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

[RoddickAce]

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

Exactly, I posted a video earlier showing Federer shanking a ball, by hitting the part of the stringbed on the side of the frame (although this is just one case, I believe this is true for most of Fed's shanks based on past videos).

Had Federer used a 100 sq inch racquet, it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference because the 100 sq inch racquet is like 0.5 inches wider on the side? The tennis ball is around 2.5 inches in diameter and that 0.5 inches is probably not going to make a difference.

 

[mellowyellow]

Anyone arguing it will make framed balls, mishits, or shanks go away is a moron, anyone arguing Fed would not see some benefit from a larger player frame with similar frame profile and have a more forgiving hitting area and have more consistent power when playing defense or just rallying is a moron. Lets not even talk about the return game and spin serves being benefitted. Drop the shanks, mishits, framed shots, its a nonissue. The pic sucks and the rackets are not lined up in any way with an indirect view from the top to see that the smaller frame would fit inside the larger frame like the 85 does the 90 Yet Fed mad that switch and bring on the slams..... The rackets are the same length why are the tops uneven? To distort the view would be my guess.

 

[NamRanger]

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

The sweet spot on the 90 square inch racquet is significantly smaller than on a 100 square inch racquet. You're completely ignoring the fact that Federer does miss alot more often now adays, and alot of that has to do with the fact that he is missing by less than an inch half the time; an extra 5 inches could solve that issue (if they ever made a flat beam box 95 racquet).

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Hi CC, how are you?
Yes, of course he HAS decided, you're right, but I was alluding to Rabbit's article recently about Roger considering a switch to a larger racket, that's all.
Here is the link ->
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=382008
Hope your tennis is good!

As for BullDogTennis, there really is no need to resort to name calling

Great! And yourself?

Of course. Got it.

Actually I understand (from a pretty well connected source) Fed has, and will continue, to hit other Wilson frames, including some with larger heads. My point isn't that he SHOULDN'T change, or WON'T change. Rather that he and he alone can make that decision. Further the decision will be a complex, nuanced one, based upon a myriad of factors. Unfortunately some folks get very, very emotional about their opinions, and in turn either misread or distort the words of others. If Fed thinks he should change, he should change. But he and he alone can decide that, and no one here is qualified to counsel him, IMO.

Best,

BHBH

 

[lendlmac]

Great! And yourself?

Of course. Got it.

Actually I understand (from a pretty well connected source) Fed has, and will continue, to hit other Wilson frames, including some with larger heads. My point isn't that he SHOULDN'T change, or WON'T change. Rather that he and he alone can make that decision. Further the decision will be a complex, nuanced one, based upon a myriad of factors. Unfortunately some folks get very, very emotional about their opinions, and in turn either misread or distort the words of others. If Fed thinks he should change, he should change. But he and he alone can decide that, and no one here is qualified to counsel him, IMO.

Best,

BHBH

I agree...if FEDS decids forhimself, that is one thing, good post.....funny reading how "they" know what's best for Roger....lol what GS tiles have the "experts" won? lol

also the photo is quite telling like Mick pointed it...the difference is minimal...I've seen Soderling, Cilic, Verdasco, Murray, Tsonga, Verbrado, Davdenko, Nadal, all shanking and mishitting every game they play....do they worry about a BIGGER racquet? lol

 

[BreakPoint]

Anyone arguing it will make framed balls, mishits, or shanks go away is a moron, anyone arguing Fed would not see some benefit from a larger player frame with similar frame profile and have a more forgiving hitting area and have more consistent power when playing defense or just rallying is a moron. Lets not even talk about the return game and spin serves being benefitted. Drop the shanks, mishits, framed shots, its a nonissue. The pic sucks and the rackets are not lined up in any way with an indirect view from the top to see that the smaller frame would fit inside the larger frame like the 85 does the 90 Yet Fed mad that switch and bring on the slams..... The rackets are the same length why are the tops uneven? To distort the view would be my guess.

You haven't even addressed the fact that bigger racquets are LESS maneuverable than smaller racquets are and that in itself will negatively affect Federer's game. Something physically bigger is always more obstructive and gets in the way more of something physically smaller (all else being equal). Being able to easily maneuver and adjust the angle of the head of smaller headed racquets is one reason I prefer them.

