot he has now. For example, I've tried many racquets with bigger sweetspots but I still prefer the ones with smaller ones because I still play better with them even with the smaller sweetspot.

I don't think a bigger racquet would cut down on his unforced errors but may actually increase them. With his huge swings, I think a bigger racquet would actually make him mishit more, as there's more racquet head to get in his way during his massive swings and I think that would cause him to also lose a lot of precision. IMO, it doesn't matter how big your racquet head is or how big the sweetspot is, you still need to hit the exact center of that sweetspot to have the maximum precision and accuracy on your shots, and the exact center of the sweetspot is the same size on every racquet regardless of its head size or total sweetspot size. Federer is the best in the world at doing that because he keeps his head still during his strokes and watches the ball come into, hit, and then leave his strings better than any other pro. Just look at where his eyes are when he hits the ball and compare that with where Roddick's eyes are. That's why Roddick needs a bigger racquet and Federer doesn't.

And look at where the ball is hitting the strings. Case closed.

 

[BreakPoint]

Here's a comparison of Federer's and Roddick's forehands. Again, look at where their eyes are and where the ball hits the strings:

 

[AngeloDS]

Andy Roddick forehand in slow motion:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iAKrOD06HWU

Roddick looks until he can look no longer due to his technique & stroke. Western grip relies on a lot of upper body rotation as we see in the clip. He looks until he can't look no longer and the ball has slowed down considerably. As well as Roddick goes from a low to high motion as we see. It's harder to hit the center of a racquet with a low to high motion as such.

While Roger Federer technique and stroke are more with open shoulders. Which allow him to do what he does (look at the ball & contact point). He swings more on a level plane so it's easier to hit the sweetspot more often although he doesn't hit the sweet spot a lot of the times.

Federer even though he's #1 in the world and has some of the best strokes does shank a lot of the balls when he deals with certain people or on certain courts (clay).

Roger Federer's strokes in slow motion:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9t3auwuvJNk


Those are pretty biased pictures since that's one out of the many they hit. In a game they do hit well over 500 or so shots and a good portion are not hit perfectly on the sweet spot. A lot are not within the sweetspot range, rather a lot are outside of the sweetspot range.


What seperates Federer from a lot of people is his footwork and his preparedness. A lot of people are scrambling for the ball while Federer is not. Federer is a lot of the times prepared for the shot. As they always say on Television it seems like Federer has so much more time to prepare and hit the ball compared to other players.

As I've always said and said before. Any pro tennis player if they're prepared and setup, they will hit precise shots and hit within the sweetspot range. If not, it's very difficult to (scrambling) even for Federer; on the run he shanks balls and hits way outside of the sweetspot as shown in many videos and even in the slow motion video I uploaded.

Racquet and technique has little to do with it, but mostly footwork and preparedness. And this is clear to see.

 

[chess9]

AngeloDS:

Exactly right about footwork. And for age group tennis players multiply this effect times 2-10 depending on level. At 2.0 they are not getting to the ball and preparing early on probably 70-90% of their shots. At 6.0 it might be as low as 10%, but compared to the pros who are at 5% or less, it is still a huge number.

So, how much difference can a $300 racquet make if you don't get to the ball on time in a position ready to hit the ball properly? Does it matter if you use a trash can lid or a ping pong paddle at 2.0? j/k, of course.


-Robert
________
PORTABLE VAPORIZER PIPE REVIEW

 

[BreakPoint]

Andy Roddick forehand in slow motion:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iAKrOD06HWU

Roddick looks until he can look no longer due to his technique & stroke. Western grip relies on a lot of upper body rotation as we see in the clip. He looks until he can't look no longer and the ball has slowed down considerably. As well as Roddick goes from a low to high motion as we see. It's harder to hit the center of a racquet with a low to high motion as such.

While Roger Federer technique and stroke are more with open shoulders. Which allow him to do what he does (look at the ball & contact point). He swings more on a level plane so it's easier to hit the sweetspot more often although he doesn't hit the sweet spot a lot of the times.

Federer even though he's #1 in the world and has some of the best strokes does shank a lot of the balls when he deals with certain people or on certain courts (clay).

Roger Federer's strokes in slow motion:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9t3auwuvJNk


Those are pretty biased pictures since that's one out of the many they hit. In a game they do hit well over 500 or so shots and a good portion are not hit perfectly on the sweet spot. A lot are not within the sweetspot range, rather a lot are outside of the sweetspot range.


