Put to Rest, that Federer needs a bigger racquet, forever thread!

[lendlmac]

Since we all saw the dismantling of Djokovic by Federer, playing flawless tennis over a "well-rested", 4-day layoff Djokovic, being smakced around all day by the old man....


We all saw today, Federer, stroke for stroke, went to to toe with the power of Mr. Gluten-Free all day, and he is back in a GS final, with his little favorite 90 sq inch frame.... Win or lose against Nadal, Federe is JUST FINE using and playing with his 90 sq in frame. He does NOT, nor ever needed a bigger frame...he generates more than enough power...all it takes is a little confidence, fresh legs, and he hits the ball cleanly all the time....if he's slower, or a step slower, or loses a match here and there, all the trolls come out, "oh no! Federer needs a bigger racquet!" LOL



Federer will beat Nadal, on HIS turf, on Federer's terms. and be the GOAT, with 17 slams, being the HUGE favorite at Wimbeldon, again. giving him 18 GS....then a 3-way race for the U.S. Open

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed is playing very well, but Joker played right into his hands by putting the ball right in the slot for Freddys backhand by hitting 1 paced deep shots to Freddys backhand, making it very easy for Freddy to hit the backhand on the rise and to groove his backhand with any size racket. It will be a different story v Rafa because Rafa hits with varying pace, depth and trajectory to Freddy's backhand which makes timing a lot harder and makes creating his own pace a lot harder. This is where the bigger racket with more surface area and more margin for error would help Freddy.Perhaps he could just use a bigger racket vs Rafa. It was easy hitting Joker's shots on the rise and redirecting Joker's pace, not so vs Rafa.

 

[Buckethead]

I think Fed still needs a bigger racket regardless that result.
If you wanna talk about the result, I thought Fed played a fantastic match specially on serve, but Djoker didn't play his best, well, what He had been playing up to that point, you can maybe say it was because Fed playing that well...

If you paid attention Djoker never had a strategy, He probably thought He was just going to go there and play the match and win due to how well he had been playing and dethroned the clay GOAT, but Federer playing Djokovic is a different match up and Fed has more variety than Nadal....

The result has nothing to do with the bigger racket, if He had a bigger racket, more forgiving it'd probably be even better overall.

 

[Torres]

People starting new threads on this issue trying to say 'I told you so' are tiresome.

Are you going to try and crow if Nadal beats him?

The point remains. Federer needs to be at 100%. playing perfect tennis nowadays each and every game with the 90sq incher. He only needs to be fraction off with his game or form, and that 90sq incher offers zero room for error.

Even Murray was saying that the modern game nowadays is at a much higher level than 6 years ago. More athletic, faster, harder, more topspin, a world away from tennis 30 years ago. These tiny headed frames are an anachronism.

Catch Djokovic on a better day, with Federer at 90% and the result would arguably have been very different.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yes, PLEASE!!!

I certainly hope mellowyellow and nikom finally concede that Federer DOES NOT need a bigger racquet!! He's doing perfectly fine with the one he's already using.

 

[rafabull]

Since we all saw the dismantling of Djokovic by Federer, playing flawless tennis over a "well-rested", 4-day layoff Djokovic, being smakced around all day by the old man....


We all saw today, Federer, stroke for stroke, went to to toe with the power of Mr. Gluten-Free all day, and he is back in a GS final, with his little favorite 90 sq inch frame.... Win or lose against Nadal, Federe is JUST FINE using and playing with his 90 sq in frame. He does NOT, nor ever needed a bigger frame...he generates more than enough power...all it takes is a little confidence, fresh legs, and he hits the ball cleanly all the time....if he's slower, or a step slower, or loses a match here and there, all the trolls come out, "oh no! Federer needs a bigger racquet!" LOL



Federer will beat Nadal, on HIS turf, on Federer's terms. and be the GOAT, with 17 slams, being the HUGE favorite at Wimbeldon, again. giving him 18 GS....then a 3-way race for the U.S. Open

That's quite a fantasy

 

[roundiesee]

I agree with Torres, Buckethead and The Natural. Federer has done so well with such a small sized racket, but imagine how much more he could achieve with a slightly larger head that gives him more room for error? I think it will not hurt him to consider this change.

