Feds Racquet

[RalphJ]

After watching the USO final again, its obvious Fed's still fighting the racquet. I think the racquet is a too powerful for him. Most of his shots had way more pace than with the 90, but they also had a lot more spin. When he needed to straighten out the shot he struggled. There's no doubt Fed made more errors in the USO final than in previous finals (especially with the 90), and IMO the racquet was a major contributor. He needs something slightly bigger than the 90, but less than the RF97. The racquet is a slightly too much of a cannon and takes a little too much effort for him to control. In today's game, when each match is decided by a few points here and there, it makes a huge difference in the match when you have to think technically (don't hit it out, swing early, etc.) than tactically.

 

[RalphJ]

Oops wrong section. Should be in Pros Racquets and Gear.

 

[BGod]

I think a heavy 95 might work better yes.

But fact is Djokovic has a safer game and Federer simply choked time and again on big points. He didn't try to be very aggressive on those break points.

 

[Surion]

Come on, another stupid thread about his racquet? Did you watch his previous matches? Wimbledon semi? Cincy final? He is doing fine with the racquet, he uust tightened up in that final, because he wants his 18th that badly.

And because of that, I'm sure he would switch racquets again, if he thought, that could help him.
And, be sure he tried several 95s before deciding to take the RF.

 

[roger presley]

Nothing wrong with the racket,answer is somewhere else.

 

[sundaypunch]

Federer has said the new racquet has been a big improvement. His coaches have said the same thing. Every tennis analyst and announcer said the same. Yet the rec. players at TW know better.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Lol at people suggesting he would be better off with a 95 instead of a 97... a 2 sq in difference that adds about 1-2mm to the hoop size - a difference which isn't even distinguishable on TV or in photos. I wont be surprised if someone doesn't come back and suggest a 96 to split the difference. Or a 95.5. lol

 

[RanchDressing]

Lol at people suggesting he would be better off with a 95 instead of a 97... a 2 sq in difference that adds about 1-2mm to the hoop size - a difference which isn't even distinguishable on TV or in photos. I wont be surprised if someone doesn't come back and suggest a 96 to split the difference. Or a 95.5. lol

Like I said in the other thread about this very topic.

TT Tennis player logic I LOST. MUST MEAN SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE RACQUET.
*Makes 12 threads about the same 3 topics with different titles*
*Orders another frame from TW*

Guess what TT. That's not what the pro's do. Unless your name is Dimitrov. (Verdasco just wants $)

 

[BreakPoint]

After watching the USO final again, its obvious Fed's still fighting the racquet. I think the racquet is a too powerful for him. Most of his shots had way more pace than with the 90, but they also had a lot more spin. When he needed to straighten out the shot he struggled. There's no doubt Fed made more errors in the USO final than in previous finals (especially with the 90), and IMO the racquet was a major contributor. He needs something slightly bigger than the 90, but less than the RF97. The racquet is a slightly too much of a cannon and takes a little too much effort for him to control. In today's game, when each match is decided by a few points here and there, it makes a huge difference in the match when you have to think technically (don't hit it out, swing early, etc.) than tactically.

Agreed.

The RF97A is such a different beast and his mechanics, technique, and strokes that have been ingrained into his muscle memory since childhood from using smaller racquets, like the PS 6.0 85 and Tour 90s, that using a big cannon like the RF97A would be very difficult to adjust to as he would basically have to undo all the muscle memory that he's formed over decades and start over from scratch. Likewise, can you imagine how difficult it would be for someone with Nadal's strokes to switch to a PS 6.0 85?

 

[BreakPoint]

Federer has said the new racquet has been a big improvement. His coaches have said the same thing. Every tennis analyst and announcer said the same. Yet the rec. players at TW know better.

A "big improvement" over what?

He hasn't won a single Slam with the 97, while he's won 17 with the 90, so how is that a "big improvement"?

 

[BreakPoint]

Like I said in the other thread about this very topic.