What seperates Federer from a lot of people is his footwork and his preparedness. A lot of people are scrambling for the ball while Federer is not. Federer is a lot of the times prepared for the shot. As they always say on Television it seems like Federer has so much more time to prepare and hit the ball compared to other players.

As I've always said and said before. Any pro tennis player if they're prepared and setup, they will hit precise shots and hit within the sweetspot range. If not, it's very difficult to (scrambling) even for Federer; on the run he shanks balls and hits way outside of the sweetspot as shown in many videos and even in the slow motion video I uploaded.

Racquet and technique has little to do with it, but mostly footwork and preparedness. And this is clear to see.

So why is it that in just about every pic that I see of Federer, his eyes are focused on the ball, and in just about every pic I see of Roddick, his eyes are not looking at the ball but are focused somewhere off into the distance? Also, in most pics, not all, Federer is hitting close to the middle of the strings, whereas, with Roddick, many pics, not all, show him hitting the ball near the edge of his racquet? Just take a look at all the pics in Getty Images.

I don't think it really matters what the differences in their techniques are. The bottom line is that Federer looks at the ball, and thus, hits the sweetspot more often than not, and that's why he has so much precision and accuracy in his shots, whereas, Roddick does not, more often than not. WHY they do it is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it makes Federer more precise and that's why he can play with a smaller racquet with a smaller sweetspot and still have more control than Roddick with his bigger racquet. It also illustrates why Roddick needs a bigger racquet and why it would likely be a disaster for him to switch to a 85 or 90 sq. in. racquet.

 

[jackcrawford]

when did Sampras ever say that? your source is..?

From www.Tennisone.com

In the article, Sampras comments on Fed's future and likelyhood of eclipsing his record. Then he dropped this suprising comment.

"I regret that I never tried out a racquet with a bigger head at Roland Garros," he added.

"My racquet was almost like one of the old wooden ones - it was heavy and stiff. It took a lot of effort to make the ball move on clay.

"But I was really used to it and I never dared (change). I was too stubborn. I was scared of losing control, that it would take me too long to master it."

The interview was posted on this board about 2004, was given to a French Tennis magazine I believe and was on the tennisone site at the time.

 

[AngeloDS]

For someone who's played tennis for 30 years you neglect the basics of tennis and fail to understand the key components between Federer and Roddick in technique.

Pictures never tell the whole story and when pictures are taken they usually are taken during some of the best shots, rallies or such. Which account for maybe a few points durings the whole match. That's why if you look up Pros there's maybe 30 pictures or less during a matchup with say Federer vs Baghdatis. When obviously that match lasted for quite awhile. Though as always they never tell the whole story -- was he on the run, was he scrambling, did he purposely do that, what angles was he looking for etc.

Have you seen a picture of Federer shanking/framing a ball? Hardly even though he does it a lot. We even see during his matches on his backhands and forehands he shanks them (US Open with Agassi, when Agassi played into his backhand a lot). Where are those pictures?

Again it's Roddicks technique is the reason why you don't see him looking at the ball upon contact or after contact. As you see in the videos he looks until he can look no longer and then his body is already rotating.

It's harder to hit sweet spot or such if you're a scrambler (Roddick, Nadal), and if you have more of a low to high motion. Compared to when you're not a scrambler and prepared well (Federer) and have a more level swing path.

Stop making false assumptions and trying to raise them as fact. We do not know if Roddick needs a bigger racquet. Roddick is precise and hits the sweetspot when he's prepared just like any other pro. It's just on the scramble where a lot of pros are not hitting within the sweetspot (Even Federer). A lot of the time Roddick is hitting within a 90 sq inch area and other times he is not. Though we do not know the exact numbers because no one does studies on such. If so they are very basic and not specific enough. Such as there was one with Agassi and they concluded he is not hitting the sweetspot a certain amount of times, but moreso not hitting the sweetspot than hitting it.

Also a true fact, pros often use their whole string bed when they play (purposely). The tip of the racquet acceleraes faster than the bottom of the racquet or the middle of the racquet allowing more topspin to hit those difficult angles.

Federer is precise because of his preparedness and footwork and because he swings more on a level plane. But when he is not he is obviously shanking balls, not hitting the lines well, hitting them long and such. Federer is not invincible and he often never wins matches 6-0, 6-0. And as we see he often has difficulties in matches but where he does excel is his ability to raise his level during a match and make some of the best shots. He has many different angles of attack like Hingis.

