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

Six.One.Tour.90FAN

Professional
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.

Hold a 90 sq.inch racquet next to a 100sq.inch racquet.....there is barely a difference

90
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
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.
Um...wouldn't that have helped Djokovic? That must have also kept Federer from overpowering Djokovic with his flat shots. Otherwise, Federer would have won much more easily.
 

Nextman916

Professional
So the majority here are saying ....overhitting/missing with a larger head is better than framing/missing with a smaller head?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
So the majority here are saying ....framing with a smaller head is better than overhitting/missing with a larger head?
Yes, because framing with a smaller head means the ball usually still lands in, whereas, when you overhit with a bigger head, you definitely lose the point since by definition, "overhitting" means you hit the ball out. :wink:

But more importantly, what we're saying is that Federer swings his racquet so fast at the ball right off of the bounce that if he frames the ball with his 90, he would frame the ball with a 95 or 98 as well. So why switch so a bigger racquet that would make him lose his accuracy, his great serve placement, and his racquet maneuverability?
 

baek57

Professional
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.

This has been covered before and some posters here even bothered to count shanks in various matches and came to the conclusion that fed actually shanks less than other players including his #1 rival nadal. And just an fyi, the surface area difference between a 90 and a 95-100 is not that big and anything you shank with a 90 will also be a shank with a 95-100.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Federer actually hits with more topspin than Djokovic.
Federer's ball travels with a flatter TRAJECTORY than Djokovic's ball. Djokovic's ball has more net clearance. That's how Federer robs time away from his opponents and overpowers them. :)
 

President

Legend
Federer's ball travels with a flatter TRAJECTORY than Djokovic's ball. Djokovic's ball has more net clearance. That's how Federer robs time away from his opponents and overpowers them. :)

You're completely correct, but I just wanted to clarify that little point. Federer hits with a huge amount of topspin, but his ball has a flat trajectory. Soderling is a similar player, who hits huge topspin (resulting in a very heavy ball) but has a flat trajectory. They are different from "true" flat players like Berdych IMO.
 

OrangePower

Legend
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.

Don't you all think Fed has considered this? The guy is not stupid. Plus he is a fan of the game. So I'm sure he hits around now and then with different racquets just for fun, same way many of us on these boards do. And if he felt better playing with a larger-head racquet, he'd switch. No one wants Fed to win more than Fed does!

So the only logical conclusion is that Fed does not need a bigger racquet, as decided by the person in the best position to make that evaluation - Fed himself.

But of course we all know better... :oops:
 
This has been covered before and some posters here even bothered to count shanks in various matches and came to the conclusion that fed actually shanks less than other players including his #1 rival nadal. And just an fyi, the surface area difference between a 90 and a 95-100 is not that big and anything you shank with a 90 will also be a shank with a 95-100.

I am not really arguing shanks, they will not go away no matter who no matter what you play with. For arguments sake though, its what points those shanks are on. For some reason everyone thinks that the stroke would be the same with a more forgiving frame size, and that should not be true. Why does everyone assume that Fed would not adjust his swing a small amount? If the racket is going to do a little more work for you, requires less from Fed? Has anyone here bothered to count these supposed shanks lately? What about the points they are on? I see Fed hitting bad balls on important point trying to do too much, knowing the likelihood of getting another good ball to go after is going to be slim. Again if its a small margin going from a 90 to a 95, why go to the 90 from the 85? If the difference is so small, why do all the reviews show the mid plus to be more forgiving than the mid on Tennis Warehouse? Are you saying the Tennis Warehouse reviews are bs? You are more qualified to review the racquets? If the difference is so small why not just change? Ohh it is a big change? but the difference is small? Its not a big difference, but the change is too big would take too much time? Which is it? Once again, its not about the shanks, everyone hits them, its about the off center hits, that have no power no direction and just sit in the middle of the court, these are the balls that you rarely ever see Nadal, Djoko, or Murray hit. When being pushed around, these guys routinely on the dead stretch hit winners, passing shots, when Fed is being pushed around you never have the feeling he can hit his way out like those guys can, yet when being aggressive on either side he hits as hard as any of them. For some reason when in defense their is where the huge disparity in quality of shot comes in. One would ask their self why......
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
The debate will be back when Fed loses to Nadal tomorrow.

