BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Why should I switch to a 95 just so I have to add topspin to keep the ball from sailing long when I can just keep using my 90 and hit flat without the ball sailing long?
Federer needs new racket and new string.
- Thread starter Buckethead
- Start date
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Sampras and Federer have 30 Slam titles between them. I'd say the "optimum size" is between 85 and 90.
How many pros using 98-100 sq. in. racquets have won even a single Slam?
ptr
Rookie
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Satch
Hall of Fame
Why should I switch to a 95 just so I have to add topspin to keep the ball from sailing long when I can just keep using my 90 and hit flat without the ball sailing long?
Fed can hit a lot of spin with 90...
not that 90 is better than 95 or 98, it's all personal choice.
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
See, here I disagree or at least differ. My 100 square inch Yonex RQS 11 has lower power than the Wilson BLX 90. I hit with both, and had a harder time keeping the ball in with the 90. Same goes for the Sampras KPS 88....that racquet is a rocket launcher given the high swingweight and high stiffness.
My 100 square inch RQS 11 is very flexible in the throat, which keeps the power low. I add tons of weight to the handle, of course, to get the static weight higher. With the 100 square inch I get more spin, a bigger sweetspot, and lower power (allowing me to swing harder and get more spin and more control). Win win.
Results may differ.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yeah, but you can't blast flat winners with your Yonex like you can with the BLX90 or KPS88. My game is about blasting flat winners, not about keeping the ball in play all day long with topspin until my arms and legs fall off.See, here I disagree or at least differ. My 100 square inch Yonex RQS 11 has lower power than the Wilson BLX 90. I hit with both, and had a harder time keeping the ball in with the 90. Same goes for the Sampras KPS 88....that racquet is a rocket launcher given the high swingweight and high stiffness.
My 100 square inch RQS 11 is very flexible in the throat, which keeps the power low. I add tons of weight to the handle, of course, to get the static weight higher. With the 100 square inch I get more spin, a bigger sweetspot, and lower power (allowing me to swing harder and get more spin and more control). Win win.
Results may differ.
Fed Kennedy
Legend
He's probably tried it and not liked it
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
Yeah, but you can't blast flat winners with your Yonex like you can with the BLX90 or KPS88. My game is about blasting flat winners, not about keeping the ball in play all day long with topspin until my arms and legs fall off.
Those flat shots with the KPS88 rocket launcher go long for me. I need something lower powered. Results differ.
dennis10is
Banned
Fed is only a Professional tennis player who won 16 majors, while Jon Werheim is a reporter so Jon is correct.
The problem with profession athlete is that they don't listen to reporters.
The problem with profession athlete is that they don't listen to reporters.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
ignore BP, he is trolling you all. he hasn't enough skill to play with a modern racquet, that's all.
as he admits, if he went up, his hacker flat bat swats would all go out..
as he admits, if he went up, his hacker flat bat swats would all go out..
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Dorian Gray said:
Truer words were never posted. Federer is not in need of a new racquet, Father Time is finally taking His toll on the Great One. And...other interests, like a family.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Sorry to hear that you don't possess the skill to use a smaller-headed racquet nor to hit the ball flat and hit clean winners.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
you are just too easy...
And we are talking about you, actually not me! I have no such difficulty either with my Bio 500 Tour or my new Bio 200... Learn to play, in fact, how about you do that instead of talking rubbish on this forum?
If you can only hit one way, you certainly have my pity
Buckethead
Banned
The perfect racket for Federer would be the Yonex R-22, this racket is a way better than the BLX 90 or anything Wilson has made, the KPS 88 is just a p.o.s can't even come the table.Yeah, but you can't blast flat winners with your Yonex like you can with the BLX90 or KPS88. My game is about blasting flat winners, not about keeping the ball in play all day long with topspin until my arms and legs fall off.
If you play with the R-22 you'll see what I'm talking about, you blast winners from anywhere, aces... but you need to able to use the racket, mine 4 5/8 is around 384g of pure feel.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Just as I said, you don't possess the skills to use a small headed racquet.
Oh, and you're talking to yourself because everyone else is ignoring you.
Clay lover
Legend
All the pros should switch to 65 sq wood racquets, one handed backhands and blast flat winners all day to show respect to Breakpoint, the know-it-all guru of talk tennis forum.
We all know that there is only one way to play tennis and all other people who don't play that way are inferior-that's right, we should all play the Breakpoint way, or else we either have an ugly game or is making use of modern technology to gain an unfair advantage over the players who play the right way.
I am so sorry guys like us, Nadal, and Stosur have disgraced the elite game of tennis Breakpoint, truly sorry. Please accept my apologies.