 

[BreakPoint]

So you're saying that Roddick's technique forces him to have to use a bigger racquet and that Federer's technique allows him to use a smaller racquet? If so, I agree. That's the subject of this thread, BTW, whether or not Federer needs a bigger racquet, and I say - No, he doesn't.

BTW, assuming that the photographers only take pictures of the "good" shots, which I highly doubt, why is it that most of these pictures show Federer hitting the middle of the strings, whereas, most of these pictures show Roddick hitting the edge of the strings? Do the photographers have a conspiracy against Roddick? The fact is, Federer looks at the ball into the strings and Roddick does not. Can you deny that? I really don't care if the CAUSE is the differences in their techniques. It's the results that matter, and Federer's and Roddick's records are proof enough of the results.

 

[AngeloDS]

I never said that. Although, if you want to believe I said that go ahead .

Federer shanks and frames a lot of tennis balls. Where are those pictures? Hardly any. Photographers take good, bad, and all kinds of shots; they select very few pictures to publish. And the ones they do publish are published for a reason.

Although, for someone who says they've played and watched tennis for 30 years. You don't talk or act like it.

I suppose Nadals record against Federer is proof enough. Since he's been winning on clay court against Federer and even on Hard Court. It isn't.

 

[BreakPoint]

Federer shanks and frames a lot of tennis balls. Where are those pictures? Hardly any. Photographers take good, bad, and all kinds of shots; they select very few pictures to publish. And the ones they do publish are published for a reason.

So you do think that the photographers have a conspiracy against Roddick then. Or else why, if they have both "good" and "bad" photos of both Federer and Roddick, do they always choose to publish only the "good" photos of Federer and only the "bad" photos of Roddick?

Although, for someone who says they've played and watched tennis for 30 years. You don't talk or act like it.

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that possibly you don't agree with me and don't understand what I'm saying BECAUSE you don't understand the game as well as I do since you've only been playing the game for a couple of years? I mean if I were a physics professor and you were a student with only Physics 101 under your belt, I wouldn't expect you to understand what the heck I'm saying either.

 

[AngeloDS]

Indeed, I've been playing the game for a couple of years. I don't claim to have played for long. But in those years I have done a lot and learned a lot from the people around me. I've always praised my coaches because they are old and have lived in such eras/decades. I like learning tennis history from them and talking about when they played futures, satelites and when they played in their collegiate days and even sitting down with them and watching old tennis tv matches they have. It's my first year as an assistant coach for varsity girls and the past years I was a manager and helped quite a bit and am helping now.

Again you don't act or sound like your age or the level of tennis you portray to have lived and such. It just seems extremely immature. A lot of what you say is general and seems like it's pulled off the internet. I know first hand how players who have watched, played that long and still play tennis talk/converse.

I never said photographers have a conspiracy. There are good pictures for both Roddick and Federer and bad pictures for Roddick and Federer. Tennis is a game of hundreds and even sometimes dipping into the thousands of shots back and forth. A lot of pictures are taken, very few are chosen to be published. They are published for a reason and one picture doesn't tell the whole story because a lot happens before and after. It gives a small glimpse.

Although, you may have a conspiracy. You seem to always pull the worst pictures of pros and compare them to the best of Federers or such. Sort of like comparing apples to oranges.

You can always make things lean towards your way by saying things, or twisting other peoples words, or showing extremely biased content. Which is what you do a lot of the times.

 

[gokou703]

Here's a comparison of Federer's and Roddick's forehands. Again, look at where their eyes are and where the ball hits the strings:

wow federer's grip looks more eastern than usual in that shot. awesome

 

[BreakPoint]

Again you don't act or sound like your age or the level of tennis you portray to have lived and such. It just seems extremely immature. A lot of what you say is general and seems like it's pulled off the internet. I know first hand how players who have watched, played that long and still play tennis talk/converse.

If I come off as sounding "general" or "immature", it's because I have to simplify a bit so that the young and inexperienced folks on this board, like yourself, have a better chance of comprehending it. That's also why I have to use a lot of pics to illustrate my points.

It's like what they say - "Young people don't know enough to know what they don't know so they think they know everything." Somebody wise must of said that.