Beating a rusty Djokovic is one thing. Nadal is another.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

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 am not really arguing shanks, they will not go away no matter who no matter what you play with. For arguments sake though, its what points those shanks are on. For some reason everyone thinks that the stroke would be the same with a more forgiving frame size, and that should not be true. Why does everyone assume that Fed would not adjust his swing a small amount? If the racket is going to do a little more work for you, requires less from Fed? Has anyone here bothered to count these supposed shanks lately? What about the points they are on? I see Fed hitting bad balls on important point trying to do too much, knowing the likelihood of getting another good ball to go after is going to be slim. Again if its a small margin going from a 90 to a 95, why go to the 90 from the 85? If the difference is so small, why do all the reviews show the mid plus to be more forgiving than the mid on Tennis Warehouse? Are you saying the Tennis Warehouse reviews are bs? You are more qualified to review the racquets? If the difference is so small why not just change? Ohh it is a big change? but the difference is small? Its not a big difference, but the change is too big would take too much time? Which is it? Once again, its not about the shanks, everyone hits them, its about the off center hits, that have no power no direction and just sit in the middle of the court, these are the balls that you rarely ever see Nadal, Djoko, or Murray hit. When being pushed around, these guys routinely on the dead stretch hit winners, passing shots, when Fed is being pushed around you never have the feeling he can hit his way out like those guys can, yet when being aggressive on either side he hits as hard as any of them. For some reason when in defense their is where the huge disparity in quality of shot comes in. One would ask their self why......


fail-hurdles.jpg
 
The debate will be back when Fed loses to Nadal tomorrow.

Beating a rusty Djokovic is one thing. Nadal is another.

True. I just want real answers to the questions. No one ever wants to address why Fed now uses a 90 instead of the 85, and why Fed attributed some of the success to switching. Why the naysayers can't agree if the difference is so small why is the change so big, or vice versa. Why do they only see a change as a hinderance to his game/groundies instead of the positives like serving/returning would be better? Why in Fed's career their seems to be a direct correlation between Fed switching from 85 to 90 and then dominating?
 
the concept that a larger headsize racquet would produce better results apparently does not apply to the great federer :)

Mick,

You make an important point. So please know this is not directed towards you pesonally. :)

Fact is, I'm not certain it applies to anyone. If larger head frames produced the best results, wouldn't there be one 'ideal' (one must assume 'large') headsize for all players? Wouldn't all the ATP/WTA players use it? Wouldn't WE all use it??? Namely, one must assume, the largest headsize allowed by the rules? :confused:

Obviously numerous other factors determine the head size (and static wt, balance point, SW, stiffness, beam width, composition/lay up, string pattern, string type, string tension, grip shape, etc, etc, etc) that is 'ideal' or optimal for any given player.

That's all............ ;)

BHBH
 
BounceHit I know it's off topic but do you have any thoughts about Fed's chances on Sunday?

My pal will be live blogging the match for the NY Times from Chez BounceHit tomorrow morning, so be sure to check it out! :)

I think Fed has a real chance, but to pull it off he will have to play well and most important of all continue to SERVE well. The key shots are Fed's BH DTL and slice serve in both the ad and deuce courts. He will also need to mix up the occasional s/v tactic to keep Nadal from just floating the ball back and starrting to grind. Last, but not least, he MUST return Rafa's second serve with an aggressive mindset and play the break points even more aggressively still. I bet Annacone has been driving home to Fed how many break points he has historically squandered in FO Finals against Nadal, and how the outcomes might have been very different had he not! ;) Best, BHBH
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
True. I just want real answers to the questions. No one ever wants to address why Fed now uses a 90 instead of the 85, and why Fed attributed some of the success to switching. Why the naysayers can't agree if the difference is so small why is the change so big, or vice versa. Why do they only see a change as a hinderance to his game/groundies instead of the positives like serving/returning would be better? Why in Fed's career their seems to be a direct correlation between Fed switching from 85 to 90 and then dominating?