 

[BreakPoint]

The result has nothing to do with the bigger racket, ....

You said it. A bigger racquet has nothing to do with results. That only happens in recreational tennis.

 

[BreakPoint]

I agree with Torres, Buckethead and The Natural. Federer has done so well with such a small sized racket, but imagine how much more he could achieve with a slightly larger head that gives him more room for error? I think it will not hurt him to consider this change.

Federer probably would have lost his match today against Djokovic if he had used a bigger racquet, just like everyone else who has used a bigger racquet against Djokovic this year.

Do you really think Federer would have the same pinpoint accuracy and the great placement on his serves if he used a bigger racquet? Not a chance!

 

[Buckethead]

People starting new threads on this issue trying to say 'I told you so' are tiresome.

Are you going to try and crow if Nadal beats him?

The point remains. Federer needs to be at 100%. playing perfect tennis nowadays each and every game with the 90sq incher. He only needs to be fraction off with his game or form, and that 90sq incher offers zero room for error.

Even Murray was saying that the modern game nowadays is at a much higher level than 6 years ago. More athletic, faster, harder, more topspin, a world away from tennis 30 years ago. These tiny headed frames are an anachronism.

Catch Djokovic on a better day, with Federer at 90% and the result would arguably have been very different.

Very well said.

 

[BreakPoint]

People starting new threads on this issue trying to say 'I told you so' are tiresome.

Are you going to try and crow if Nadal beats him?

The point remains. Federer needs to be at 100%. playing perfect tennis nowadays each and every game with the 90sq incher. He only needs to be fraction off with his game or form, and that 90sq incher offers zero room for error.

Even Murray was saying that the modern game nowadays is at a much higher level than 6 years ago. More athletic, faster, harder, more topspin, a world away from tennis 30 years ago. These tiny headed frames are an anachronism.

Catch Djokovic on a better day, with Federer at 90% and the result would arguably have been very different.

So then what does Djokovic need? A 130 sq. in. super-oversize racquet? He was a fraction off his game or form today and his 100 sq. in. racquet offered him zero room for error, right? So according to you, doesn't Djokovic also need to switch to a bigger racquet?

 

[roundiesee]

Federer probably would have lost his match today against Djokovic if he had used a bigger racquet, just like everyone else who has used a bigger racquet against Djokovic this year.

Do you really think Federer would have the same pinpoint accuracy and the great placement on his serves if he used a bigger racquet? Not a chance!

Yes, you do have a point there BP; the Prostaff 90 does allow one to serve with accuracy and placement; but admittedly, a slightly larger head should allow Roger more room for error with a slightly larger sweetspot. I suppose it all boils down to what Roger thinks is best for him; until he decides this for himself, this debate will rage on.

 

[kishnabe]

When Federer loses to Nadal in the final, watch Sureshs bring up his biggy racquet thread! I mean it aint gonna end....heck even if Federer beat Nadal. People would say something like Federer could have won easier with a bigger racquet!

 

[Buckethead]

So then what does Djokovic need? A 130 sq. in. super-oversize racquet? He was a fraction off his game or form today and his 100 sq. in. racquet offered him zero room for error, right? So according to you, doesn't Djokovic also need to switch to a bigger racquet?

We are talking about Federer, not Djokovic.

They have different style of play, different mechanic for strokes...

He was a lot more than just a bit, however it can be credited to Fed's level taking it to him. I don't see Djokovic framing balls left and right and giving 15-20 points away in just about every competitive match against Nadal and Federer.

Now this shows how good Fed is, losing and wasting all these points and still being able to win.

But against Nadal it doesn't matter, he chokes anywhere, just like at the AO, FO many times, Wimbledon...

 

[psYcon]

Federer needs to play with the big bubba to get to 20 grand slams.

 

[BreakPoint]

We are talking about Federer, not Djokovic.

They have different style of play, different mechanic for strokes...

He was a lot more than just a bit, however it can be credited to Fed's level taking it to him. I don't see Djokovic framing balls left and right and giving 15-20 points away in just about every competitive match against Nadal and Federer.

Now this shows how good Fed is, losing and wasting all these points and still being able to win.