And, yes, I really have been playing that long. In fact, I started using a Maxply Fort wood racquet at least five years before McEnroe switched to it from his Jack Kramer Pro Staff in 1981.

 

[jackcrawford]

Clearly Federer is outgunned by Nadal in the racquet department, like Tiger Woods was by Vijay Singh in the club department last year when Singh briefly passed him as number 1. As soon as Woods went to much lighter irons and a 460cc driver from the 330cc he was stubbornly clinging to, he reasserted his dominance. Federer will continue to lose to Nadal until he switches to at least the 6.1 95. No guarantee he'll win then, but he'd have a lot better chance. Never have I seen so many shanks from a great player. BTW, golfers use clubs half the weight (and I mean tour pros as well) as they did ten years ago. There is no one on a golf message board who would tout 10 year old equipment as better; there is no college baseball player (MLB prohibited by rules) who doesn't use the latest technology bat, no Nascar driver who has a 10 year old engine, no sprinter that has ten year old shoes - why is it that tennis players think racquets are the only technology in the world that doesn't evolve? Why not put a 10 year old antivirus definition on your computer while you're at it!

 

[oldguysrule]

If I come off as sounding "general" or "immature", it's because I have to simplify a bit so that the young and inexperienced folks on this board, like yourself, have a better chance of comprehending it. That's also why I have to use a lot of pics to illustrate my points.

It's like what they say - "Young people don't know enough to know what they don't know so they think they know everything." Somebody wise must of said that.

And, yes, I really have been playing that long. In fact, I started using a Maxply Fort wood racquet at least five years before McEnroe switched to it from his Jack Kramer Pro Staff in 1981.

Haven't you learned that it is impossible to win an arguement on the internet. You make a good point earlier that was missed...It doesn't matter why there is a difference in how long they look at the ball. If technique dictates it, then fine. The fact is though, there is a difference. Most players acknowledge that nobody watches the ball better than Federer. No, he is not perfect. He misses the sweetspot. He shanks the ball sometimes. But that doesn't change the fact that he is keeping his eye on the ball better. If pros use the whole string bed for different shots, maybe he is trying to perfect the frame shot.

Edit: Check out the difference in the angle of their respective heads compared to their shoulders. Both Roddick and Federer have a similar shoulder turn...however, Federer's chin is almost touching his right shoulder. Roddick's chin (and thus eyes) are pointed almost straight ahead.

 

[oldguysrule]

Clearly Federer is outgunned by Nadal in the racquet department, like Tiger Woods was by Vijay Singh in the club department last year when Singh briefly passed him as number 1. As soon as Woods went to much lighter irons and a 460cc driver from the 330cc he was stubbornly clinging to, he reasserted his dominance. Federer will continue to lose to Nadal until he switches to at least the 6.1 95. No guarantee he'll win then, but he'd have a lot better chance. Never have I seen so many shanks from a great player. BTW, golfers use clubs half the weight (and I mean tour pros as well) as they did ten years ago. There is no one on a golf message board who would tout 10 year old equipment as better; there is no college baseball player (MLB prohibited by rules) who doesn't use the latest technology bat, no Nascar driver who has a 10 year old engine, no sprinter that has ten year old shoes - why is it that tennis players think racquets are the only technology in the world that doesn't evolve? Why not put a 10 year old antivirus definition on your computer while you're at it!

This is a really good point. When I pick up that new Nike driver, it feels HUGE. And it is ugly. But if it helped me become #1 again, I might feel differently about it.

Do we tennis players have a different mindset than other athletes? What causes Tiger to embrace the new technology, but makes Roger hesitant? Only their shrinks will know for sure.

 

[brucie]

Have you played Federers racket its awesome if i could consistantly strike a 90sq inch head like fed i would use one instead of the 95 n six one, its the weight more for me.
ANYWAY back to the post HEWITT uses 90sq.
I think Taylor Dent uses fed racket.

Although no women seem to use 90's do they?

 

[string70]

Clearly Federer is outgunned by Nadal in the racquet department, like Tiger Woods was by Vijay Singh in the club department last year when Singh briefly passed him as number 1. As soon as Woods went to much lighter irons and a 460cc driver from the 330cc he was stubbornly clinging to, he reasserted his dominance. Federer will continue to lose to Nadal until he switches to at least the 6.1 95. No guarantee he'll win then, but he'd have a lot better chance. Never have I seen so many shanks from a great player. BTW, golfers use clubs half the weight (and I mean tour pros as well) as they did ten years ago. There is no one on a golf message board who would tout 10 year old equipment as better; there is no college baseball player (MLB prohibited by rules) who doesn't use the latest technology bat, no Nascar driver who has a 10 year old engine, no sprinter that has ten year old shoes - why is it that tennis players think racquets are the only technology in the world that doesn't evolve? Why not put a 10 year old antivirus definition on your computer while you're at it!

