Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by The Baseline, Jul 8, 2010.
it has nothing to do with the head size.. the quality of the game is increasing.. compare nole 5 years ago, with all the imitating stuff he made, and the current nole, is his confidence during the game is the same? im a big fan of Federer and i know there is something wrong that he hasnt win the slam since AO10, but im pretty sure head size is not the prob.
btw, 90 is unique.. while other players have good precision, Federer's precision is excelent
Fed is not going to change. But, I think he should try a 95" version of his current racket. Keep the specs the same. I think he would be helped a bit on 1 hbh.
I think he is playing a Weed 135" for Wimby.
he needs to tweener up the k90.
ok the amount of racket head speed federer gets on his balls IS CRAZY!!! it wouldnt matter if he played wiht a 90 or a 100 sqt this was said by Paul Annacone if you want a source is somewhere on the federerfan07.com website also johnny mac said the same thing in his match vs. mahut at the french this year that it really wouldnt matter but the only thing that puzzles me is and bigger head size would help him reach more balls then usual so why not switch?
How can a bigger head help him reach more balls when both are the same length (27 in.)?
Sorry I meant reach balls closer to the sweet spot
Let's stop for a moment and examine the point of view. The premise of the thread is so plainly self defeating, so utterly audacious, that it mutates into a little gem of moderate comedic entertainment value.
Apparently, a TW forum member is qualified to make decisions on the choice of equipment for world's best tennis players. So qualified, and so amazingly insightful, that he actually knows what is the best tennis racquet for Roger Federer to use. He knows better than Roger himself. Let's consider the premise that, Mr. R. Federer, of 564 W. Switzerland Rd., the man who ...
- Began his career as the ITF World Junior Champion 1998
- Won 16 Grand Slam Titles, breaking the prev all time Men's Record of 14.
- Won 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles 2003-2007
- Holds 5 consecutive US Open titles (5) 2004-2008
- Holds 74 ATP Titles
... Doesn't know very much about tennis racquets. Roger is so oblivious about tennis racquets he does not even know which tennis racquets suit his own style of play, or his own strokes. He is so dumfounded about this mysterious thing called a "racquet" that he's had in his hand, every day of his life since age 8, that the obvious solution to his ignorance is to visit the Tennis Warehouse message forum and heed the advice of the real experts.
I for one can only hope (before it is too late and all is lost) that he finds his way here, and will soon get the counsel he so desperately needs.
This will all be moot if Federer manages to win Wimbledon, as he will reach #1.
It's moot regardless.
A better thread would be that Roddick needs to switch to a 90 or he will descend even more. :shock:
Agassi won 3 Australian Opens over 30, and he played with an OS 107 sq inches, so obviously Federer must switch to an OS ASAP.
I personally couldn't care less what Fed plays with, but I love it when I see so many 3.5-4.0 guys expressing very serious opinions about what the winner of 16 Grand Slams should play with. I am certain that Federer is keeping a close eye on this thread, hopefully you'll persuade him to make the switch.
As a 2012 Wimbledon Finalist (ummm, make that CHAMPION) at the age of 30 is a hell of a descent.
That's internet rating my friend. Subtract one full point for real NTRP rating. :twisted:
To be honest, i would love to see federer using Yonex Vcore Tour 89.
Yes, Fed should do what others do. Of course, Ken Rosewall got the to finals of Wimbledon at 39 years old, so Fed should use a Seamco Aluminum Racket. I bet he could beat anyone on this board using that racket.
More seriously, after trying out a gut-poly hybrid and seeing how much power it has and how it can trampoline, if Federer did change to a larger head size he would have to go to an all-poly, or at least poly mains setup. Of course, he would win with that, too.
Yes, Fed needs to switch so he can lose before the Finals like Nadal and Djoker.
Yes, Federer's "descent" down to #1 in the world wouldn't have happened if he had just switched to a bigger racquet! ;-)
Why would Roger leave his racquet, which is the most comfortable, control-oriented racquet to use out there. The heftiness of his racquet and the relatively soft string setup makes him use less muscles than anyone else on tour just to hit the ball. Such short swings on groundstroke and literally he just need uncoil his wrists most of the time, with great timing, and the ball is hit with tremendous spin and feel and accuracy and power as well !
The small head size makes the racquet to be more stable, reduce twisting, and therefore he can hit with such accuracy..
With his racquet he uses less muscles, spends less energy, endures less stress just to be involved in long rallies... he would half-volley balls from the baseline and hit it deep and paint the line as winners! The powerful and hefty racquet does all the job for him, he as a genius human being just need to guide it's racquet head at the right place and at the right time. Of course his great footwork and his ability to read the game is more than a bonus.