But against Nadal it doesn't matter, he chokes anywhere, just like at the AO, FO many times, Wimbledon...

That's because, like you said, Djokovic's strokes are different and he doesn't take the ball as early right off of the bounce as much as Federer does. If he did, he would shank as much as Federer does with his 100 sq. in. racquet.

Why do low-level recreational players assume that what works for them will definitely work for the greatest player of all time? It's like night and day, apples and oranges, not in the same ballpark, etc.

Bigger is not better in tennis racquets on the pro tour. If you did a scientific study based upon success on the pro tour (# of Slams won), you'd find that SMALLER is definitely better when it comes to racquet size.

 

[Bendex]

Since we all saw the dismantling of Djokovic by Federer, playing flawless tennis over a "well-rested", 4-day layoff Djokovic, being smakced around all day by the old man....


We all saw today, Federer, stroke for stroke, went to to toe with the power of Mr. Gluten-Free all day, and he is back in a GS final, with his little favorite 90 sq inch frame.... Win or lose against Nadal, Federe is JUST FINE using and playing with his 90 sq in frame. He does NOT, nor ever needed a bigger frame...he generates more than enough power...all it takes is a little confidence, fresh legs, and he hits the ball cleanly all the time....if he's slower, or a step slower, or loses a match here and there, all the trolls come out, "oh no! Federer needs a bigger racquet!" LOL



Federer will beat Nadal, on HIS turf, on Federer's terms. and be the GOAT, with 17 slams, being the HUGE favorite at Wimbeldon, again. giving him 18 GS....then a 3-way race for the U.S. Open

It's going to get harder and harder for him to be "fresh" as he gets older. That's an incredibly demanding racket. He could probably stay in the top 5 until he's 40 if he was using a more forgiving racket.

Novak has a 100 inch frame, do you think he lacks accuracy? I don't see any point using a 90 incher.

 

[Torres]

So then what does Djokovic need? A 130 sq. in. super-oversize racquet? He was a fraction off his game or form today and his 100 sq. in. racquet offered him zero room for error, right? So according to you, doesn't Djokovic also need to switch to a bigger racquet?

Another 'blackboard and chalk' time with diagrams, crayons and bright lettering.....

For the modern pro game, 98-100 is the sweetspot. Above that too much loss of control, below that, too unforgiving unless you're perfect with every stroke 100% of the time, in every single game, in every single match.

These guys hit huge nowadays compared to 30 years ago. 90sq" is an impediment in the modern game unless you have God like tennis abilities.

 

[drakulie]

Fed's performance today butthurt a lot of posters who can't hit one-handers or play with anything smaller than a 120.

Eat it.

 

[chiruanna]

The 90 is an amazing racket...and plays really well anywhere on the court.

Besides, the way he is mishitting, 100 sq inches wont do much good anyway. I've started to count Fed's home runs (or sixers) per match. He seems to be hitting a lot more of those lately.

I think Fed's problems are more in his head than the racket's
I'd think he needs a sports psychologist session...to sort things out.

If you watch vids of him from 2005-06 or so he played with such freedom and swagger. These days he always has that irritated look on his face. Thats what he needs to work on, not the gear.

 

[chiruanna]

Also, how much bigger would the sweet spot be from a 90 to 100 frame? A millimeter?

I wonder how much more forgiving a bigger frame would be.

 

[Radicalized]

Fed's performance today butthurt a lot of posters who can't hit one-handers or play with anything smaller than a 120.

Eat it.

As a Rookie poster I wouldn't have put it that way, as not to get battered, but Drakulie has said it. The one-hander lives to fight in another major. But oddly, I've been playing with the 107 sq. inch. Better switch to the 98! :twisted: Fortunately, he wrote 120 and not 100! And I'm old enough that I grew up without using the mega-racquets and the really modern tech.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

BUCKETHEAD ...just LOL

Another 'blackboard and chalk' time with diagrams, crayons and bright lettering.....

For the modern pro game, 98-100 is the sweetspot. Above that too much loss of control, below that, too unforgiving unless you're perfect with every stroke 100% of the time, in every single game, in every single match.