Tiger did not change his irons. Although your right he did change his Driver, but that has not helped him overtake Vijay.

 

[BreakPoint]

Clearly Federer is outgunned by Nadal in the racquet department, like Tiger Woods was by Vijay Singh in the club department last year when Singh briefly passed him as number 1. As soon as Woods went to much lighter irons and a 460cc driver from the 330cc he was stubbornly clinging to, he reasserted his dominance. Federer will continue to lose to Nadal until he switches to at least the 6.1 95. No guarantee he'll win then, but he'd have a lot better chance. Never have I seen so many shanks from a great player. BTW, golfers use clubs half the weight (and I mean tour pros as well) as they did ten years ago. There is no one on a golf message board who would tout 10 year old equipment as better; there is no college baseball player (MLB prohibited by rules) who doesn't use the latest technology bat, no Nascar driver who has a 10 year old engine, no sprinter that has ten year old shoes - why is it that tennis players think racquets are the only technology in the world that doesn't evolve? Why not put a 10 year old antivirus definition on your computer while you're at it!

Because you cannot change the laws of physics, not even with new racquet technology. Also, because the weight of the ball never changes.

 

[the green god]

gee federer wins an awful lot to be shanking the ball so much.

 

[oldguysrule]

Because you cannot change the laws of physics, not even with new racquet technology. Also, because the weight of the ball never changes.

But couldn't you USE the laws of physics to "improve" the performance of a certain product. I know they certainly have in golf. The newer drivers make golf much easier for the masses. We can hit the ball further and straighter. I played with persimmon well into the metal age and resisted changing, but I would not want to go back to those clubs with money on the line.

As an aside...A very good golfer friend of mine stockpiled 4-5 persimmon drivers because he didn't want to change. He said the only difference in performance was when you missed the sweetspot. (This was probably 10 yrs ago). A perfect swing gave you about the same result. A bad swing, though, was much better with the new drivers. He now plays a new driver.

Anyway, I will continue to use my current racquets because I have fun, and at my level, I don't really feel I am at a disadvantage, and I am cheap. But there lurks in the back of my mind the thought that I may be missing out on something....

 

[jackcrawford]

Because you cannot change the laws of physics, not even with new racquet technology. Also, because the weight of the ball never changes.

Golf technology is applying the laws of physics better with a ball of the same weight - so much better that some pros anger others by having their driver tested to see if it's legal. There's no question drivers are better, the "Iron Byron" proves it. If Nadal were a golfer, Federer would look at that Aeropro Drive and have it checked to see if it was legal. I'm not making an extreme claim - Woods was still #2 while sticking with his 330cc driver, and Nadal would be a top 10 player with a Ncode 90, but when there's little to choose between 1st and 2nd, why not take advantage of what's out there? Sampras regrets not having done so.

 

[BreakPoint]

Sampras regrets not having done so.

I doubt Sampras regrets having won 14 Grand Slams, becoming incredibly rich, being considered the greatest tennis player of all time, and getting a babe actress wife in the process.

Besides, had he used a different racquet, he may have never won any Wimbledons or US Opens. His midsize racquet obviously worked for his game.

 

[madevil_zero]

companies worship their players.

 

[zorg]

Sampras played at a different time, back then, in the 90s it wasn't a small head. Today, its almost extinct.

 

[Midlife crisis]

Besides, had he used a different racquet, he may have never won any Wimbledons or US Opens. His midsize racquet obviously worked for his game.

And if he had used a mid-plus racquet, maybe he would have won 16 or 18 grand slams, includng the French. No one, not you, not me, would know.

By the way, you do know that it is physically impossible to see the ball hit the strings unless the ball is going extremely slow, right? Even if Federer may be staring right at the contact point, the chemical reactions that form the basis for sight cannot and do not react fast enough to be able to capture that moment. All anyone can see is a blur.

