Feds Racquet

Chadillac said:
Do you wear long pants when you play :p
Click to expand...
Has the size of the tennis ball changed since players wore long pants? Nope.

Have humans' eye-hand coordination deteriorated over the decades? Must be. Can't be any other explanation to need a racquet twice as big just to hit the same sized ball.
 
Chadillac said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why? Because he's won so many Slams since the switch? LOL

Perhaps you just don't know how to play with the 85 or 90? They certainly are not "twigs". In fact, Nate Ferguson, stringer for Sampras and Federer, described Sampras' PS85 as a "log". He just crushes the ball with it.
 
BreakPoint said:
Why? Because he's won so many Slams since the switch? LOL
Click to expand...

Its the slams he lost, he doesnt lose much with the rf97 but gains a lot on the backhand side.

Ive played with those rackets and its too much work to get the same result. You can convert your effort into spin or go for some control with more emphasis on precision than power since the racket compensates.

Flat beams are for people who still think the earth is also flat :P

I will say some of the best players i have seen (technically) used the 85ps, but the game has changed and its now like using a dagger vs a sword.
 
Chadillac said:
Its the slams he lost, he doesnt lose much with the rf97 but gains a lot on the backhand side.

Ive played with those rackets and its too much work to get the same result. You can convert your effort into spin or go for some control with more emphasis on precision than power since the racket compensates.

Flat beams are for people who still think the earth is also flat :p

I will say some of the best players i have seen (technically) used the 85ps, but the game has changed and its now like using a dagger vs a sword.
Click to expand...
Not just the Slams. How many Masters 1000's has he won with the RF97A?

You should watch some videos of his matches when he played with the PS 6.0 85. You may change your mind that his backhand has improved very much with the RF97A.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...career-is-a-complete-myth-heres-proof.497508/

If you have the proper technique, you should still be able to play with the PS 6.0 85. I mean it's not like you're playing against Top 10 pros, are you?
 
BreakPoint said:
Not just the Slams. How many Masters 1000's has he won with the RF97A?

You should watch some videos of his matches when he played with the PS 6.0 85. You may change your mind that his backhand has improved very much with the RF97A.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...career-is-a-complete-myth-heres-proof.497508/

If you have the proper technique, you should still be able to play with the PS 6.0 85. I mean it's not like you're playing against Top 10 pros, are you?
Click to expand...

So he beat other players with current racket tech then went on to lose to a glofied junior pusher who was using a babolat aero? The conditions slowed, you needed to grind more due to surface speed.

Its alot easier to hit a clean backhand with a rf97 than it is to use the ones mentioned, he was getting pushed back due to his lack of offense on that side consistently.

He is taking balls much earlier now, it would of made a difference.

Ever hear of SABR bro? :p
 
Chadillac said:
Ever hear of SABR bro? :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've been doing SABR for over four decades. First with 65 sq. in. wood racquets and then with 85 sq. in. racquets. You don't need a big racquet to do it. Players have been doing it for over 100 years with small racquets.

And Federer has always taken his backhand early. That's nothing new. Just watch his old matches when he used the 90 (and the 85).
 
BreakPoint said:
Really? Did you watch the US Open final in its entirety? Federer was spraying forehands all over the place and missing easy volleys.
Click to expand...
that is it. Happened to me too. Played with my usual hitting partner (4.0) and I was putting everything in. Then, I played with a former D1 college player (5.0 currently) and I was spraying all over the place (trying to hit against his top spin) and my volleys were terrible (though, I do think it had something to do with his shots coming my way).
 
BreakPoint said:
Not just the Slams. How many Masters 1000's has he won with the RF97A?

You should watch some videos of his matches when he played with the PS 6.0 85. You may change your mind that his backhand has improved very much with the RF97A.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...career-is-a-complete-myth-heres-proof.497508/

If you have the proper technique, you should still be able to play with the PS 6.0 85. I mean it's not like you're playing against Top 10 pros, are you?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with an 85", there's an older guy at my club who has one and he swears by it. :D

I think racquets > 95" are a bit silly.
They feel weird to me.
 
I don't think the racket was the problem against Djokovic. I think Djokovic's younger legs were the problem. Djokovic ran everything down and got to enough balls early enough to transition to offense. Federer felt the pressure to hit bigger because Djokovic effectively shrank the court. Federer needs younger legs but a faster court could help too.
 
TennisCJC said:
I don't think the racket was the problem against Djokovic. I think Djokovic's younger legs were the problem. Djokovic ran everything down and got to enough balls early enough to transition to offense. Federer felt the pressure to hit bigger because Djokovic effectively shrank the court. Federer needs younger legs but a faster court could help too.
Click to expand...
That's true,only total racket fanatic or freak could think the other way.
 