TT Tennis player logic I LOST. MUST MEAN SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE RACQUET.
*Makes 12 threads about the same 3 topics with different titles*
*Orders another frame from TW*

Guess what TT. That's not what the pro's do. Unless your name is Dimitrov. (Verdasco just wants $)

Then why is it that every time Federer lost a big match with the 90, someone would invariably start a thread saying that he needs to switch racquets? If that was the case with the 90, why not also with the 97? It's the exact same logic - the racquet gets the blame.

 

[RanchDressing]

Then why is it that every time Federer lost a big match with the 90, someone would invariably start a thread saying that he needs to switch racquets? If that was the case with the 90, why not also with the 97? It's the exact same logic - the racquet gets the blame.

Because you TTer's are fanboys who don't live in reality.

For someone who insists you can win with any racquet you sure don't believe roger can "win with any racquet". Didn't you say you can win with a frying pan?

Bionic poster. That's hilarious.

Why is it that no professional tennis player, commentator, or any kind of ATP level coach/pro of any kind has said the same thing about the 90? Only you recreational players on a message board insist this "logic".

Roger should obviously switch to a prostaff 85 with stock swingweight and kevlar strings. He should also have about 7 shots before he plays novak. That way he can get out to a fast start and once the alcohol kicks in he can be relaxed and let that 320 swingweight kevlar dinosaur *cough* I mean uber pro racquet, demolish novak djokovic. With its smaller margins, and kevlar for uber spin.

Give me a freaking break.

 

[BreakPoint]

Because you TTer's are fanboys who don't live in reality.

For someone who insists you can win with any racquet you sure don't believe roger can "win with any racquet". Didn't you say you can win with a frying pan?

Bionic poster. That's hilarious.

Why is it that no professional tennis player, commentator, or any kind of ATP level coach/pro of any kind has said the same thing about the 90? Only you recreational players on a message board insist this "logic".

Roger should obviously switch to a prostaff 85 with stock swingweight and kevlar strings. He should also have about 7 shots before he plays novak. That way he can get out to a fast start and once the alcohol kicks in he can be relaxed and let that 320 swingweight kevlar dinosaur *cough* I mean uber pro racquet, demolish novak djokovic. With its smaller margins, and kevlar for uber spin.

Give me a freaking break.

So why is it that whenever Nadal or Murray or Djokovic lost to Federer and his 90, no one started a thread that they should all switch racquets? Isn't the logic that the winning racquet is the superior one?

So if Federer switched to a 110 sq. in. racquet, does that he mean we can never blame his racquet when he loses? Bigger = more wins, right?

And I said Federer can beat YOU with any racquet, and yes, even with a frying pan.

 

[iceman_dl6]

After watching the USO final again, its obvious Fed's still fighting the racquet. I think the racquet is a too powerful for him. Most of his shots had way more pace than with the 90, but they also had a lot more spin. When he needed to straighten out the shot he struggled. There's no doubt Fed made more errors in the USO final than in previous finals (especially with the 90), and IMO the racquet was a major contributor. He needs something slightly bigger than the 90, but less than the RF97. The racquet is a slightly too much of a cannon and takes a little too much effort for him to control. In today's game, when each match is decided by a few points here and there, it makes a huge difference in the match when you have to think technically (don't hit it out, swing early, etc.) than tactically.

1000% disagree! Fed did beat Djokovic in Cincy 2015, guess which racquet he used? Case closed!

 

[BreakPoint]

1000% disagree! Fed did beat Djokovic in Cincy 2015, guess which racquet he used? Case closed!

Look up how many times Federer had beaten Djokovic at Cincy with the 90, and even easier.

2009 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 6-1 7-5

2012 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 6-0 7-6

2015 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 7-6 6-3

 

[roger presley]

Can't you people understand that racket is not the reason why he's loosing this finals!? In this moment of time,Djokovic is better and that's that. There is no racket that can change this,whether 90 or 97,it's gonna be the same.

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Umm... no, and what the guy above me ^^^ said.