 

[mellowyellow]

I funny reading how "they" know what's best for Roger....lol what GS tiles have the "experts" won? lol
that works 2 ways too. LOL
also the photo is quite telling like Mick pointed it...the difference is minimal...I've seen Soderling, Cilic, Verdasco, Murray, Tsonga, Verbrado, Davdenko, Nadal, all shanking and mishitting every game they play....do they worry about a BIGGER racquet? lol
They already play with a midplus save for Sod, thats a mid, their are diminishing returns with a bigger headsize, as has been stated threads ago.

Good thing we don't play rackets because of looks, or maybe you do? "Hey look I play with the smallest racket at the club/courts, and its the same model as my Hero" everyone on sight melts..... LOL

 

[mellowyellow]

I agree...if FEDS decids forhimself, that is one thing, good post.....funny reading how "they" know what's best for Roger....lol what GS tiles have the "experts" won? lol

What is funny is if you were in Fed's camp you wouldn't have the balls to make the suggestion, you would be a YES man constantly telling him how great he is, riding the coat tales like Anacone has done his whole coaching career, instead of bringing something productive to the table when he is losing his a $ $. You only say he shouldn't because he hasn't yet, and you want to think that you think like Fed....... Save for the WTF Fed has not done too much lately
Go ahead, come up with something original for Fed to do off court or on court to get some sting back on the groundies, make the returns better and more kick on the serve. I don't think anyone claimed to know what is best for Fed, but I think the advantages of a bigger players frame were pointed out.......

 

[Mick]

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

haha. 90 sq in is huge compared to what jimmy connors used to play with and in his time, he used the small racquet to compete with other pros who used oversized racquets (such as andre agassi) and was quite successful.

 

[BreakPoint]

I don't think anyone claimed to know what is best for Fed, but I think the advantages of a bigger players frame were pointed out.......

As have the disadvantages.

 

[Bartelby]

When you're actually playing such racquets, the difference in head size feels much larger than such a photo suggests (once again, the camera always lies), but I'm obviously not a tour player.

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

 

[Mick]

When you're actually playing such racquets, the difference in head size feels much larger than such a photo suggests (once again, the camera always lies), but I'm obviously not a tour player.

yeah. i do feel the difference too. however, the way roger federer hits the ball, i think he could have problem keeping the ball in the court if he were to use a 100 sq in racquet.

 

[BreakPoint]

haha. 90 sq in is huge compared to what jimmy connors used to play with and in his time, he used the small racquet to compete with other pros who used oversized racquets (such as andre agassi) and was quite successful.

Ha ha ha.....EXACTLY!!!! And I don't recall Jimmy Connors EVER mishitting the ball with his tiny 63 sq. in. steel T-2000, and he even took the ball pretty early on the rise. It all comes down to how fast you swing, how early you take the ball off of the bounce, and the trajectory of your swing path. It's not the size of your racquet that causes mishits.

A few years ago when I went back and played with a standard wood racquet for a month and then switched back to my Tour 90, I couldn't believe how MASSIVE my Tour 90 felt in my hands.

I mean the head of a Tour 90 is almost a whopping 40% BIGGER than the head of the 65 sq. in. wood racquet I was using with no problems. In fact, after using the heavy wood racquet that could plow through the ball like there was no tomorrow, going back to my Tour 90 felt like I was using a toy or a light weight Big Bubba. :shock:

 

[roundiesee]

Great! And yourself?

Of course. Got it.

Actually I understand (from a pretty well connected source) Fed has, and will continue, to hit other Wilson frames, including some with larger heads. My point isn't that he SHOULDN'T change, or WON'T change. Rather that he and he alone can make that decision. Further the decision will be a complex, nuanced one, based upon a myriad of factors. Unfortunately some folks get very, very emotional about their opinions, and in turn either misread or distort the words of others. If Fed thinks he should change, he should change. But he and he alone can decide that, and no one here is qualified to counsel him, IMO.

Best,

BHBH

Hi CC; I'm ok thanks!
Actually I really do know what you, BP and others are talking about and you guys really do have a point. Larger sized rackets may help Federer decrease his mishits but he might not swing with the same confidence he feels with his usual racket (which he has been playing with for so many years). It's interesting to debate and discuss all these points though with fellow Federer fans, and we shall see whether Federer in later years will bring himself to make the switch. You are right in saying that it will not be an easy decision with many facters coming into play.
Best,
R

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Hi CC; I'm ok thanks!
Actually I really do know what you, BP and others are talking about and you guys really do have a point. Larger sized rackets may help Federer decrease his mishits but he might not swing with the same confidence he feels with his usual racket (which he has been playing with for so many years). It's interesting to debate and discuss all these points though with fellow Federer fans, and we shall see whether Federer in later years will bring himself to make the switch. You are right in saying that it will not be an easy decision with many facters coming into play.
Best,
R

Yes, it just comes down to a series of trade offs. There are advantages and disadvantages to be considered, and that really is all. I'll be very interested to see if Fed does indeed elect to switch frames what he'll choose, but even more so the reasons he gives. I think it will offer us all insight into one of the greatest tennis minds ever. Best, BHBH

 

[mellowyellow]

haha. 90 sq in is huge compared to what jimmy connors used to play with and in his time, he used the small racquet to compete with other pros who used oversized racquets (such as andre agassi) and was quite successful.