YodaFail.jpg
 
True. I just want real answers to the questions. No one ever wants to address why Fed now uses a 90 instead of the 85, and why Fed attributed some of the success to switching. Why the naysayers can't agree if the difference is so small why is the change so big, or vice versa. Why do they only see a change as a hinderance to his game/groundies instead of the positives like serving/returning would be better? Why in Fed's career their seems to be a direct correlation between Fed switching from 85 to 90 and then dominating?

It is an interesting question. :)

I think it deserves a two part answer:

1. Correlation does not imply causation. ;)

2. The biggest difference between the two frames is in feel. I played the 6.0 85 for 20 years+ and loved it. I've been using the Tour 90 series more or less exclusively (meaning I've tried other frames but never really 'switched' to them) since its inception. They are both great frames, but the Tour 90 has a different feel. Since the Tour 90 series have been designed for and tweaked by Fed, no surprise he prefers them, and plays better with them.

Best,

BHBH
 
Mick,

You make an important point. So please know this is not directed towards you pesonally. :)

Fact is, I'm not certain it applies to anyone. If larger head frames produced the best results, wouldn't there be one 'ideal' (one must assume 'large') headsize for all players? Wouldn't all the ATP/WTA players use it? Wouldn't WE all use it??? Namely, one must assume, the largest headsize allowed by the rules? :confused:
No, but it is quite obvious that more players are gravitating toward the bigger PLAYER FRAMES. The game is not what it used to be. You like to hit witha 85-90? Thats fine, You are not doing it against a player like Djoko, Nadal, Murray, extra flat or extra spin etc... /B]
Obviously numerous other factors determine the head size (and static wt, balance point, SW, stiffness, beam width, composition/lay up, string pattern, string type, string tension, grip shape, etc, etc, etc) that is 'ideal' or optimal for any given player.

That's all............ ;)

BHBH


Many on here like to use a 85/90 and they do play nice, seems like a few are willing to admit though they play better with a 95/98 of similar specs even though they don't "feel" as good........ Humans are very guilty of liking things that are not the best for what they are trying to accomplish but are merely what they like the most, often looking back and saying I should have......... It would have been easier if I would have just. Thats OK though, you guys and gals keep telling yourselves that 85/90 and 13oz. is the "magical" number LMAO. ;)
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Many on here like to use a 85/90 and they do play nice, seems like a few are willing to admit though they play better with a 95/98 of similar specs even though they don't "feel" as good........ Humans are very guilty of liking things that are not the best for what they are trying to accomplish but are merely what they like the most, often looking back and saying I should have......... It would have been easier if I would have just. Thats OK though, you guys and gals keep telling yourselves that 85/90 and 13oz. is the "magical" number LMAO. ;)


25hhg0g.gif
 
It is an interesting question. :)

I think it deserves a two part answer:

1. Correlation does not imply causation. ;)

2. The biggest difference between the two frames is in feel. I played the 6.0 85 for 20 years+ and loved it. I've been using the Tour 90 series more or less exclusively (meaning I've tried other frames but never really 'switched' to them) since its inception. They are both great frames, but the Tour 90 has a different feel. Since the Tour 90 series have been designed for and tweaked by Fed, no surprise he prefers them, and plays better with them.

Best,

BHBH
In its inception it was merely an 85 going to a 90, Fed was not the reason for the 90.... Fed hadn't won any Slam till he switched. No name Fed had Wilson make a line of racquets to his specs because he commanded no noteriety yet? The first 90 a copy of the 85 just bigger. Now they use Fed's input on the 90, but I do not think that was the case back then. You don't hear anything about Fed's input until the NCode rackets with the Swiss colors.
 
Last edited:
"1. Correlation does not imply causation."
No, but it doesn't refute it either, and it definitely supports it. Nice try.....
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
The debate will be back when Fed loses to Nadal tomorrow.

Beating a rusty Djokovic is one thing. Nadal is another.

A guy who hasn't lost a match in six months can't be called "rusty." But then again, we know you don't mean what you write. If the moderators were doing their job, they would have banned you a long time ago.
 