Roger lost the USO final a lot more than merely 1%. The moment he started dropping serve (after serving so imperiously all tournament), Fed fans should have known it was over. The match was lost not because of Roger's old legs or especially his racket, it was lost because he mentally choked.
 
Say Chi Sin Lo said:
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.
Click to expand...
But you see,it was the same in Wimbledon. He blew all until the final and Djokovic. For now, he can't handle Djokovic in BO5 anymore. Maybe he's gonna find the way,I doubt it ,but still hope.
 
roger presley said:
But you see,it was the same in Wimbledon. He blew all until the final and Djokovic. For now, he can't handle Djokovic in BO5 anymore. Maybe he's gonna find the way,I doubt it ,but still hope.
Click to expand...

That's kind of my point. So why are people freaking out about the equipment based on 1/7 matches?
 
dr325i said:
that is it. Happened to me too. Played with my usual hitting partner (4.0) and I was putting everything in. Then, I played with a former D1 college player (5.0 currently) and I was spraying all over the place (trying to hit against his top spin) and my volleys were terrible (though, I do think it had something to do with his shots coming my way).
Click to expand...
It's harder to control those shots coming at you when you use a much bigger racquet with the same string pattern as your smaller racquet.
 
hirschi80 said:
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.



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....
Click to expand...
Fed is worth 100million in just career winnings

The man has 2-3 times that earned from sponsors.

He's got enough lol he doesn't need a deal from a new big racquet
 
roundiesee said:
Thanks for the link! These guys from the 80s were fantastic with their tiny rackets. What skills they had! :)
Click to expand...
You're welcome!

Yeah, tennis players used to have eye-hand coordination and the strength to use 15 oz. racquets over 5 sets with no tiebreaks in any set. Sadly, I guess that's no longer true today or else why do today's players need racquets twice as big and 1/3 less weight just to hit the same sized ball? :(
 
RalphJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about EVERY MATCH except for the final? He played, as McEnroe said "Like a highlight reel"
 
Chadillac said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would definitely not call them "Twigs", they are solid as a rock, but the mishits are always there, I have both take them out once in awhile, I play great but will hit the frame once in awhile, enough to know I'm not playing with them in a match. They come through so much faster than the RF97, but that thing is a beast, seems it took Fed about a year to really get it dialed in.
 
RanchDressing said:
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:




WATCH OUT BOYS!
58553536.jpg
Click to expand...

Had nothing to do with the racquet but you can't tell me Fed didn't choke or play anywhere near his ability as seen in all of the matches before, and no Djokovic didn't make him play bad, Fed stayed back because he was nervous, baselined with a baseliner and lost bad. If he would have played just like he did the rest of the tournament, coming in, playing free I was betting he'd barely take Djokovic, not like Cincinnati because US Open is slower but didn't see a way for Djokovic to win until I saw Fed come out, stay back and scream at the TV with my friend.
 
SublimeTennis said:
I would definitely not call them "Twigs", they are solid as a rock, but the mishits are always there, I have both take them out once in awhile, I play great but will hit the frame once in awhile, enough to know I'm not playing with them in a match. They come through so much faster than the RF97, but that thing is a beast, seems it took Fed about a year to really get it dialed in.
Click to expand...

It depends on what your currently playing with. Im using 6.1ncode 95" tours, i think, they weigh 13.7oz with no lead tape or silcon.

The rf97 is a big improvement for me, the ncode 85ps and 90 have too much flex when you hit high on the racket vs power. It seems to stick more while the rf97 comes off more crisp. It feels a touch stiffer with out losing the elastic power.

The one im using is strung with quasi gut armor at 50lb 1pc and really enjoy hitting with it.

Much like fed im gaining confidence with every ball i hit :)
 
Chadillac said:
It depends on what your currently playing with. Im using 6.1ncode 95" tours, i think, they weigh 13.7oz with no lead tape or silcon.

The rf97 is a big improvement for me, the ncode 85ps and 90 have too much flex when you hit high on the racket vs power. It seems to stick more while the rf97 comes off more crisp. It feels a touch stiffer with out losing the elastic power.

The one im using is strung with quasi gut armor at 50lb 1pc and really enjoy hitting with it.

Much like fed im gaining confidence with every ball i hit :)
Click to expand...
I think you mean 12.7 oz. if your nCode 95 doesn't have any additional weight added to it.

BTW, I find the RF97A to be MUCH stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 or any of the Tour 90s.
 