He blew his opponents away in Cincinnati and US Open in all but one match. He had a bad day against the best player in the world.

 

[hirschi80]

1000% disagree! Fed did beat Djokovic in Cincy 2015, guess which racquet he used? Case closed!

best of 3. no grandslam. -> not very exciting for fed -> new racquet works very well.
in a grandslam you need to go threw your strokes in the biggest situation AND you need to have control while doing that! without control ur mind crushes down ur game in these special situations -> you will make mistakes. djokovic and nadal are very used to use these situations for their benefits. their more defensiv game makes it much easier to play difficult situations like breakpoints.

Umm... no, and what the guy above me ^^^ said.

He blew his opponents away in Cincinnati and US Open in all but one match. He had a bad day against the best player in the world.

if he wants to blew away these opponents, he should stay with his new racquet. mayb its ok for him.

im not a big fan of fed. so mayb i should just be glad he switched the racquet...
but i also think it has a lot todo with marketing and i think fed is a greedy guy.
the switch to a bigger racquet will sell much more racquets and is pumping up his value for advertising racquets. i bet he has gotten a much better deal for the new racquet then the years before....

 

[iceman_dl6]

Look up how many times Federer had beaten Djokovic at Cincy with the 90, and even easier.

2009 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 6-1 7-5

2012 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 6-0 7-6

2015 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 7-6 6-3

BP, how about the 2013 season, the last year with the 90? Was that season better than the 2015? Bottom line is that one of the reasons that Fed switched to the 97 is that his results started to deteriorate in 2013, during his LAST year with the 90. Look at US Open 2013 with his 90, he got knocked out by Robredo a 22nd ranked player. Look at this year's US Open, he makes the finals and he's 34 years old with his 97! I suggest you read this article on how he struggled during his last GS with the 90:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...in-straight-sets-by-Spains-Tommy-Robredo.html

 

[BreakPoint]

BP, how about the 2013 season, the last year with the 90? Was that season better than the 2015? Bottom line is that one of the reasons that Fed switched to the 97 is that his results started to deteriorate in 2013, during his LAST year with the 90. Look at US Open 2013 with his 90, he got knocked out by Robredo a 22nd ranked player. Look at this year's US Open, he makes the finals and he's 34 years old with his 97! I suggest you read this article on how he struggled during his last GS with the 90:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...in-straight-sets-by-Spains-Tommy-Robredo.html

If you've been paying attention (or reading this board), you would know that Federer had a severe back injury in 2013, which greatly inhibited his movement and his ability to play, train, and practice. Thus, you have to discount his results from 2013. However, the last time he used the 90 without a severe back injury was in 2012, in which he won Wimbledon, beat Djokovic at a Slam, and was ranked #1 in the world. None of which he's been able to achieve in 2014 or 2015 using the 97.

He also lost to 46th ranked Seppi at the 2015 Aus Open, someone he was 10-0 with the 90.

 

[RanchDressing]

Look up how many times Federer had beaten Djokovic at Cincy with the 90, and even easier.

2009 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 6-1 7-5

2012 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 6-0 7-6

2015 Cincy - Federer def. Djokovic: 7-6 6-3

2009 Novak won ZERO slams.
2012 Novak won 1 slam.
2015 Novak won 2/3 slams and went on to win the 3rd.

2015 Novak was in form for one of the best seasons of all times.

If you've been paying attention (or reading this board), you would know that Federer had a severe back injury in 2013, which greatly inhibited his movement and his ability to play, train, and practice. Thus, you have to discount his results from 2013. However, the last time he used the 90 without a severe back injury was in 2012, in which he won Wimbledon, beat Djokovic at a Slam, and was ranked #1 in the world. None of which he's been able to achieve in 2014 or 2015 using the 97.

He also lost to 46th ranked Seppi at the 2015 Aus Open, someone he was 10-0 with the 90.

YOU need to "Discount" his results in 2015 as in 2012 he was 31 years old. In 2015 he is 34 years old for that meeting with Novak. No one has won a major over the age of 31 in how many years?