These guys hit huge nowadays compared to 30 years ago. 90sq" is an impediment in the modern game unless you have God like tennis abilities.

Where do all these moronic posters comefrom?

I'll be kind..players have different styles...

This guy posts this after Fed (with a 90) beats joker, on a 43 match wn streak..where piles of players with bigger racquets couldn'ttake a set off him

BreakPoint is right and Drakulie keep mocking these pimplefaced newbies

 

[Chopin]

Another 'blackboard and chalk' time with diagrams, crayons and bright lettering.....

For the modern pro game, 98-100 is the sweetspot. Above that too much loss of control, below that, too unforgiving unless you're perfect with every stroke 100% of the time, in every single game, in every single match.

These guys hit huge nowadays compared to 30 years ago. 90sq" is an impediment in the modern game unless you have God like tennis abilities.

That doesn't really make sense. Sampras won 14 slams with an 85 inch racquet and Federer has won 16 with a 90 inch racquet. I think that pretty much dismantles your argument. I play with a 93 and while I'm not a pro, I don't automatically play better if my racquet is 5 square inches bigger...

 

[Xizel]

That doesn't really make sense. Sampras won 14 slams with an 85 inch racquet and Federer has won 16 with a 90 inch racquet. I think that pretty much dismantles your argument. I play with a 93 and while I'm not a pro, I don't automatically play better if my racquet is 5 square inches bigger...

Your logic is circular indeed. First, results mean a lot, but they don't necessarily support that smaller frames are the same as or better than bigger frames. Second, there's a post on the first page where Andy Murray says that today's game is different. It's ridiculous topspin and baseline bashing. Pete Sampras' 14 Majors are almost purely serve and volley. Hell, they even changed the Wimbledon grass to be slower nowadays. Third, how do you know they couldn't win more Majors if they played with bigger frames?

Although smaller frames gave rise to some of the biggest GOATs, Federer and Sampras never made the French Open and clay titles too many times. What if they played with bigger frames and use poly strings instead of hybrid gut to generate the clay topspin that won Nadal so many FO crowns?

 

[Chopin]

Your logic is circular indeed. First, results mean a lot, but they don't necessarily support that smaller frames are the same as or better than bigger frames. Second, there's a post on the first page where Andy Murray says that today's game is different. It's ridiculous topspin and baseline bashing. Pete Sampras' 14 Majors are almost purely serve and volley. Hell, they even changed the Wimbledon grass to be slower nowadays. Third, how do you know they couldn't win more Majors if they played with bigger frames?

Although smaller frames gave rise to some of the biggest GOATs, Federer and Sampras never made the French Open and clay titles too many times. What if they played with bigger frames and use poly strings instead of hybrid gut to generate the clay topspin that won Nadal so many FO crowns?

Yes, results do mean a lot. And at the least, they show that pros can have great results with racquets that aren't 98 square inches. In fact, the two most succesful pros in terms of grand slams won used racquets 90 square inches or less. And Sampras was an all-court player--his forehand was no slouch and I seem to remember him beating Agassi at the US Open. I'd rather look at what Federer has done with his 90 square inch racquet than put a lot of weight on Andy Murray, a player without a slam to his name. I don't know if Federer would have won "more" with a bigger frame, but then again, you don't know if he would have won less.

 

[Sentinel]

Federer needs to hire suresh as his coach and psychologist and dietician. And also start using suresh's racquets if he really wants to be GOAT !

 

[Lsmkenpo]

Your logic is circular indeed. First, results mean a lot, but they don't necessarily support that smaller frames are the same as or better than bigger frames. Second, there's a post on the first page where Andy Murray says that today's game is different. It's ridiculous topspin and baseline bashing. Pete Sampras' 14 Majors are almost purely serve and volley. Hell, they even changed the Wimbledon grass to be slower nowadays. Third, how do you know they couldn't win more Majors if they played with bigger frames?

Although smaller frames gave rise to some of the biggest GOATs, Federer and Sampras never made the French Open and clay titles too many times. What if they played with bigger frames and use poly strings instead of hybrid gut to generate the clay topspin that won Nadal so many FO crowns?