Many on here like to use a 85/90 and they do play nice, seems like a few are willing to admit though they play better with a 95/98 of similar specs even though they don't "feel" as good........ Humans are very guilty of liking things that are not the best for what they are trying to accomplish but are merely what they like the most, often looking back and saying I should have......... It would have been easier if I would have just. Thats OK though, you guys and gals keep telling yourselves that 85/90 and 13oz. is the "magical" number LMAO. ;)

I think you missed my point. :)

Here is the point:

1. There is no "magical number", be it a large, medium, or small head size, high or low static weight, thick or thin beam, etc, etc, etc.

2. There is what feels best and plays best for each individual player. And it is unique to that player and must be found by that player.

Best,

BHBH
 
In its inception it was merely an 85 going to a 90, Fed was not the reason for the 90.... Fed hadn't won any Slam till he switched. No name Fed had Wilson make a line of racquets to his specs because he commanded no noteriety yet? The first 90 a copy of the 85 just bigger. Now they use Fed's input on the 90, but I do not think that was the case back then. You don't hear anything about Fed's input until the NCode rackets with the Swiss colors.

You are correct. I believe the Tour 90 was originally developed for Sampras. So I misspoke. I should have said the later iterations of the Tour 90 series were developed for and tweaked by Fed, and he appears to prefer them to other available frames, as evidenced by the fact he continues to play them, and consistently win with them at the very highest level of the game. Best, BHBH
 
"1. Correlation does not imply causation."
No, but it doesn't refute it either, and it definitely supports it. Nice try.....

It's not a try. It is an observation, just like you are making observations. :)

Not sure why you want to take an argumentative tone?

I am expressing my opinion. You have yours, which I can both accept is different from my own and respect. So, I can easily live with the fact we disagree without trying to discredit you.

Best,

BHBH
 
N

nikdom

Guest
I'm willing to accept a wager from anyone regarding tomorrow's final Roger vs Rafa.

Here is my wager. If Roger wins, I'll accept that Roger's game has nothing to do with the size of his racquet. I'll accept a suitable signature saying as much if you want to propose one. I've said many times that Roger needs to move to a bigger head size to avoid shanks and to give him an extra edge.

Please come back to me with counteroffers. Especially looking forward to some skin in the game from Drakulie and BP who like to mouth off a lot on this subject.

Here is your chance. Will you bet your signature for a chance to prove that Roger can still win with his 90sq racquet? I'll come up what with you need to put in your signature if you lose.
 
It's not a try. It is an observation, just like you are making observations. :)

Not sure why you want to take an argumentative tone?

I am expressing my opinion. You have yours, which I can both accept is different from my own and respect. So, I can easily live with the fact we disagree without trying to discredit you.

Best,

BHBH

Its an observation with no ground to stand on, with evidence of support refuting it....... Not being argumentative, its for the most part black and white, until some real substance is brought forth. I guess I am asking, besides the cutesy saying where is some substance to back your opinion up? To refute the "coincidence"?. Remember I said I would like real answers? Now this "answer" you give is an opinion?
 

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
Don't you all think Fed has considered this? The guy is not stupid. Plus he is a fan of the game. So I'm sure he hits around now and then with different racquets just for fun, same way many of us on these boards do. And if he felt better playing with a larger-head racquet, he'd switch. No one wants Fed to win more than Fed does!

So the only logical conclusion is that Fed does not need a bigger racquet, as decided by the person in the best position to make that evaluation - Fed himself.

But of course we all know better... :oops:
Best post in this thread. Couldn't have said it any better myself.
 
I think you missed my point. :)

Here is the point:

1. There is no "magical number", be it a large, medium, or small head size, high or low static weight, thick or thin beam, etc, etc, etc.
That wasn't necessarily aimed at you, just the undertone of the board in general.
2. There is what feels best and plays best for each individual player. And it is unique to that player and must be found by that player.