From snapback, to polyester strings, to spin, to fed's racquets. You never cease to amaze me with your ability to ruin threads with your insane ideas.

 

[iceman_dl6]

If you've been paying attention (or reading this board), you would know that Federer had a severe back injury in 2013, which greatly inhibited his movement and his ability to play, train, and practice. Thus, you have to discount his results from 2013. However, the last time he used the 90 without a severe back injury was in 2012, in which he won Wimbledon, beat Djokovic at a Slam, and was ranked #1 in the world. None of which he's been able to achieve in 2014 or 2015 using the 97.

He also lost to 46th ranked Seppi at the 2015 Aus Open, someone he was 10-0 with the 90.

BP, have you read the article that I provided in the link? It never stated that his loss was due to his back nor did Fed mention it in the post match interview. Maybe early to mid 2013 yes, but in the US Open in the beginning of Sept 2013, the back wasn't the issue to his loss.

To note that the 97 IS a more suitable racquet for Fed, otherwise he WOULDN'T have switched! Pro players DON'T switch racquets for fun! Got it BP?

 

[AMGF]

I don't have a horse in that race. I don't care for either RF, Djokovic or the RF97A.

I just think it is incredible that RF can still play Slam finals at his age. Djokovic is the new king and Roger gives him a nice challenge everytime they meet. If RF was 28, Djokovic would win a lot less tournaments in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure RF is perfectly dialed in with his racquet.

 

[BreakPoint]

2009 Novak won ZERO slams.
2012 Novak won 1 slam.
2015 Novak won 2/3 slams and went on to win the 3rd.

2015 Novak was in form for one of the best seasons of all times.



YOU need to "Discount" his results in 2015 as in 2012 he was 31 years old. In 2015 he is 34 years old for that meeting with Novak. No one has won a major over the age of 31 in how many years?

From snapback, to polyester strings, to spin, to fed's racquets. You never cease to amaze me with your ability to ruin threads with your insane ideas.

"Insane ideas"? You're right, Federer having a back injury in 2013 was MY "insane idea".

And of course, top pros playing at the highest levels can still play at 100% even with a severe back injury that inhibits their movement and strokes.

And never mind that in 2009, Djokovic beat Federer in Miami, Rome, and in Federer's home tournament in Basel. And in 2012, Djokovic beat Federer in Rome, French Open, and in the finals of the WTF. I guess that must mean Djokovic was not playing well in 2009 and 2012.

 

[RanchDressing]

"Insane ideas"? You're right, Federer having a back injury in 2013 was MY "insane idea".

And of course, top pros playing at the highest levels can still play at 100% even with a severe back injury that inhibits their movement and strokes.

And never mind that in 2009, Djokovic beat Federer in Miami, Rome, and in Federer's home tournament in Basel. And in 2012, Djokovic beat Federer in Rome, French Open, and in the finals of the WTF. I guess that must mean Djokovic was not playing well in 2009 and 2012.

No I guess that must mean that federer isn't loosing now because of his racquet now is he?

Your logic doesn't follow a logical path. It just follows your narrative

 

[BreakPoint]

BP, have you read the article that I provided in the link? It never stated that his loss was due to his back nor did Fed mention it in the post match interview. Maybe early to mid 2013 yes, but in the US Open in the beginning of Sept 2013, the back wasn't the issue to his loss.

To note that the 97 IS a more suitable racquet for Fed, otherwise he WOULDN'T have switched! Pro players DON'T switch racquets for fun! Got it BP?

Why would the article say the loss was due to his back? And why would Federer make an excuse for a loss? Everyone knows that his back didn't get better until the start of 2014. Come on! Pay attention.

So are you blaming his loss to Robredo on his racquet? LOL. Did you know Federer was 10-0 vs. Robredo using the 90 and 85? So what's more likely, his back or his racquet?