Actually a good point, Connors pioneered the advantages of a slimmer frame and more forgiving hit zone the T2000 offered versus the archaic (insert Tour 90) wood models, but he stopped using it in 85 briefly and then played it to 87. I don't that he played Andre with the T2000 maybe someone can actually prove that or not. Andre was only 16 in 1986 when he joined the tour the only year he could have played Connors with the T2000......

 

[Mick]

Actually a good point, Connors pioneered the advantages of a slimmer frame and more forgiving hit zone the T2000 offered versus the archaic (insert Tour 90) wood models, but he stopped using it in 85 briefly and then played it to 87. I don't that he played Andre with the T2000 maybe someone can actually prove that or not. Andre was only 16 in 1986 when he joined the tour the only year he could have played Connors with the T2000......

i'm pretty sure he had played against gene mayer. gene mayer used a prince oversize racquet.

 

[mellowyellow]

OHH, THE VAUNTED "GENE MAYER" AusO Finalist, I didn't realize. Wood wasn't totally gone till 88 from winning tournaments, but the style it induced was still there. No one had tried to exploit the potential of the racquets. It wasn't an overnight change just like with today, Racquets/Strings changed, courts changed, and again styles have changed. Just like wood, in a few years the 90 will be gone from winning anything, never to be seen in the pro ranks again. Lest Fed should pull a Borg and try a comeback in his late 30's early 40's with antique rackets and string.

 

[Praetorian]

Ha ha ha.....EXACTLY!!!! And I don't recall Jimmy Connors EVER mishitting the ball with his tiny 63 sq. in. steel T-2000, and he even took the ball pretty early on the rise. It all comes down to how fast you swing, how early you take the ball off of the bounce, and the trajectory of your swing path. It's not the size of your racquet that causes mishits.

A few years ago when I went back and played with a standard wood racquet for a month and then switched back to my Tour 90, I couldn't believe how MASSIVE my Tour 90 felt in my hands.

I mean the head of a Tour 90 is almost a whopping 40% BIGGER than the head of the 65 sq. in. wood racquet I was using with no problems. In fact, after using the heavy wood racquet that could plow through the ball like there was no tomorrow, going back to my Tour 90 felt like I was using a toy or a light weight Big Bubba. :shock:

Haha... I do the same when I feel my technique getting sloppy. I think only people who actually started on the wood and similar sized rackets fully understand. I think if you put one of these rackets in the hands of the "Fed needs a bigger racket" pundits, they wouldn't last a set.

 

[drakulie]

Good thing we don't play rackets because of looks, or maybe you do? "Hey look I play with the smallest racket at the club/courts, and its the same model as my Hero" everyone on sight melts..... LOL

funny post coming from you, considering you do this.

 

[Shangri La]

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

If you put a PS85 on top of a 90, the difference would be even smaller. But why do you think Fed made the switch? He certainly felt *plenty* difference to justify a switch, no?

 

[Mick]

If you put a PS85 on top of a 90, the difference would be even smaller. But why do you think Fed made the switch? He certainly felt *plenty* difference to justify a switch, no?

sure, but to fed maybe 90 is the biggest head size that he would need.

if there was no limit to the head size preference, then why don't all the pros use oversize racquets? everybody knows, when you go too big, you would lose control.

let's say fed switches to 95, would nadal switch to 105 to retain the advantage? I don't think he would.

 

[Shangri La]

sure, but to fed maybe 90 is the biggest head size that he would need.

if there was no limit to the head size preference, then why don't all the pros use oversize racquets? everybody knows, when you go too big, you would lose control.

let's say fed switches to 95, would nadal switch to 105 to retain the advantage? I don't think he would.

All I wanted to say is visual difference doesnt necessarily reflect difference in play. That's all.

 

[nikdom]

All I wanted to say is visual difference doesnt necessarily reflect difference in play. That's all.