We all know that there is only one way to play tennis and all other people who don't play that way are inferior-that's right, we should all play the Breakpoint way, or else we either have an ugly game or is making use of modern technology to gain an unfair advantage over the players who play the right way.
I am so sorry guys like us, Nadal, and Stosur have disgraced the elite game of tennis Breakpoint, truly sorry. Please accept my apologies.
Last edited:
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Just as I said, you don't possess the skills to use a small headed racquet.
Oh, and you're talking to yourself because everyone else is ignoring you.
lol, I learnt to play with a slazenger challenge in the 1970s, fella, hitting with an 85 sq in graphite racquet hardly represents a challenge.
One moves on...
Actually, since you're such a purist, how come you aren't playing with a Jack Kramer instead of a piece of tupperware like a pro staff or whatever it is you deem acceptable?
What a tosser...
Clay lover
Legend
Because as he claims a pro staff is a much more similar racquet to wood racquets compared to modern racquets....NOT
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Then why don't you continue to use a 65 sq. in. wood racquet? If you were really good at tennis, as you claim to be, then you should be able to beat opponents with modern racquets even with a wood racquet, like I can.
Oh, and I was never a fan of the Jack Kramer Autograph. I prefer the Dunlop Maxply Fort. In fact, a couple of years ago, I dug out my old Dunlop Maxply McEnroe woodie and played just as well with it as with my nCode90. I couldn't keep using it because I only have one and I didn't want to break it, as wood racquets can easily crack (especially one that's 30 years old).
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I've made no such claim. I've said that the Pro Staff FEELS more like a wood racquet than a modern racquet like a Pure Drive does. It's all relative.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Pfft. As I said, one moves on. I still have a couple of woodies, but I wouldn't want to play a match with them. Sure, I can hit the ball just fine old school with them, but I can do that with my Bio 200s too. There is more to the game now than there was when I first learnt to play and I have added shots and options I never had when I was a kid. My lovely old slazengers don't support my game like they used to.
'really good at tennis'? No, mate, that'd be the pros, not me!
'really good at tennis'? No, mate, that'd be the pros, not me!
gloumar
Rookie
True... can you imagine at which level of symbiosis he and his frame have come to since all these years ? What about the quality and accuracy of the reflexes he has with it ?
Federer has a game based on feeling and inspiration, not on consistency, right ?
He would loose monthes if he changed his racquet IMO...
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Fed's problem is that he's burnt! He was on top for 6 years and it's impossible for anyone to maintain the kind of focus it takes to be on top much longer than that.
Having said that, a Donnay X Blue 99 or Dual Core Platinum 99 should bring that focus back in to razor sharp resolution. 8)
Having said that, a Donnay X Blue 99 or Dual Core Platinum 99 should bring that focus back in to razor sharp resolution. 8)
Kemitak
Professional
Federer doesn't need a new racquet, he needs to leave his wife and kids, like Stan, and, if he's been following these stupid threads about Gulbis, he needs to get rid of all his money and start over with an empty bank account, because the top tennis players in the world only play for money.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Has anyone considered that Federer may actually be using a different racquet than he has previously?
For a player like him I can't see why Wilson wouldn't have easily made him some frames using the same mould but which were stiffer or made out of different materials to try out. Even if he wasn't overly motivated to change surely they'd do stuff like this as normal development for their frames/materials and get him to try it out.
For a player like him I can't see why Wilson wouldn't have easily made him some frames using the same mould but which were stiffer or made out of different materials to try out. Even if he wasn't overly motivated to change surely they'd do stuff like this as normal development for their frames/materials and get him to try it out.
Buckethead
Banned
Federer needs a bigger size racket, half of those mishits or the ones that werent clean hit would've been in and hit on the sweet spot, therefore more power, control and more points won.
I said the R-22 , RD-7, would be great rackets for Fed.
I said the R-22 , RD-7, would be great rackets for Fed.
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
I think a better choice would be the Wilson Pro Staff Largehead, Wilson Ultra 2 Largehead, or the Wilson Sting Largehead.
Rock Strongo
Legend
Buckethead
Banned
I'm being serious, I'm not f.. around.
The 90in racket for the modern game is passed it's time. In 5 years you'll not see any 90 sq in rackets being made anymore, it'll be just like the 85, gone.
There is no adavantage in playing with a mid size at that level.
rainingaces
Legend
Playing with a smaller racquet helps Federer to time the ball perfectly. Federer would be lost with a 100 sized racquet, it would make very little difference in the longterm when he was used to it. Strings is a different story, surely he has already tried everything that would suit him on the market.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If Federer used a bigger racquet, half of those screaming flat winners he hit today would have gone out.