And "Pro players don't switch racquets for fun", you say? Have you ever heard of a pro named Fernando Verdasco? LOL

 

[BreakPoint]

I'm pretty sure RF is perfectly dialed in with his racquet.

Really? Did you watch the US Open final in its entirety? Federer was spraying forehands all over the place and missing easy volleys.

 

[RanchDressing]

Why would the article say the loss was due to his back? And why would Federer make an excuse for a loss? Everyone knows that his back didn't get better until the start of 2014. Come on! Pay attention.

So are you blaming his loss to Robredo on his racquet? LOL. Did you know Federer was 10-0 vs. Robredo using the 90 and 85? So what's more likely, his back or his racquet?

And "Pro players don't switch racquets for fun", you say? Have you ever heard of a pro named Fernando Verdasco? LOL

Verdasco doesn't have 17 majors in his pocket and 300 million net worth. He's going to take every buck he can get.

Beyond that, the differences between the frame he used at dunlop, then technifibre and now head are minimal. I've heard it's basically the same frame. The only true difference was when he hit with babolat.

But there you go again, strawman arguing. Trying to diffuse and deflect because your argument is about as strong as printer paper in a hurricane.

Please explain to us with your "Break Point" Logic, how federer lost in 2012 and 2009 to novak djokovic if he had NO BACK INJURY, and he was using his 90?

 

[BreakPoint]

No I guess that must mean that federer isn't loosing now because of his racquet now is he?

Your logic doesn't follow a logical path. It just follows your narrative

He isn't "loosing" now? Is that because he's too tight during matches or are you referring to his shorts being too tight and not loose enough? LOL

And when was he ever losing matches because of his racquet? Is Nadal also losing matches because of his racquet? LOL

 

[RanchDressing]

He isn't "loosing" now? Is that because he's too tight during matches or are you referring to his shorts being too tight and not loose enough? LOL

And when was he ever losing matches because of his racquet? Is Nadal also losing matches because of his racquet? LOL

Don't side step the question. Answer it.
At least when I say something stupid on the internet it's an honest mistake. When you do, it's pages and pages of the same thing that is completely factually incorrect. But most people don't know that because you go crying to the administrators every time.

 

[BreakPoint]

Verdasco doesn't have 17 majors in his pocket and 300 million net worth. He's going to take every buck he can get.

Beyond that, the differences between the frame he used at dunlop, then technifibre and now head are minimal. I've heard it's basically the same frame. The only true difference was when he hit with babolat.

But there you go again, strawman arguing. Trying to diffuse and deflect because your argument is about as strong as printer paper in a hurricane.

Please explain to us with your "Break Point" Logic, how federer lost in 2012 and 2009 to novak djokovic if he had NO BACK INJURY, and he was using his 90?

How about when Verdasco used a Yonex (he won the SAP Open with it)? No, Verdasco is not switching for the money. These racquet companies pay hardly anything at all to lower ranked pros like Verdasco. And who's the one who brought up pros not switching racquets?

Here's an idea: How about Djokovic beat Federer in 2012 and 2009 because he played better and it had nothing to do with the racquet? Even though Federer has had back problems throughout his career and did indeed have a back injury in 2012 (remember the black compression T-shirt underneath his polo shirts?). Also, how did Federer beat Djokovic at 2011 RG during Djokovic's incredible year?

 

[BreakPoint]

Don't side step the question. Answer it.
At least when I say something stupid on the internet it's an honest mistake. When you do, it's pages and pages of the same thing that is completely factually incorrect. But most people don't know that because you go crying to the administrators every time.

Wait, you've actually said something that ISN'T stupid? Wow, I must have blinked and missed it. LOL

Anyone who actually watched the US Open final can see for themselves.

 

[RanchDressing]

How about Djokovic beat Federer in 2012 and 2009 because he played better and it had nothing to do with the racquet?

This is a flawless victory. By you're own words, your ideas presented in this thread and the other thread ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.

I win the internet. Seriously, this can let me rest easy. I am so content now.