Another way to put that is, if there were no difference in playing characteristics, why do manufacturers even produce these different racquets that are visually not that very dissimilar?

If there the play difference in 5 sq in was miniscule, then the size progression of racquets should have been something like - 90 sq, 180 sq in, 270 sq in.

Why is it not like that? Why are racquets produced in a narrow area range of about 20 sq inches difference between smallest and biggest?

 

[mellowyellow]

sure, but to fed maybe 90 is the biggest head size that he would need.

if there was no limit to the head size preference, then why don't all the pros use oversize racquets? everybody knows, when you go too big, you would lose control.
Yes their are diminishing returns. An oversize becomes much harder to turn over even when weighted similarly.
let's say fed switches to 95, would nadal switch to 105 to retain the advantage? I don't think he would.

No, Rafa is at the end of the diminishing returns, its about bringing Fed to more even terms of racket capability, especially now he is older and maybe can't train as hard.
You almost are there, at this point and time Fed need to be worried less about feel since he doesn't dictate as much, plays less S&V, and more concerned about performance. The difference to 95 or 98 can be modded out like going from a 85 to a 90, with strings, weight, flex, string pattern. Fed's game as he has aged, believe it or not has changed some and is less of a well mixed all courter than when he was young. Fed has switched racquets at least 2 times in his career, seamlessly.... Connors as was mentioned did it at least 3 times successfully and once was late into his career to boot, and his changes were much more drastic than what is being sugested by Fed fans here. Probably what kept Connors around so long, at least in part. The guy was a major competitor and loved stomping the new talent.

 

[BreakPoint]

Actually a good point, Connors pioneered the advantages of a slimmer frame and more forgiving hit zone the T2000 offered versus the archaic (insert Tour 90) wood models, but he stopped using it in 85 briefly and then played it to 87. I don't that he played Andre with the T2000 maybe someone can actually prove that or not. Andre was only 16 in 1986 when he joined the tour the only year he could have played Connors with the T2000......

Connors also played against the likes of Borg and Vilas many, many times, guys that hit with massive topspin. Connors had no trouble handling their massive topspin shots on the rise without mishitting with his tiny 63 sq. in. T-2000.

Oh, and the T-2000 was not slim compared to wood racquets. Wood racquets were pretty slim except down near the handle. Heck, my Dunlop Max 200G graphite racquets were thicker than my Dunlop Maxply Fort wood racquets.

 

[jackson vile]

Connors also played against the likes of Borg and Vilas many, many times, guys that hit with massive topspin. Connors had no trouble handling their massive topspin shots on the rise without mishitting with his tiny 63 sq. in. T-2000.

Oh, and the T-2000 was not slim compared to wood racquets. Wood racquets were pretty slim except down near the handle. Heck, my Dunlop Max 200G graphite racquets were thicker than my Dunlop Maxply Fort wood racquets.

This made me laugh really hard, thank you.

Also, stop posting in this BS thread. Do you ****s enjoy BS that much?

 

[BreakPoint]

This made me laugh really hard, thank you.

Also, stop posting in this BS thread. Do you ****s enjoy BS that much?

Must be because you're unable to generate anywhere near the amount of topspin Borg and Vilas did with their tiny wood racquets and gut strings even with your massive modern racquet and poly strings.

 

[jackson vile]

Must be because you're unable to generate anywhere near the amount of topspin Borg and Vilas did with their tiny wood racquets and gut strings even with your massive modern racquet and poly strings.

What ever makes you feel better about your self bro, enjoy the lame drama your keeping alive in this moronic thread.

 

[mellowyellow]

I held a T2000, it wa my Fathers he was a major Connors fan being a lefty, and it was certainly more aero and freer to swing than a wood, and the topspin back then was without pace, it was like Sanchez Vicario moonballs of the 90's, GTFOH. The game has changed. Fed has changed. Get over it, you may have to buy new rackets to say you play with your GOATS frames and you will be out an extra 500 dollars for a matched set. Why is their drama in the thread? Idiots like you make claims that can't be supported by any real reasoning...... Funny too how when their is no real point in argument, BP, jackson and the like have to bring in unsubstantiated claims about another posters abilities, which is just like the rest of the comments. They speak without knowing what they are talking about.

 

[ViscaB]

If only Fed would visit this forum now and then. he would be on 20+ slams by now...

 

[drakulie]

Why is their drama in the thread? Idiots like you make claims that can't be supported by any real reasoning...... Funny too how when their is no real point in argument, BP, jackson and the like have to bring in unsubstantiated claims about another posters abilities, which is just like the rest of the comments. They speak without knowing what they are talking about.