Bigger racquets give you LESS control, not more.
Satch
Hall of Fame
Fed usually play with more spin than today, but this is only game that "works" against mighty Rafa, so he has no other choice.
with bigger racquet and more spin game (Rog), Rafa would blow him off the court in under an hour, because he play with that style for years
Fed needs some more drop shots, S&V and better tactics against Rafa, he really changed very little with new "coach."
Kemitak
Professional
Mid-sized racquets will come back after the ATP realizes all this slow-court nonsense has gone too far.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Hang on.. increasing his head size to, say, 98 would add barely 1cm all the way around the hoop... and you're saying that instead of it being a miss-hit it would instead be in the sweet-spot - which doesn't even start until more like 5-7cm in from the edge.
W. T. F? His strokes are the primary cause of his miss-hits.
Buckethead
Banned
Control is not only achieved with size, there are several factors that gives you more control still making the racket more forgiving.
And... yes He can hit all those winners with a bigger racket.
Doesn't Raonic, Soderling, Berdych, Gonzalez, Gulbis, Almagro(BH), Gasquet(BH), Tsonga rip a lot of winners?
All these guys play rip flat winners with their best shots.
As far as I know Del Po has one of the biggest forehands out there, with a bigger racket.
I didn't say He needs to switch to extreme grip, and try to do what Nadal does. He needs a bigger racket, more forgiving, that can grab the ball better and still allow him to hit winners. He clearly needs more power for his back hand and his favorite backhand shot is the one with spin, because He can't rip a flat BH down the line 2 out of 10 times.
Even though you think there isn't a big gap from his 90 to 98 it makes a big difference and it is noticeable.
Specially if you have a weak 1 HBH the bigger size would help a lot.
It doesn't seem He needs because Federer makes up with other weapons.
So why does He shank so many balls, more than everyone else??
Last edited:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying a larger head wouldn't help his game but you're wrong if you think the head size he uses is the close to being the primary reason he frames balls. His stroke path and timing are the primary reasons (affected by ball/surface speed and bounce as well as his own speed/prep - none of which a larger frame would solve).
The reason he shanks more than average - not more than everyone else, just more than people we see on TV since he makes it so far into most tournaments - is as above: his strokes. If his frame was fundamentally at fault then explain why he went years without it being such an issue using the same basic frame size/style?
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
None of these guys hit the ball like Federer. If they did, they would all also have 16 Slams. Instead, NONE of them even has a SINGLE Slam between them. Also, none of them have played most of the career with a 90 sq. in. racquet. The adjustment of going from a 90 to a 98 is just as bad as going from a 98 to a 90.
Federer's problem is not his racquet. It's age and lack of motivation. He doesn't have anything left to achieve. The fire no longer burns. Totally understandable. He has a family and more money than he can ever spend in a lifetime. Why bust his butt out on a tennis court everyday anymore?
Mick
Legend
federer probably have tried larger headsize racquets already and decided that they didn't suit his game.
you guys are only amateurs but have played with a lot of different racquets. Do you seriously believe that federer has never tested any other racquets beside the ones he has been using?
you guys are only amateurs but have played with a lot of different racquets. Do you seriously believe that federer has never tested any other racquets beside the ones he has been using?
joe sch
Legend
This is the same talk that was offered to help revive Sampras at the end of his career. The same logic will apply as to why Federer will not make a racket change. Roger is not going to develop a 2 handed backhand. He is also not going to start hitting more extreme western grips and strokes. These are the changes needed to make best use of a larger head racket. Both Sampras and Federer made history with smaller head player rackets so maybe there should be talk of why we need more 85s and 90s so other great allcourt players can develop and challenge the current crop of great baseliners playing 100+ si rackets
On the other hand, a string change maybe more practical but these are even difficult changes for most touring pros to deal with. Rogers current hybrid gut/poly is a very popular atp setup. Maybe going full rpm or hex would give him a boost if he can adjust ?
On the other hand, a string change maybe more practical but these are even difficult changes for most touring pros to deal with. Rogers current hybrid gut/poly is a very popular atp setup. Maybe going full rpm or hex would give him a boost if he can adjust ?
Last edited:
Buckethead
Banned
It doesn't matter how much the others have not won, that is not the point we are talking about here, you mentioned how Fed hits the ball not how much He won.
The reason why Fed won what he did is not only about hitting the ball, it has a lot more to do than that, such as conditioning, strategy, mental toughness, movement, footwork and so forth, and hitting the ball one more variable to this whole equation.
