Could he have as many as Djokovic has now?
The strings would have been as big if not bigger factor in him hitting the ball better post retirement. Imagine Pete's insane power and serve WITH the additional forgiveness of a bigger head, and added spin and power of poly that would give more pop AND a higher first + second serve percentage? Not to mention it would turn his bazooka forehand into a guided missile, Delpo style. HELL even his backhand (which he didn't grow up with) would turn into a good rally shot for point constructionAlso Sampras said he served faster during his retirement than during his career, because of the newer racquets/strings.
Supposedly more reward when you actually hit the sweet spot, as well as stability during the hit - although I'm not sure if stability has more to do with the weight and other specs like head/handle light than the head size itself.
I think the new one brought more stability to his game. He would have been even more monstrous during the Vacuum Era if he'd had it then. Could have gotten a Calendar Slam somewhere in there. Most likely wins French in '04 instead of getting crushed by Hipster Gugayeah after he was a geriatric and got way too erratic with the old stick.
If born in the mid 80's, Fed would be forced to switch to the bigger racquet earlier.You lose feel and control with a bigger head. Not sure it helps Fed or Pete much at their best given how they played.
I think the question is usually whether making the switch is worth the loss of comfort. Federer knew that a bigger size would have benefits, but he also knew that the feel would change. He eventually took the chance and it was the right call. But there have probably been cases where someone tried a bigger racket and never got used to the feel.Why do people (I assume old dudes) get mad when someone implies a player could've improved by upping his racket head size? If 85" rackets were as good as 95", they'd still be on tour. Pete absolutely would've improved if he'd upgraded to a 90 or 95. No way to know if he'd have won another slam though.
Two big ones IMO would be the better control and the ability to put more mass at the end of the racquet without making it sluggish to swing (a result of relatively lower twistweight). It could result in a very heavy yet manoeuvrable frame, resulting in a lot of potential power.
I always forget one the downside of that on is lolTwo big ones IMO would be the better control and the ability to put more mass at the end of the racquet without making it sluggish to swing (a result of relatively lower twistweight). It could result in a very heavy yet manoeuvrable frame, resulting in a lot of potential power.
Downsides are quite well known so I'm guessing I won't need to mention those lol.