You do realize the only player in the top 30 who hits with more avg. RPM of topspin than Federer is Nadal. Racquet head speed is #1 when it comes to generating topspin not racquet size or strings.

I suggest you go see Federer play up close live, to see how much spin he generates with seemingly little effort with that 90.

 

[TopFH]

You do realize the only player in the top 30 who hits with more avg. RPM of topspin than Federer is Nadal. Racquet head speed is #1 when it comes to generating topspin not racquet size or strings.

I suggest you go see Federer play up close live, to see how much spin he generates with seemingly little effort with that 90.

I second this. Some time ago, Tennis mag had an article describing the spin of many pros. Nadal's avg was 4000RPM, give or take. Fed's avg was 3200RPM, give or take.

 

[BreakPoint]

It's going to get harder and harder for him to be "fresh" as he gets older. That's an incredibly demanding racket. He could probably stay in the top 5 until he's 40 if he was using a more forgiving racket.

Maybe for YOU. But you're not Federer, are you?

Novak has a 100 inch frame, do you think he lacks accuracy? I don't see any point using a 90 incher.

That's exactly it. YOU don't see any point to a 90 incher. But you're not Federer, are you?

Do you think Agassi ever told Sampras that he didn't see any point to Sampras using an 85 incher after Sampras spanked him at the US Open and at Wimbledon every time?

 

[BreakPoint]

Another 'blackboard and chalk' time with diagrams, crayons and bright lettering.....

For the modern pro game, 98-100 is the sweetspot. Above that too much loss of control, below that, too unforgiving unless you're perfect with every stroke 100% of the time, in every single game, in every single match.

According to whom? The 50 guys using 98-100 sq. in. racquets over the past decade that have won Grand Slams?

Sampras, Federer, Hewitt, and Safin have all won multiple Slams using 90 sq. in. or smaller racquets over the past decade. That's more Slams than all the Slams won by all the guys using 95 sq. in. or larger racquets over the same period. Pretty impressive considering more than 95% of pros use racquets 95 sq. in. or larger. They just can't win as much with them.

These guys hit huge nowadays compared to 30 years ago. 90sq" is an impediment in the modern game unless you have God like tennis abilities.

You just described Federer, didn't you?

 

[BreakPoint]

Your logic is circular indeed. First, results mean a lot, but they don't necessarily support that smaller frames are the same as or better than bigger frames. Second, there's a post on the first page where Andy Murray says that today's game is different. It's ridiculous topspin and baseline bashing. Pete Sampras' 14 Majors are almost purely serve and volley. Hell, they even changed the Wimbledon grass to be slower nowadays. Third, how do you know they couldn't win more Majors if they played with bigger frames?

And how do you know all the guys using 98-100 sq. in. frames couldn't win more Majors if they used smaller frames? Maybe Murray would have 4 Slams by now and Djokovic would have 8 Slams by now?

Although smaller frames gave rise to some of the biggest GOATs, Federer and Sampras never made the French Open and clay titles too many times. What if they played with bigger frames and use poly strings instead of hybrid gut to generate the clay topspin that won Nadal so many FO crowns?

Huh? Federer has won the French Open and many other clay court titles. Sampras won the Rome Masters. Sampras was an attacking player when the FO was played on really slow clay and never was comfortable moving on clay. It had nothing to do with the size of his racquet. Didn't Courier win two French Opens (and another final) using the same racquet as Sampras?

Winning on clay has to do with your footwork and movement, not the size of your racquet.

 

[RoddickAce]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u33IcQHXQ8&t=6m21s

For discussion purposes.

 

[Buckethead]

That's because, like you said, Djokovic's strokes are different and he doesn't take the ball as early right off of the bounce as much as Federer does. If he did, he would shank as much as Federer does with his 100 sq. in. racquet.

Why do low-level recreational players assume that what works for them will definitely work for the greatest player of all time? It's like night and day, apples and oranges, not in the same ballpark, etc.

Bigger is not better in tennis racquets on the pro tour. If you did a scientific study based upon success on the pro tour (# of Slams won), you'd find that SMALLER is definitely better when it comes to racquet size.

Of course the mid size has won more, up until 15 years ago mid size rackets dominated the tour and were common.