Best,

BHBH

Well here is a good example for you. I had a Gamma F8.0 107 thin box beam, just a cheap sale mess with racket, weighted funny and strung funny. It was nothing to write home about at first with regular weight and sting setup, but all of a sudden messing around with different string/tension/weight/balance it seemed like I could place the ball in the service box, 3/4 court or baseline at will. You wouldn't even believe the way it was weighted. Best playing racket ever played with in that setup, kids left it at the park never to be seen again, no idea how to weight it the same, rackets were already discontinued. The string was Gosen Polylon mains @55-56, Prince Synthetic Original crosses @58-59 not exactly sure just know the crosses were higher being synthetic. This thing was better than any Fischer/Volkl/Yonex/Heqad/Wilson I ever modified and I have modded a lot. Do I use anything remotely similar in my frames now? No. The point, its almost impossible to know what will and will not work for any particular frame, and to suggest that the 90 as setup now is the best for Fed, that no other frame bigger could be better in part or in whole is a step out of reality, and into a world of delusion. I do agree, but only in the plays best part, a rackets abilities can be learned and playing good will inspire confidence, feeling good can be a false sense of security and that can be disastrous. Feeling good could be a learned misconception as to how a racket should feel by playing with a certain frame for so long. I dont see why Wilson could not make a frame near identical to the 90 but in a 95/98 frame profile included.
 
Last edited:
N

nikdom

Guest
Who cares what you will accept.

fact is, federer has won 16 slams with a one-hander, and 90 square inch frame.


oh, and he made you look like a fool and eat your thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=382495

Oh so you don't have the Wilanders to accept a challenge about something you supposedly believe in. So be it.

Just proves that you're a glory hunter who comes out of the closet when convenient and hides when its not going your way.

BP what about you? Do you have more fortitude than the groundskeeper from Florida?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I'm willing to accept a wager from anyone regarding tomorrow's final Roger vs Rafa.

Here is my wager. If Roger wins, I'll accept that Roger's game has nothing to do with the size of his racquet. I'll accept a suitable signature saying as much if you want to propose one. I've said many times that Roger needs to move to a bigger head size to avoid shanks and to give him an extra edge.

Please come back to me with counteroffers. Especially looking forward to some skin in the game from Drakulie and BP who like to mouth off a lot on this subject.

Here is your chance. Will you bet your signature for a chance to prove that Roger can still win with his 90sq racquet? I'll come up what with you need to put in your signature if you lose.
I'm not a gambling man so I don't take bets.

But if Nadal loses tomorrow, will you concede that Nadal needs to switch to a SMALLER racquet? Because basically that's what your argument is - i.e., the better size racquet is the one that wins and that the one who loses needs to switch to the same size of racquet as the winner's.

Oh, and if Federer loses, it has nothing at all to do with the size of his racquet. Just like Djokovic losing yesterday had nothing at all to do with the size of his racquet. I mean, why do you have a double standard that applies only to Federer but not to anyone else? :confused:
 
Its an observation with no ground to stand on, with evidence of support refuting it....... Not being argumentative, its for the most part black and white, until some real substance is brought forth. I guess I am asking, besides the cutesy saying where is some substance to back your opinion up? To refute the "coincidence"?. Remember I said I would like real answers? Now this "answer" you give is an opinion?

As is your statement. An opinion, that is. :)

It seems you insist on inflammatory discourse. That's too bad, really.

Like I said before, I can happily live with the fact we disagree.

Be well, BHBH
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Well here is a good example for you. I had a Gamma F8.0 107 thin box beam, just a cheap sale mess with racket, weighted funny and strung funny. It was nothing to write home about at first with regular weight and sting setup, but all of a sudden messing around with different string/tension/weight/balance it seemed like I could place the ball in the service box, 3/4 court or baseline at will. You wouldn't even believe the way it was weighted. Best playing racket ever played with in that setup, kids left it at the park never to be seen again, no idea how to weight it the same, rackets were already discontinued. The string was Gosen Polylon mains @55-56, Prince Synthetic Original crosses @58-59 not exactly sure just know the crosses were higher being synthetic. This thing was better than any Fischer/Volkl/Yonex/Heqad/Wilson I ever modified and I have modded a lot. Do I use anything remotely similar in my frames now? No. The point, its almost impossible to know what will and will not work for any particular frame, and to suggest that the 90 as setup now is the best for Fed, that no other frame bigger could be better in part or in whole is a step out of reality, and into a world of delusion. I do agree, but only in the plays best part, a rackets abilities can be learned and playing good will inspire confidence, feeling good can be a false sense of security and that can be disastrous. Feeling good could be a learned misconception as to how a racket should feel by playing with a certain frame for so long. I dont see why Wilson could not make a frame near identical to the 90 but in a 95/98 frame profile included.
Well, since you admit that one never knows what frame will work for someone, how do you know that an 80 sq. in. frame wouldn't work for Federer even better than his 90 sq. in. frame?

