Federer needs new racket and new string.

[BreakPoint]

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.

Exactly! Gasquet, Wawrinka, and Almagro MAY have better backhands than Federer, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the size of their racquets. It has to do with their grips, the way they hit their backhands, and how far they stand back. In fact, IMO, a bigger racquet is a hindrance on one-handed backhands. I can hit my one-handed backhand much better with smaller racquets than I can with bigger racquets. I suspect it's the same for Federer. There's nothing quite like ripping one-handed backhands with the Tour 90s (or KPS88 ).

 

[AlpineCadet]

If Fed could only get a little more zip off his sweetspot/mishits and a little more bite on his strokes... wait--too bad, because he's stuck with that 90 sq. in. frame. I'll let you guys finish the rest of this thought

 

[BreakPoint]

If Fed could only get a little more zip off his sweetspot/mishits and a little more bite on his strokes... wait--too bad, because he's stuck with that 90 sq. in. frame. I'll let you guys finish the rest of this thought

Federer can hit his forehand as hard or harder than anyone else on tour with his 90 sq. in. frame. How much more zip does he need? :-?

 

[dirkgnuf]

Federer can hit his forehand as hard or harder than anyone else on tour with his 90 sq. in. frame. How much more zip does he need? :-?

BreakPoint,

I think the issue is that Federer used to be able to hit the ball with a lot of zip consistently and accurately, and nowadays, his shots are not as consistent, he shanks more often etc. Can he still rip the ball? Sure. But he's not doing so as consistently. Maybe it has to do with his style of play as well, but his shots don't always seem as "strong" as I remember in 04-07.

To me, having a larger racquet and sweet spot means that he gains back some of that consistency, and when he needs to lunge etc for a really tough shot, some of those extra inches will give him more margin for error. A small racquet allows for lower margin of error correct? Given his great timing and natural talent, adding say 3-4 inches could make a big difference.

 

[LPShanet]

BreakPoint,

I think the issue is that Federer used to be able to hit the ball with a lot of zip consistently and accurately, and nowadays, his shots are not as consistent, he shanks more often etc. Can he still rip the ball? Sure. But he's not doing so as consistently. Maybe it has to do with his style of play as well, but his shots don't always seem as "strong" as I remember in 04-07.

To me, having a larger racquet and sweet spot means that he gains back some of that consistency, and when he needs to lunge etc for a really tough shot, some of those extra inches will give him more margin for error. A small racquet allows for lower margin of error correct? Given his great timing and natural talent, adding say 3-4 inches could make a big difference.

At the pro level, shanking is generally related to legs, head/body position, movement and visual tracking, and NOT to the racquet or swing. For those players, switching to a larger racquet has no positive effect on shanking at all. Sure, Fed could use less shanking, but switching to a larger headsize won't accomplish that.

And a larger headsize is often detrimental to consistency at the tournament level (which you've already correctly noted Fed needs most). It's pretty tough to make an argument that switching to a larger headed racquet can increase consistency for any player at that level. The larger head reduces control, increases trampoline and moves through the air more slowly (all other factors made equal). Further, a ball that's a shank with a 90, will still be a shank with a 95 given a topspin-producing swing path. Lastly, he's played with a smaller racquet all his life, so switching at this point can only play havoc with the strokes he's spent his entire life grooving. Just because something helps a club hacker doesn't mean it will benefit a pro. There's a reason pros don't switch racquets very often.

 

[1970CRBase]

I just never ever get this : never mind changing to a bigger racquet, if adding just one more gram of lead to his handle will help Fed win an extra slam, he needs prompting from anybody?

And now "suresh" is suggesting that Nad should switch to a heavier racquet after losing to Novak..... omg ...

 

[BreakPoint]

BreakPoint,

I think the issue is that Federer used to be able to hit the ball with a lot of zip consistently and accurately, and nowadays, his shots are not as consistent, he shanks more often etc. Can he still rip the ball? Sure. But he's not doing so as consistently. Maybe it has to do with his style of play as well, but his shots don't always seem as "strong" as I remember in 04-07.

To me, having a larger racquet and sweet spot means that he gains back some of that consistency, and when he needs to lunge etc for a really tough shot, some of those extra inches will give him more margin for error. A small racquet allows for lower margin of error correct? Given his great timing and natural talent, adding say 3-4 inches could make a big difference.

If a pro could gain more power and consistency by moving from a 90 sq. in. racquet to a 95 sq. in. racquet, why don't we see many pros moving from 100 sq. in. racquets to 120 sq. in. racquets to gain even more power and consistency? Because they would lose control, which is even more important than power. That's also why many pros use ultra-low-powered polyester strings - to gain control at the expense of power.

Federer can take massive swings at the ball and has one of the highest racquet head speeds because his 90 sq. in. racquet affords him the control to allow him to take those massive cuts at the ball. If he tried to do that with a larger racquet he'd be hitting the back fence half of the time.

Federer's shanks are a result of his massive racquet head speed and the fact that he stands on top of the baseline and takes balls on the rise right off of the bounce. That combination means he would be shanking no matter how large his racquet is.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Federer's shanks are a result of his massive racquet head speed and the fact that he stands on top of the baseline and takes balls on the rise right off of the bounce. That combination means he would be shanking no matter how large his racquet is.

I wish some people would just bother to learn something for a change or STFU about this whole thing. You have summed up perfectly, in one paragraph, the reasons it happens and the reasons a larger frame wont solve squat.

Nothing more needs to be said about it really other than: nice post.

 

[tenis1]

Nadal also needs a new racquet now.
It looks like that hollow Babolat of his does not work any more.

Fed needs a bigger frame, while Nadal needs a heavier frame.

:twisted:

 

[Cup8489]

Nadal also needs a new racquet now.
It looks like that hollow Babolat of his does not work any more.

Fed needs a bigger frame, while Nadal needs a heavier frame.

:twisted:

Djokovic needs less annoying fanboys.

 

[tenis1]

Djokovic needs less annoying fanboys.

We are trying. Give us a break, we are not as experienced as Fed and Nadal fanboys.

 

[sandiegoman]

Can you add PureDrive Roddick to the racquet poll?

 

[drakulie]