Tennis has changed really fast only in the past 6 years, even so if you compare with 15-20 years ago.

There are several reasons why Djokovic doesn't frame 15 balls at least per match, the frame being one of them, but taking the ball early isn't the answer.

To prove that Davydenko is the one that takes every ball on the rise, and He never shanked 10% of what Roger does.

Fed needs to move on with the sport, accept the changes to win more as well, a 98 sq in, 18x20, among other features will be better for him.

 

[Buckethead]

You do realize the only player in the top 30 who hits with more avg. RPM of topspin than Federer is Nadal. Racquet head speed is #1 when it comes to generating topspin not racquet size or strings.

I suggest you go see Federer play up close live, to see how much spin he generates with seemingly little effort with that 90.

I believe Andreev and Thomaz Bellucci hit with just as much topspin and RPM as Nadal, many would agree, many wouldn't, but racket head speed I think Fed hits with the fastest.

We are not here to say the Fed isn't great, for me He is the best ever, no argument, but I want to see him winning more, beating Nadal more often and with a bigger more forgiving racket I think He'd be able to cut the shanks.

 

[Satch]

Fed needs to move on with the sport, accept the changes to win more as well, a 98 sq in, 18x20, among other features will be better for him.

He will never change, too stubborn.

Also BP plays with 90sq so why cant Fed? :razz:

 

[endbegin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u33IcQHXQ8&t=6m21s

For discussion purposes.

These discussions have continued long enough actually. Just cause he shanks one ball, doesn't mean anything. Djokovic went on to miss three straight balls to lose the tiebreak - does that mean his racquet was too big, resulting in lack of control?

Fed's game is suited to his frame. He won't hit his pinpoint serves, won't get the bite of his slice, won't get his touch volleys etc. etc. - with a bigger frame.

Plus, he has said that he might be open to a bigger frame, but there is just not enough time in the season to experiment.

Just enjoy the tennis. Yesterday's performance was a throwback and was wonderful to see.

 

[mellowyellow]

Fed had the match odf his life especially seving, if he could perform that well against Rafa in the finals he should win then too, but he won't he always serves worse in finals.Yeah, playing a Djoko who was not even close to the form we have recently seen who of the 4 was completely jerked around scheduled wise, and who was trying to cheat the law of average, 41 straight wins and beating Fed 3 times in a row going for 4. This is the match that will show Fed's racquet is so great. No, SUNDAY will be the match to make that determination. Fed still dropped many balls in the service box. Rafa will eat them up.

 

[BreakPoint]

Of course the mid size has won more, up until 15 years ago mid size rackets dominated the tour and were common.

Tennis has changed really fast only in the past 6 years, even so if you compare with 15-20 years ago.

There are several reasons why Djokovic doesn't frame 15 balls at least per match, the frame being one of them, but taking the ball early isn't the answer.

To prove that Davydenko is the one that takes every ball on the rise, and He never shanked 10% of what Roger does.

Fed needs to move on with the sport, accept the changes to win more as well, a 98 sq in, 18x20, among other features will be better for him.

And how many Slams has Davydenko won with his big racquet? What is his H2H record versus Federer with his big racquet?

Davydenk doesn't have nearly the same racquet head speed as Federer. He also hits a 2HBH, which has a lower racquet head speed than a 1HBH. He also gives up control and maneuverability by using such a big racquet. The proof of the pudding is in the results.

 

[BreakPoint]

Fed had the match odf his life especially seving, if he could perform that well against Rafa in the finals he should win then too, but he won't he always serves worse in finals.Yeah, playing a Djoko who was not even close to the form we have recently seen who of the 4 was completely jerked around scheduled wise, and who was trying to cheat the law of average, 41 straight wins and beating Fed 3 times in a row going for 4. This is the match that will show Fed's racquet is so great. No, SUNDAY will be the match to make that determination. Fed still dropped many balls in the service box. Rafa will eat them up.

Yeah, before Friday, it was the Djokovic match that would make that determination. Now it's the match versus Nadal on Sunday. If Federer wins, it'll be his next match versus Murray. And if he wins that, it'll be his next match <<insert name here>> that will make that determination. :???:

 

[nikdom]

Roger won against Djoko only because he switched to a Babolat.





