Oh, and what does your experience have any relation at all to the greatest player who ever lived? I'm confused as to the correlation. :confused:

It's like suggesting that something that works for me on my jump shots will also work for Micheal Jordan. Didn't you mention the word "delusion"?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
^^ Its Grand Slams no. 17, 18 etc that we're talking about. If you think he's not capable of it, you're not a true fan.

I think he can do it if he gets a boost from a larger head size, you think not.

Any case why do I expect anything from you, you're the idiot that kept arguing he actually has proof that Nadal is a doper.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=270452&highlight=nadal
If Federer had been using a 100 sq. in. racquet all along, he'd still be working on Grand Slam #2.
 
As is your statement. An opinion, that is. :)

It seems you insist on inflammatory discourse. That's too bad, really.

Like I said before, I can happily live with the fact we disagree.

Be well, BHBH

Yes I have formed an opinion with some reasoning....... What is your opinion based upon, what line of reasoning? Again, a cute little saying is no evidence to refute the switch=winning slams, before the switch=not. I could say Ben Johnson was a great athlete/runner but coincidently had PED'S in his system when he broke the 100 meters. I wonder if he would have said correlation does not equal causation when being found guilty of illegal substance he would have been instantly reinstated and the record put back in the books? I could care less if we disagree/agree or not, makes no difference to me. Fed has given some acknowledgement of the frame change to the correlation of winning. How an you argue what he has said? Thats not just me saying hey look at the timeline, thats Fed saying.........
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
The problem with this discussion is that almost all the participants have a very radical stance on this issue. Many posters are adamant that a racquet change will be 100% beneficial to Federer. These are posters who are most likely complaining against Federer's racquet of choice because Federer is number 3 now and is losing more often than he did in the past. It is a recreational players mentality to blame everything on the racquet. It is particularly annoying to see posters appeal to Novak Djokovic/Rafael Nadal's recent success as support for their argument. Djokovic and Nadal are 5-6 years younger than Federer, it normal for them to be reaching their peak and for Federer to experience decline in his playing form. Every champion eventually declines and the racquet is certainly not the reason.

On the other side of the argument, the posters are extremely close minded that a racquet change could be beneficial for Federer. Federer has already stated how much moving from a 85 sq. inch to 90 sq. inch helped his game by allowing him to cut down on shanked shots. If Federer has already discussed that a racquet change in the past has been beneficial to his game, what makes you guys so sure that Federer can't benefit from an even larger frame? Federer should go ahead and find some time to try some new frames.

Does Federer need a new racquet? Hell no, he became the GOAT with a 90 sq inch and is still playing darn good tennis.
Can a larger racquet help Federer? Maybe.
 
Last edited:

lendlmac

Rookie
Roger is proving all the Trolls here who think they know what's best for Roger that he needs a bigger racquet. lol

Look at him own and destroy Nadal. He loves his little 90 sq in frame :)
 

lendlmac

Rookie
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.

But we now know that the 90 sq inframe is not the issue with Roger.
 

Mick

Legend
imo, if he framed a wilson 90 sq-in, he would frame a babolat 100 sq-in too.

the area difference is not enough to clear a tennis ball as you can see below

2r57q8i.jpg
 

lendlmac

Rookie
Mick, that was great of you to post that picture! Funny, he wins 16 GS, and no mention of needing a bigger racquet..he gets a little older and a step sloer..."he needs a bigger racquet"? why? because Nadal can't play with a 90 sq in? LOL

Seems Federer is just fine, makes it to finlas regularly, blows away the competition, he's almost 30, playing guys 5+ years younger, stronger and faster, yet still hangs with the kids, and if he loses its not because of his 90 sq. in frame...LOL

imagine.... 3.0+ recreation trolls here know what's best for Roger Federer, winner of 16 GS and countless records, the trolls here KNOW what's best for Roger...yet, the trolls here play 3.5 level tennis giving advice freely. LOL

:)
 
Top