Let's just fix that quote a little bit:

How about Djokovic beat Federer... because he played better and it had nothing to do with the racquet?

WATCH OUT BOYS!

 

[Praetorian]

Federer has said the new racquet has been a big improvement. His coaches have said the same thing. Every tennis analyst and announcer said the same. Yet the rec. players at TW know better.

That's because anonymous internet forum posting beats actual subject matter expertise and knowledge... EVERYTIME! "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog"

 

[AMGF]

Really? Did you watch the US Open final in its entirety? Federer was spraying forehands all over the place and missing easy volleys.

Yeah I saw him lose to the best player in the world in the USOpen final. The frame was good enough to reach the finals, I don't think it is to blame for the loss. Roger swings the frame, not the other way around.

Federer is aging, like everyone. As the years go by, he will lose more and more. That's life. Like it or not. It would be nice if all players of past era could be 25yo today and compete in the first never aging players Tennis tournament. I'd pay a lot of money to see a prime time McEnroe against a prime time RF. Not gonna happen.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yeah I saw him lose to the best player in the world in the USOpen final. The frame was good enough to reach the finals, I don't think it is to blame for the loss. Roger swings the frame, not the other way around.

Even Roberto Bautista-Agut made only half as many unforced errors against Djokovic as Federer did. He was hitting his balls inside of the court, whereas Federer was spraying balls long, wide, and into the net. Federer used to have so much more control with the 90, especially on the forehand.

 

[roger presley]

Even Roberto Bautista-Agut made only half as many unforced errors against Djokovic as Federer did. He was hitting his balls inside of the court, whereas Federer was spraying balls long, wide, and into the net. Federer used to have so much more control with the 90, especially on the forehand.

Probably he did have more control with his former racket,but can't you understand that he would loose anyway that night,no matter what racket he was using?! He was too much nervous in that match and Djokovic used it smartly. Spraying balls all over the place was because of his nervousness,which led him to play more aggressive than he should have.

 

[BreakPoint]

Probably he did have more control with his former racket,but can't you understand that he would loose anyway that night,no matter what racket he was using?! He was too much nervous in that match and Djokovic used it smartly. Spraying balls all over the place was because of his nervousness,which led him to play more aggressive than he should have.

I don't know, for a guy who's been in over 25 Slam finals and has played probably 2,000 matches in his life (singles, doubles, juniors, etc.), it's really hard to believe he could have been nervous.

 

[roger presley]

I don't know, for a guy who's been in over 25 Slam finals and has played probably 2,000 matches in his life (singles, doubles, juniors, etc.), it's really hard to believe he could have been nervous.

He looked to me same as he looked in the Wimbledon final,not like in Cincinnati.I guess USO and Wimbledon are different from masters and he knows it. It has been a while since the last he won and that's the good reason to be nervous even if you are Federer.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Really? Did you watch the US Open final in its entirety? Federer was spraying forehands all over the place and missing easy volleys.

Explain the previous matches then? And what about Djokovic? He was in the negative (35 winners vs 37 ufe), Federer was still in the positive (56 - 54).

And compared to his match against Lopez - a guy who can barely hit a backhand - he hit DOUBLE the unforced errors (37 vs 17). Against Seppi he hit fewer ufe yet, even on a points ratio basis.

Spraying? Djokovic was spraying them as much as Federer for long periods of the match. He just reined them in when he needed to most.

In-short. This is yet another instance of you being specious and, even worse, too stupid to even do specious well.

 

[Chadillac]

since childhood from using smaller racquets, like the PS 6.0 85 and Tour 90s

At what age would you recommend moving on to an adult frame (from those you mentioned) like the rf97?

I personally think fed swtiched late.

 

[BreakPoint]

Explain the previous matches then? And what about Djokovic? He was in the negative (35 winners vs 37 ufe), Federer was still in the positive (56 - 54).

And compared to his match against Lopez - a guy who can barely hit a backhand - he hit DOUBLE the unforced errors (37 vs 17). Against Seppi he hit fewer ufe yet, even on a points ratio basis.