Because of the control oriented racquet and soft string setup, it also gives him such a soft touch as well, and he can easily absorb any powerful shots coming at him, he can easily redirect the ball, change the pace of the ball, do whatever he wants with the ball.
Human nature is amazing. Fed has won, regained #1 and I bet that Wilson will now start disappearing from the shelves fast. If the winner was a Blow Joe with large 110" shovel, people would keep buying that because that's what wins a tennis match. Never mind the skill,talent and tactics.
Roger is Roger, the GOAT. But, us, common people, who play with a 90 head inches and a 100 head inches feeling a big difference in power, and timing to hit the ball. Racquets with big heads are more friendly in timing, and Federer not has the timimg he has an years ago. I am a fan of Roger, and until this year, I do not think he has to switch, but seeing the footwork of your young rivals, and the age of Roger, today I think he has to consider change the frame.
Using smaller racquets makes my footwork better.
He must have secretly switched to win Wimby this year! BHBH
Make that "anyone in the world" and I will agree.
So now, once more, with feeling, I beg the collective to repeat after me: "It's NOT the racquet. It's NOT the racquet. IT'S NOT THE RACQUET!!!!"
The secret to Fed's success is how he cuts his finger nails.
He should switch to a Volkl. If he followed the optispot he'd stop shanking.
Amplifeel techno-lololololol-gy has a break in time people...
Did anyone notice who, besides Serena, won Wimbledon this year?
This Roger Federer guy looks to be a decent player, I think he'll do ok in his career if he works hard.
If I say that Roger's frame is made with graphite, You will say that is not, is aluminum............
We are changing informations here, not joking........
But "You can not be serious" right?
ok. I understand the joke.
If Federer continues to descend like he has in the last month or so, he may find himself the unwitting victim of a Grand Slam...
Not joking at all. Using a smaller racquet forces me to improve my footwork because I have to or else I won't hit as clean of a shot. I can't get lazy and just stick the racquet out but the rewards of a better shot are well worth it.
Yeah, if Federer moves up any more in the rankings he'll end up being ranked #0. :lol: LOL
"federer falling to number 3 is catastrophic at the least."
even if he fall to #3 i'd say #3 is good for his age and what he has accomplished. but seriously, i don't blame the headsize. then why did sampras played with the prostaff 85 thoughout his pro career and never changed rackets? if anything id say its stamina that will slow him down due to his age
So Fed uses a smaller racquet to make sure he moves his feet the best? So you are saying you and Fed comparatively have the same level of concentration/footwork... but others cant possibly know in the sense of equal level competition they play, what a racquet can and can't do for the player and how that could lend itself to Feds problems?
Federer has the best footwork of all time. He can use a ping pong paddle if he wants and it won't make a difference. It's not the size of his racquet. It's where he stands on the baseline, how early off the bounce he hits the ball, and how fast his racquet head speed is. Using a bigger racquet is not going to change any of those things, except maybe slow down his racquet head speed.
Thats not what you were arguing, your reasoning is that if a smaller head makes you play better it must serve Fed the same way. Somehow everyone thinks a more forgiving and spin friendly racquet will hurt Feds game against guys the like of which no one on here has played against. It most certainly will not hurt his backhand, and being able to reign in the forehand vs trying too hard will likely help in the rallies. Really, I can switch from an 85 to a 93 to a 98 all weighted and balanced reasonably similar and not really skip a beat. This thought that Fed would not be able too do the same buy a bunch of guys that probably don't even weight match or balance their frames is nonsense. No, no one knows what its like to play like Fed, but no one on here knows what its like for a guy of equal ability to force that same level for 30 stroke rallies from across the net either...
I said a smaller head makes my footwork better and makes for a more satisfying shot. Does that equate to "playing better"? Maybe or maybe not. I'm saying Federer's problem is not with his racquet. It's with where he stands, how early on the rise he hits the ball, and with his massive racquet head speed. Because of those things, a bigger racquet is not going to make him play any better. It may for you but then you don't have Federer's timing nor do you take the ball as early nor do you have his racquet head speed.
And why wouldn't a bigger racquet hurt his backhand? A bigger racquet is less maneuverable and less "flickable" just because it's physically bigger and more obstructive, even if the other specs are the same. I know my one-handed backhand is much more precise and deadly with a smaller racquet than with a bigger racquet. Why couldn't this also be the case with Federer? Thus, there's no guarantee that a bigger racquet won't hurt his backhand.
You have no idea how I play, and the second part is let us just say bs. Against who? The wall? their is a huge difference playing proclaimed 4-5.0 guys with a small racquet where just meeting the ball and keeping it in is enough. Again, you are trying to compare you to Fed in a passive way.... Their is a reason why Fed who is a better striker of the ball has a weaker 1hbh than guys like Guga, Gaudio, Gasquet, Haas, Almagro, Wawrinka, Kholi etc... and has the most mishits of the top4. It has nothing to do with his feet or positioning or taking the ball early or even his age.