 

[kumat63]

Courier did fine with his Wilson PS 85 at the French. Guga with his Head racquet ( head size 93 ) did okay too. Both these guys couldn't win Wimbledon.

I believe Guga won his titles with a PT280--a 630 cc racquet, nearly 98 inches.

 

[Cigo]

Wow those are some slooooowww motion vidoes. Cool, fell alseep on the Roddick one. It looks like Roddick is not able to keep his nose/face/eyes locked longer on the ball due to having his elbow closer to his body then Federer. Try it youself, it just feels more free when the elbow is that far away from the body as Federer usually has it and thus easier to rotate the head into contact. They both rotate quite a bit, don't you think?

As on the smaller head size making a difference on caly. First compare any wilson 95 to a 90 and to the Original, to me it looks like there is not much difference. Just looking at the racquets.

What can a larger head size racquet offer? Less misshits, more free spin and power? How much more in Federer's case? Is it really needed? Less control or more? If less, then is it worth the extra power/spin?
In the end it comes down to Federer feeling comfrotable enough witht the racquet to play his best. This we can't even guess.
How often do misshits discide a match?

How does Sampras clay record compare to Federer this far into his carrier?
I don't know the facts, but remmeber seeing Federer do pretty well in some clay tournaments.

 

[ashpookie]

My possibly flawed logic here (never played on clay before): For clay, since the ball bounces slower/higher, wider racquet does give more margin for error, also give more head to hit more topspin to keep ball in play. Hence percentage wise the longer rallies on clay.

But if anyone especially a pro like federer to change switch to a larger head, he would have to change his strokes too, so I don't think it's a good idea.

Unless you have supernatural talent in which case any racquet could net you a grand slam anyway

 

[BreakPoint]

And if he had used a mid-plus racquet, maybe he would have won 16 or 18 grand slams, includng the French. No one, not you, not me, would know.

I highly doubt it. This is a guy that thought using the same model racquet but just made in a different manufactuirng plant degraded his game. I doubt he would have felt as comfortable and as confident with an entirely different model racquet.

Sampras wouldn't have won the French even if he used two oversized racquets, one in each hand! Why? He's just not a clay court player. Chang schooled him 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 the year Chang won the French.

By the way, you do know that it is physically impossible to see the ball hit the strings unless the ball is going extremely slow, right? Even if Federer may be staring right at the contact point, the chemical reactions that form the basis for sight cannot and do not react fast enough to be able to capture that moment. All anyone can see is a blur.

Yes, I know. But at least Federer is watching that blur hit the middle of his strings, whereas, Roddick is looking at that blond babe in the 4th row. LOL

 

[Midlife crisis]

Yes, I know. But at least Federer is watching that blur hit the middle of his strings, whereas, Roddick is looking at that blond babe in the 4th row. LOL

Well, at least give the man some credit for good taste!

 

[Mace]

I would just like to know, is there anyone else on tour that uses a tough racker like Federer? I mean, it is heavy, and has a small head. With the fast pace of today's game, how can he always hit the sweet spot? Is he the only one? Also, why doesn't Federer tell Wilson to make him a racket with a larger sweet spot? He has the whole company of Wilson to work for him, they can make it identical to his current racket, just a larger head. They can make the string pattern and drill it the exact same, power, control, the weight and everything the same. Even if he were to go to a 95" racket, wouldn't that make him that much better, and cut out on his unforced errors? Its just a thought...

You are out of your mind. Fed has won some major victories on clay. He hits the sweet spot like a hammer on a nail. It is just that Nadal plays a clay game and plays it with tons of performance enhancing drugs. Fed only needs to tweak his clay GAME a bit, not the racquet.

 

[jackcrawford]

Sampras, on reflection, felt he would have had an even better career with a bigger raxquet. Remember, he didn't say he regretted giving up his two-handed backhand or not being one of the early converts to polyester; he focused on the midsized frame as a hindrance. That carries much more weight than my opinion or Breakpoint's. He is, by his own admission, not attempting to play at a tour level in his WTT and exhibition matches so what he chooses to use now is irrelevant to this discussion as he is at his age unwilling/unable to put the effort in to make a big change.

 

[Midlife crisis]

He hits the sweet spot like a hammer on a nail.

Federer mis-hits as much if not more than other pros. Take a look at the 1000 FPS video that's mentioned in any number of threads here. A pure sitter, that comes up chest high on grass, and he mis-hits it by a full ball width.