Spraying? Djokovic was spraying them as much as Federer for long periods of the match. He just reined them in when he needed to most.

In-short. This is yet another instance of you being specious and, even worse, too stupid to even do specious well.

Um..it's easy. Federer was playing so poorly that Djokovic knew he didn't even have to play well to win the match. He knew that he could make 37 unforced errors and still win the match, which he did. Heck, he could have made 50 errors and still won the match. If you had actually watched the match, you would have seen that. If you hadn't, I highly suggest you watch a replay of the entire match, as I have.

Most people play up (or down) to their level of competition. Your opponent's level of play influences your own level of play. When my opponent is playing well, I know I have to raise my level and also play well in order to win. However, when my opponent is playing like crap, I also play like crap because I know I don't even have to play great in order to win.

When Djokovic missed, he barely missed. OTOH, Federer was spraying the ball all over the place the entire match, most weren't even close. Re-watch the match if you don't believe me.

 

[BreakPoint]

At what age would you recommend moving on to an adult frame (from those you mentioned) like the rf97?

I personally think fed swtiched late.

So Federer was not an adult when he won 17 Slams with a 90? Was Sampras not an adult when he won 14 Slams with an 85? How about Laver? Was he not an adult when he won two calendar Slams with a 65? Borg and his 11 Slams with a 65?

 

[Bobby Jr]

Um..it's easy. Federer was playing so poorly that Djokovic knew he didn't even have to play well to win the match. He knew that he could make 37 unforced errors and still win the match, which he did. Heck, he could have made 50 errors and still won the match. If you had actually watched the match, you would have seen that. If you hadn't, I highly suggest you watch a replay of the entire match, as I have.

I have watched it. Clearly it's you who hasn't. After the first 30 mins Federer was not "spraying forehands all over the place" - he just missed a few like he normally does, and was perhaps off-form in some tighter moments. But he wasn't spraying them by any means. It's just a convenient phrase you use to imply his racquet was making him miss by miles... funny that his serve, his wheel-house, was totally fine. Was he using a different racquet to serve with or something?

As for your senile fabrication of Federer having missed many easy volleys... he missed three in the whole match (forced errors) and only another 6 as unforced errors.

...When my opponent is playing well, I know I have to raise my level and also play well in order to win. However, when my opponent is playing like crap, I also play like crap because I know I don't even have to play great in order to win.

This is an example I assume. We all know you can't play tennis for ****.

 

[RanchDressing]

I have watched it. Clearly it's you who hasn't. After the first 30 mins Federer was not "spraying forehands all over the place" - he just missed a few like he normally does, and was perhaps off-form in some tighter moments. But he wasn't spraying them by any means. It's just a convenient phrase you use to imply his racquet was making him miss by miles... funny that his serve, his wheel-house, was totally fine. Was he using a different racquet to serve with or something?

As for your senile fabrication of Federer having missed many easy volleys... he missed three in the whole match (forced errors) and only another 6 as unforced errors.


This is an example I assume. We all know you can't play tennis for ****.

Not only that fed had more winners than errors and had more winners than novak who had less winners than errors. Novak had won 2 more points than roger. The fact of the matter novak out played him on the big points.

 

[RanchDressing]

At what age would you recommend moving on to an adult frame (from those you mentioned) like the rf97?

I personally think fed swtiched late.

It doesnt matter what age you use what. I used to think the 90 was good until i started trying midplus. Then i switched to a graphene prestige. The extra forgiveness i got from that frame helped a lot and eventually i got my specs dialed in (355 swingweight 12 oz with og, size 2 grip, 33cm balance, reduced twistweight). Seriously it just made me more consistant off both wings and really really helped my serve out big time.

The rf97a i wouldnt reccomend after coming off the 90's because the twistweight is so high. The 90's have about a 13 twistweight and the rf97a has about a 14.9. That makes the rf97a a lot less manuverable even though the rest of the weight stats are the same. Im quite sure roger doesnt use the higher twistweight spec on his frame, but there's no way to tell unless someone gets ahold of his frame who knows how to measure twistweight.