SublimeTennis said:
Had nothing to do with the racquet but you can't tell me Fed didn't choke or play anywhere near his ability as seen in all of the matches before, and no Djokovic didn't make him play bad, Fed stayed back because he was nervous, baselined with a baseliner and lost bad. If he would have played just like he did the rest of the tournament, coming in, playing free I was betting he'd barely take Djokovic, not like Cincinnati because US Open is slower but didn't see a way for Djokovic to win until I saw Fed come out, stay back and scream at the TV with my friend.
Click to expand...
He went up to net, but I agree he would have increased his chances by coming into net more, or especially if he drew novak in with the signature slice. It worked a few times in that match.
 
RalphJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
You may have a very valid point there, but I think without the larger headed racket he might not have got the chance to reach three slam finals as he only seems to struggle against Djokovic in the slams that he could actually win again. I think that says more about Djokovic than it does about Feds new'ish racket!
 
BreakPoint said:
I think you mean 12.7 oz. if your nCode 95 doesn't have any additional weight added to it.

BTW, I find the RF97A to be MUCH stiffer than the PS 6.0 85 or any of the Tour 90s.
Click to expand...

I have 6 retail ncode 95's and 4 blacked out ones. The black ones are like an ounce heavier.

I like the additional stiffness i get with the rf, out of position power is much easier
 
Chadillac said:
I have 6 retail ncode 95's and 4 blacked out ones. The black ones are like an ounce heavier.

I like the additional stiffness i get with the rf, out of position power is much easier
Click to expand...
Are those blacked out ones pro stock? Sounds like it. Pros tend to use much heavier racquets than retail.
 
BreakPoint said:
Are those blacked out ones pro stock? Sounds like it. Pros tend to use much heavier racquets than retail.
Click to expand...

The guy i got them from said a pro came in and dropped off 40 of them. I just wanted some fresh 6.1's (strung mine too much and feel old) but they turned out to be slightly different.

Thats what i like about the rf, its a lighter racket but plays like a heavy one. Overheads and noticably easier to hit, can just snap wrist and get a lot of pop.

He could of hid some lead tape under the bumper guard, but im positive there is no silicon in the handle since they are so head heavy
 
BreakPoint said:
Not just the Slams. How many Masters 1000's has he won with the RF97A?

You should watch some videos of his matches when he played with the PS 6.0 85. You may change your mind that his backhand has improved very much with the RF97A.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...career-is-a-complete-myth-heres-proof.497508/

If you have the proper technique, you should still be able to play with the PS 6.0 85. I mean it's not like you're playing against Top 10 pros, are you?
Click to expand...

BP the obvious hole in your argument is Federer is an old man now. I honestly think he might have possibly won 1 or more additionaly slams had he played his entire career with a mid+ racket. I think he likely could have won against Nadal in '08 W, AO, and possibly early RG SF and Finals with mid+. Also, Del Potro 09 USO could have gone to Federer.

Yes, you can play good tennis with a 90" racket. Yes, a properly weighted 90" head has a bigger effective hitting area than a too light 100" head. But, a properly weighted mid+ has a bigger effective hitting area and gives even the best players a slight advantage over the mids.

Off topic, I think tennis has been too liberal in equipment regulations on strings and rackets. The new strings and equipment have changed the game and made it easier. But, the cat is out of the bag and that isn't going to change.
 
Chadillac said:
Its the slams he lost, he doesnt lose much with the rf97 but gains a lot on the backhand side.

Ive played with those rackets and its too much work to get the same result. You can convert your effort into spin or go for some control with more emphasis on precision than power since the racket compensates.

Flat beams are for people who still think the earth is also flat :p

I will say some of the best players i have seen (technically) used the 85ps, but the game has changed and its now like using a dagger vs a sword.
Click to expand...

ur joking, right?
 
BreakPoint said:
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"?
Click to expand...

You ALWAYS add this on when it comes to these arguments. Fact of the matter he isn't peak Fed and add to that the sample size and you should understand this analysis is flawed. Or maybe you won't due to your firm belief on true MID frames Fed not withstanding from that. If you give peak Fed this racquet it's hard to quantify what his results would be but it wouldn't be crazy to think he'd be better off.

To the OP question I am not sure it's the frame as much as its age and his nerves and belief being slightly challenged. Remember his last two years while no Grand Slams has him 2nd on the tour. So in no way can we logically (and I know this is hard for some) can we call this failure.

That said perhaps I'm just to much a realist
 
FedLIKEnot said:
You ALWAYS add this on when it comes to these arguments. Fact of the matter he isn't peak Fed and add to that the sample size and you should understand this analysis is flawed. Or maybe you won't due to your firm belief on true MID frames Fed not withstanding from that. If you give peak Fed this racquet it's hard to quantify what his results would be but it wouldn't be crazy to think he'd be better off.