Let me get this straight........

Roger Federer,,,,, winner of 16 majors, number one player for over 280 weeks, holder of numerous records (and counting), who just made another major final (on his worse surface), and arguably the greatest player in the history of the game should change racquets because you say so????/

and the rest of the boards AND FEDERER are idiots, with no real reasoning, and don't know what they are talking about?

what insane asylum did you just get out of???

 

[lendlmac]

sure, but to fed maybe 90 is the biggest head size that he would need.

if there was no limit to the head size preference, then why don't all the pros use oversize racquets? everybody knows, when you go too big, you would lose control.

let's say fed switches to 95, would nadal switch to 105 to retain the advantage? I don't think he would.

HAHAH Mick is AWESOME!! You set 'em straight, Mick! Lendl played effectively with an 80'sq in frame, while JMac had the 84, and Becker had the 90, and Edberg the 85 sq in. LOL Lendl didn's switch until he was 32, with the 90 sq in... even then, he was old...LOL but past his prime...so he is excused...

But Federer is having NO problems keeping up with these young players...but all the trolls here who are 3.5 level players, know what is best for Federer, and insist he needs a bigger raquet. LOL :-? :-?

 

[lendlmac]

Exactly, I posted a video earlier showing Federer shanking a ball, by hitting the part of the stringbed on the side of the frame (although this is just one case, I believe this is true for most of Fed's shanks based on past videos).

Had Federer used a 100 sq inch racquet, it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference because the 100 sq inch racquet is like 0.5 inches wider on the side? The tennis ball is around 2.5 inches in diameter and that 0.5 inches is probably not going to make a difference.

Notice how you hear Crickets after Wimbeldon? I thought for sure EVERYONE here would blame Federer's loss agasint Tsonga's due to his little 90 sq in frame... just goes to show you, Federer dominates using the 90 sq. in frame....and other cannot handle his sheer power, precision, control and touch around the court...Federer loses it's becasue he is flat or playedpoorly...not because of his racquet.... and chose to play with frying pans... Crickets?

LOL

:twisted: :twisted:

 

[Ben Hadd]

Come on Fed, Nadal uses a bigger racquet.

 

[Ben Hadd]

Come on Fed, Nadal uses a bigger racquet.

aww image didnt link nadal with HUGE racquet

 

[mellowyellow]

Notice how you hear Crickets after Wimbeldon? I thought for sure EVERYONE here would blame Federer's loss agasint Tsonga's due to his little 90 sq in frame... just goes to show you, Federer dominates using the 90 sq. in frame....and other cannot handle his sheer power, precision, control and touch around the court...Federer loses it's becasue he is flat or playedpoorly...not because of his racquet.... and chose to play with frying pans... Crickets?

LOL

:twisted: :twisted:

Fed actually played very well here, I am not going to profess to know what happened in the quarter, maybe after beating these guys so many times so easily it gets old, or they have gotten better at fighting.... He clearly struck the ball cleanly here. I think what you can take from his ball striking here, is the 90sq. is a good racket when the ball trajectory is somewhat flat and using the opponents heavy pace is enough to block balls back but not pay the price because the bounce stays low. We will see how the heavier topspin HC season goes when the trajectory through the court is much more pronounced on serves and groundies....

 

[jackson vile]

Come on Fed, Nadal uses a bigger racquet.

Shame, fail...

 

[lendlmac]

Do you still agree Federer will never ever benefit using a larger racquet now?

 

[BreakPoint]

How many other players using bigger racquets have taken two sets off of Djokovic or had two match points on Djokovic this year?

How about NONE?

Federer has done it twice with his "small" racquet.

 

[lendlmac]

How many other players using bigger racquets have taken two sets off of Djokovic or had two match points on Djokovic this year?

How about NONE?

Federer has done it twice with his "small" racquet.

Hahaha! "small racquet". Its soooooooo true!!!

 

[Xizel]

How many other players using bigger racquets have taken two sets off of Djokovic or had two match points on Djokovic this year?

How about NONE?

Federer has done it twice with his "small" racquet.

Other players aren't as good as Federer and don't have some of his unique characteristics and talents.

How about Djokovic firing laser beams for forehands while Federer struggles to hit it in the sweetspot to get some decent pop and not shank that thing into his box?

 

[BreakPoint]

Other players aren't as good as Federer and don't have some of his unique characteristics and talents.

Maybe that's because those other players are using racquets that are too big?