The underlined part is possible, but you speak of it as a fact, instead of being open to it probably being the least likely scenario against the better opposition.
Meanwhile, you state definitely that a smaller racquet "most certainly can't hurt his backhand". How do you know? You're not Federer, either.
Those other guys may or may not have better 1HBH's but if they do, it's not because of the size of their racquets. It's because of their techniques. Most of those guys stand way far back from the baseline and take the ball while it's falling and slower, not on the baseline and take the ball on the rise and faster like Federer does. Most also use more extreme grips on the backhand than Federer does. Which is why none of them have ever gotten close to winning Wimbledon.
Guys like Budge, Laver, Vilas, Lendl, Edberg, etc. had pretty darn good one-handed backhands and they used racquets between 65 sq. in. and 85 sq. in.
Why do you think that anything would change in his game if he uses a bigger frame? The stroke would stay the same. As I have said, played many different frames and currently have the retro 85, DNX 10 mid, Head speed pro all poly/lux strung. All weighted/balance closely. Their is worlds of difference between them frame wise, but one thing that remains the same is my stroke, the thing that changes is what the ball does. Nothing about his stroke need change, but it would open up the option of being able to do more with it. The way you talk about it makes me think you change what you do because you change frames. With that in mind one would have to ask their self am i even qualified to comment on this subject.
On a side note, when everyone played a flat/slice ball everyone seemed to have a good 1hb1. What does tennis that was played at half of todays speed, a quarter of the spin (maybe) have to do with this subject?
Are you saying even if Fed were to use a 100+ sq inch racquet, he would still be shanking the same amount of balls?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. He may shank even more because the bigger frame will get in the way of his fast strokes even more. In the physical world, anything physically bigger will be more obstructive than the same thing that's physically smaller, all else being equal. Besides, shanking is not a problem for Federer with his current racquet as proven by his 17 Slams. :wink:
BTW, I don't shank any more with an 85 than I do with a 95.
Well, sounds like there's no point in arguing with you.
Fed may continue to get great results with whatever stick he is using now. But I'm fairly sure he would shank far less with a larger headed racquet.
But even if he does shank less, he may lose in other areas with a larger headed racquet, such as his serve and touch and finesse shots. For example, I serve and hit drop shots much better with a smaller racquet than a larger one. Sampras also had no problems serving with a small racquet.
BTW, Borg had very aggressive vertical topspin strokes, yet I don't recall him shanking very much even with his very heavy and small 65 sq. in. wood racquet.
I'm not talking about overall performance. If Roger feels that despite all the shanks his current setup gives him the best possible chance to win, then he should stick with it.
All I'm saying, contrary to your position, is that the larger head should decrease the number of shanks. I have no problem with Borg using 65 sq in racquet. He wasn't known for shanking.
To think of it, I have not seen a top player shank as much as Fed. Agassi hit on the rise more than Fed and hit with nearly the same pace, yet hit clean shots. So besides the racquet head size, what could be the difference?
Agassi hit with much less racquet head speed and flatter and with less variety than Federer does. His 2HBH also made it a bit easier for him to block back shots from the baseline.
We see Federer shank more because we see more of his matches. The other players who shank a lot don't have all of their matches televised.
Agassi hit with much less racquet head speed?
Do we see less of Nadal and Djokovic on TV? Fed is the undisputed king of shanks.
As good as he is (and I see him as the greatest of all time), he could definitely reduce his shanks by getting a bigger racquet.
That's enough for me. I know you can be endlessly argumentative.
Yes, you can see it here in their '05 US Open final. That's how Federer gets more spin on his shots.
I thought drakulie had already proven here years ago that Nadal actually shanks more than Federer?
Now that you mention it, I don't think I have either from the mid 70's forward. I agree that Fed shanks more balls than any pro I've ever seen.
I think comments on Agassi have to be tempered. Agassi could, if he wanted, hit the ball off the ground harder than anyone...pretty much ever. Agassi reigned in his power after working with Gilbert. Rather than blow them off the court, Agassi got himself in top physical condition and then went about destroying his opponents physically. His nickname the 2nd half of his career, the Punisher, wasn't a tribute to how hard he hit the ball, it was a description of what he did to his opponents. Gilbert said that their game plan was to control the center of the court and focus on 8 - 10 ball rallies working the opposition side to side.
That said, I had seen times when Agassi unleashed his old self and just hit the ball harder than anyone I'd ever seen before or after.
Oh, and I've never seen Agassi shank a ball. I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen Sampras shank one either and can't recall any.
Separate names with a comma.