To the OP question I am not sure it's the frame as much as its age and his nerves and belief being slightly challenged. Remember his last two years while no Grand Slams has him 2nd on the tour. So in no way can we logically (and I know this is hard for some) can we call this failure.

That said perhaps I'm just to much a realist
Click to expand...
But didn't Federer switch racquets because he wanted to win more Slams? At this point in his career, I don't think he really cares about anything else other than winning more Slams. So by that measure, his racquet switch has been an utter failure (so far). And he hasn't regained the #1 ranking, either (which may be another reason why he switched).
 
One big factor was Wilson wanted to market a new racquet. Another everyone around him was telling him he needed a larger racquet to compete in today's game. He fell for it and viola. New bigger headed racquet.
 
TennisHound said:
One big factor was Wilson wanted to market a new racquet. Another everyone around him was telling him he needed a larger racquet to compete in today's game. He fell for it and viola. New bigger headed racquet.
Click to expand...
Exactly! People seem to have already forgotten how good Federer was with the 90. His racquet was never the problem, his back was.



 
RalphJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the 97 is a good size for him, but the beam is thicker and it's stiffer. I would think a 97 is the right size but a little thinner beam and not quite as stiff, but who am I to judge Fed.
 
I never was a Fed fan, but from what I've seen, he's still struggling with that new racket, and you can see that in two of his (former??) major weapons: the sliced backhand and the forehand.

From a square beam 90 to a thick beam 97 is a bit to much of a jump, he got some extra pace and top spin on his serve and backhand, but that forehand is a mess now, and he is not using so much that nasty dismantling sliced BH

I wonder how hard he tested the 93 version that latter Dimitrov start using, I believe with that style of game, and at this point of his career, something like a 93 or even a 95 squared beam stick would work better than his current stick
 
hirschi80 said:
the 90 wouldhave worked very well until now...its a shame that he switched. greedy guy.
Click to expand...

I would not call him greedy. I can see what he was thinking: I'm ageing, my footwork is not getting faster, and my BH was always my weaker wing, I have to go bigger to get more pop and spin on my weaker shot, to level my game up to Nole's, Murray's and Rafa's.

Lendl did too, on his last years on the tour, with a 90 sq.i. Mizuno racket; on my own very small level I'm also finding trouble to find a bigger racket that suits my forehand (and volley), and it's never easy easy to change from something he's so used to.

The problem is with his best shot, that forehand is a shadow of what it was it the past, and simply doesn't work with such a big powerful racket
 
It seems ridiculous to suggest the racquet is the cause of his poor play in the finals. He blazed through Murray in the Wimbledon semis and crushed Stan in the USO, not to mention some other dudes where he displayed greater accuracy.

The answer lies in his mental fortitude. I wish he could just be like Tom Brady and focus on the strategy and his own play, rather than struggle with the identity of his opponent. He isn't fully confident across the spectrum of his game against specific players in certain matches. He's full of self doubt, despite what he tells the press. It's sad because he only has so many good matches left.
 
Antónis said:
I would not call him greedy. I can see what he was thinking: I'm ageing, my footwork is not getting faster, and my BH was always my weaker wing, I have to go bigger to get more pop and spin on my weaker shot, to level my game up to Nole's, Murray's and Rafa's.

Lendl did too, on his last years on the tour, with a 90 sq.i. Mizuno racket; on my own very small level I'm also finding trouble to find a bigger racket that suits my forehand (and volley), and it's never easy easy to change from something he's so used to.

The problem is with his best shot, that forehand is a shadow of what it was it the past, and simply doesn't work with such a big powerful racket
Click to expand...
This is why I think Nadal should also switch to a bigger racquet since he is also getting older and he's also not as fast as he used to be. He also needs a bigger margin of error and he's also shanking quite a bit more these days.
 

the difference is just too big to not see it. better service, better forehand, better backhand, better slice.
and it was clay - he made almost 20 aces! against nole in his best year...

with the 90 racquet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jorel
Fed's oblong racquet
Replies
2
Views
1K
PrestigeClassic
P
danbrenner
Feds racquet upgrade enabled #18
Replies
31
Views
5K
gino
gino
burn1986
Feds racquet has affected his game
2 3
Replies
103
Views
12K
Povl Carstensen
P
H
How heavy is roddick's racquet? effect on swtiching racquet?
Replies
1
Views
3K
willm873
W
mtommer
Why doesn't Nadal change his racquet?
Replies
40
Views
7K
Djokolate
Djokolate
Back
Top