Babolat balls that is. Now only if he changed to a Babolat racquet, he might actually win against Nadal too tomorrow.

 

[forehandshanker]

At a higher level of tennis (I think 4.5 and above for sure), the racquet doesn't make a big enough difference. Far better to spend the time and energy to become a better athlete.

It seems to me Federer has become a little bit stronger physically. He got to an awful lot of balls yesterday against Djokovic. I wouldn't be surprised if he has been working on his first step, and upping the power in his legs.

Sometimes I wonder if these threads advising pros to switch to a bigger racquet reflect our unwillingness to put in the "hard yards" to improve our own games. It's sexier and easier to buy a new racquet than to go and drill 100 running groundstrokes for a solid week.

 

[mellowyellow]

Ohh yea, don't forget about all the extra dirt that was laid down, that kept these light balls from bouncing up, and clearly hampered Djoko movement. This surface was also pointed out in the Murray vs Nadal match. Probably kept Murray from overpowering Nadal with flat shots.

 

[Lawn Tennis]

The 90 is an amazing racket...and plays really well anywhere on the court.

Besides, the way he is mishitting, 100 sq inches wont do much good anyway. I've started to count Fed's home runs (or sixers) per match. He seems to be hitting a lot more of those lately.

I think Fed's problems are more in his head than the racket's
I'd think he needs a sports psychologist session...to sort things out.

If you watch vids of him from 2005-06 or so he played with such freedom and swagger. These days he always has that irritated look on his face. Thats what he needs to work on, not the gear.

Two of the most well-stated points about Roger's game. It's almost like the 16 slams has gone to Roger's head, and now he feels that anything less is unsatisfactory. In 2005 he had no expectations and an open mind toward his opponent. His troubles are evident when he plays Rafa in that he has expectations, and if Rafa strays from them, Roger can't make the adjustment.

 

[Praetorian]

People starting new threads on this issue trying to say 'I told you so' are tiresome.

.

Still not nearly as tiresome as the "Fed needs a new/bigger racket" threads.

 

[Mick]

the concept that a larger headsize racquet would produce better results apparently does not apply to the great federer

 

[mellowyellow]

Two of the most well-stated points about Roger's game. It's almost like the 16 slams has gone to Roger's head, and now he feels that anything less is unsatisfactory. In 2005 he had no expectations and an open mind toward his opponent. His troubles are evident when he plays Rafa in that he has expectations, and if Rafa strays from them, Roger can't make the adjustment.

This has been covered, the need to do more with a weak racket is in his head, losing to guys he never has before. Fed clearly going for more than is possible with that frame. Mishits are not going go away completely, but he has the smallest frame and he hits the most, yet many will attest to Fed being the cleanest striker/timer of the ball of the top 4 players. This doesn't make sense somewhere.

 

[Praetorian]

This has been covered, the need to do more with a weak racket is in his head, losing to guys he never has before. Fed clearly going for more than is possible with that frame. Mishits are not going go away completely, but he has the smallest frame and he hits the most, yet many will attest to Fed being the cleanest striker/timer of the ball of the top 4 players. This doesn't make sense somewhere.

I'm interested in seeing where is the scientific evidence that supports this. Just because he is probably one of the most broadcasted tennis matches, doesn't there aren't tennis players who shank as much or more.

 

[Lawn Tennis]

This has been covered, the need to do more with a weak racket is in his head, losing to guys he never has before. Fed clearly going for more than is possible with that frame. Mishits are not going go away completely, but he has the smallest frame and he hits the most, yet many will attest to Fed being the cleanest striker/timer of the ball of the top 4 players. This doesn't make sense somewhere.

I hear ya with that. Djokovic finds the center of the string much more often than Fed. I wonder how clean and crisp Fed's shots would sound and look with those 100sq inches.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Yes, you do have a point there BP; the Prostaff 90 does allow one to serve with accuracy and placement; but admittedly, a slightly larger head should allow Roger more room for error with a slightly larger sweetspot. I suppose it all boils down to what Roger thinks is best for him; until he decides this for himself, this debate will rage on.

True But hasn't he already decided? BHBH