Gasquet, Wawrinka, Almagro can hit backhands against Nadal's forehand all day long, they can also hit winners with their BH from anywhere in the court, Fed doesn't even come close, not even an argument.
Using your point of view then these guys should have won more than Fed, because their BH are far better than Fed's using bigger rackets, and why they have not??
Because of all the other aspects involved in, that makes Fed who He is, have you thought if Fed had a backhand like Gasquet or Wawrinka's??
By now He would've had 40 majors.
This is my last statement on this issue.
You believe in what you want to believe, I am not gonna cahnge your point of view neither you are changing mine.
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
It doesn't matter how much the others have not won, that is not the point we are talking about here, you mentioned how Fed hits the ball not how much He won.
The reason why Fed won what he did is not only about hitting the ball, it has a lot more to do than that, such as conditioning, strategy, mental toughness, movement, footwork and so forth, and hitting the ball one more variable to this whole equation.
Gasquet, Wawrinka, Almagro can hit backhands against Nadal's forehand all day long, they can also hit winners with their BH from anywhere in the court, Fed doesn't even come close, not even an argument.
Using your point of view then these guys should have won more than Fed, because their BH are far better than Fed's using bigger rackets, and why they have not??
Because of all the other aspects involved in, that makes Fed who He is, have you thought if Fed had a backhand like Gasquet or Wawrinka's??
By now He would've had 40 majors.
This is my last statement on this issue.
You believe in what you want to believe, I am not gonna cahnge your point of view neither you are changing mine.
Gaquet is 0-8 vs Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=G628&oId=N409
Wawrinka is 0-7 vs Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=W367&oId=N409
Alamgro is 0-7 vs Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=A479&oId=N409
Those backhands are not getting the job done against Nadal. Federer for the first set in Madrid was getting the job done against Nadal. He could not keep that level up. Nadal especially on clay puts some much pressure on his opponents. Nadal is able to track down so many balls that should and would be winners that it works on your mind. That is what happen to Federer. He Started going for too much. Look at the end of the match at 5-3. At 30-30 they played a spectacular point that Federer had to win about 4 times. That makes it nadal serving at 30-40. Federer then goes for too much on the service return. that makes it deuce. Then Federer dumps a another return making it match point. Then Nadal jams Federer on the serve and sets up a approach shot that forces the error.
Last edited:
Devilito
Hall of Fame
It’s irrelevant if you have a 1hbh or a 2hbh against Nadal. His strategy is the same. It’s not like 2hbh players are doing so much better than 1hbh against Nadal. If you get a high spin shot to your backhand it’s a hard defensive shot either way. Plus you made his point. Wawrinka has a more solid backhand than Federer yet he’s nowhere near the player. Federer won 16 slams due to other characteristics that are currently dwindling with the mix of age and burn out. His game has changed but his mentality is not changing. He’s obviously stubborn and arrogant and thinks he should be winning the same way now as he was 5 years ago and that he shouldn’t have to make any adjustments. He’s obviously still good enough to take out %99 of the ATP but for the new top dogs like Nadal and Djokovic he needs to come up with something special if he wants to continue competing. Someone like Agassi who had long layoffs throughout his career was able to use those moments to reinvent his game and stay relevant into his older age. Federer has never had time off and it seems like he needs it at this point to reinvent himself for what could be his final push at another slam.
lidoazndiabloboi
Hall of Fame
It doesn't matter how much the others have not won, that is not the point we are talking about here, you mentioned how Fed hits the ball not how much He won.
The reason why Fed won what he did is not only about hitting the ball, it has a lot more to do than that, such as conditioning, strategy, mental toughness, movement, footwork and so forth, and hitting the ball one more variable to this whole equation.
Gasquet, Wawrinka, Almagro can hit backhands against Nadal's forehand all day long, they can also hit winners with their BH from anywhere in the court, Fed doesn't even come close, not even an argument.
Using your point of view then these guys should have won more than Fed, because their BH are far better than Fed's using bigger rackets, and why they have not??
Because of all the other aspects involved in, that makes Fed who He is, have you thought if Fed had a backhand like Gasquet or Wawrinka's??
By now He would've had 40 majors.
This is my last statement on this issue.
You believe in what you want to believe, I am not gonna cahnge your point of view neither you are changing mine.
The reason guys like Gasquet, Wawrinka and Almagro can hit backhands all day long is because they stand like 10 feet behind the baseline, which is not a winning tactic against Nadal. Federer stands right up on the baseline making the timing of the backhands crucial. That's why Fed shanks more often then the other players do.