Some people think they play better with the 90's because they forget how un forgiving it is... they think every shot they hit with it is golden because of the frame. In reality its only a good shot because they found the sweet spot on the frame, and the sub par shots they hit are shanks or short balls... these are the shots that people tend to ignore. Where as on a midplus those shanks no longer happen. People get the ball back deep but it's not "perfect". Usually they just dont realize they didnt find the sweet spot, because it's not as big of a difference.

This whole TT narrative about the prostaff 90 really has made me ashamed to say i owned one and played with one. Some of you guys are not of this world.

 

[RanchDressing]

Actually I owned a few. Back to the k six one etc

 

[BreakPoint]

It doesnt matter what age you use what. I used to think the 90 was good until i started trying midplus. Then i switched to a graphene prestige. The extra forgiveness i got from that frame helped a lot and eventually i got my specs dialed in (355 swingweight 12 oz with og, size 2 grip, 33cm balance, reduced twistweight). Seriously it just made me more consistant off both wings and really really helped my serve out big time.

The rf97a i wouldnt reccomend after coming off the 90's because the twistweight is so high. The 90's have about a 13 twistweight and the rf97a has about a 14.9. That makes the rf97a a lot less manuverable even though the rest of the weight stats are the same. Im quite sure roger doesnt use the higher twistweight spec on his frame, but there's no way to tell unless someone gets ahold of his frame who knows how to measure twistweight.

Some people think they play better with the 90's because they forget how un forgiving it is... they think every shot they hit with it is golden because of the frame. In reality its only a good shot because they found the sweet spot on the frame, and the sub par shots they hit are shanks or short balls... these are the shots that people tend to ignore. Where as on a midplus those shanks no longer happen. People get the ball back deep but it's not "perfect". Usually they just dont realize they didnt find the sweet spot, because it's not as big of a difference.

This whole TT narrative about the prostaff 90 really has made me ashamed to say i owned one and played with one. Some of you guys are not of this world.

Has it crossed your mind that perhaps some people are better tennis players than you are? Like people who can hit the sweetspot of a 90 almost every time even though you can't? Like people who grew up playing with 65 sq. in. wood racquets so playing with a humongous 90 feels like playing with a Big Bubba to them?

Nah....that couldn't have crossed your mind.

Find a standard 65 sq. in. wood racquet and hold it up against your 90 any maybe you'll finally understand.

For example, neither of these guys had any trouble finding the sweetspots even on their 65 sq. in. racquets, did they? And even with the unpredictable bounces on red clay? So you think either of these guys would have trouble finding the sweetspot on a massive 90 sq. in. racquet?

 

[Chadillac]

So Federer was not an adult when he won 17 Slams with a 90? Was Sampras not an adult when he won 14 Slams with an 85? How about Laver? Was he not an adult when he won two calendar Slams with a 65? Borg and his 11 Slams with a 65?

He would of won more if he swapped sooner. You think rafa's simple crosscourt shot is going to hurt him as much when he is standing 7 feet closer to the baseline manhandling rafa's shot on the rise with his "now clean" backhand?

The 85 and 90 are twigs that feel like an aluminum junior racket compared to the rf97.

Twistweight ranch? Get out of the lab and hit a few balls 12oz, are you a lady? The fed racket is very manuverable, has a bigger head and more stablity than those twigs you mentioned.

 

[Chadillac]

Has it crossed your mind that perhaps some people are better tennis players than you are? Like people who can hit the sweetspot of a 90 almost every time even though you can't? Like people who grew up playing with 65 sq. in. wood racquets so playing with a humongous 90 feels like playing with a Big Bubba to them?

Nah....that couldn't have crossed your mind.

Find a standard 65 sq. in. wood racquet and hold it up against your 90 any maybe you'll finally understand.

Do you wear long pants when you play