Who thinks Fed would play better with a 95" racquet?

Craig A. Clark said:
BTW, a 5.0 would get "ZERO" games from Fed. I've hit with some of these guys (no where even NEAR Fed's level, but ATP pros). They are INCREDIBLE.

CC
Click to expand...
Totally! I mean if Federer could bagel Nadal on clay and double-bagel Hewitt on hardcourt, a mere 5.0 would be lucky to get a point per set off of Federer. :shock:
 
drakulie said:
Here is my take.

These boards are filled with posters who are constantly looking for a "fix-it-all". If it ain't the frame, it's the string, or tension. They are constantly looking for a majic wand to fix their game, rather than looking at improving. Rather than place the blame on themselves, they look at an outer entity to take responsibility for their own short-comings. One must understand that "I" am perfect, and in no way would "I" lose. No way,- no-how will I ever admit to that. So what becomes the fall guy??????>>>> Its gotta be the frame>> right????

Unfortunately, we live in a society where "responsibility" is non-existent. We are always looking to blame someone/something else. Such as,,,,,, "I lost to a pusher today. I'm better than him, but he doesn't play **REAL TENNIS**, so I got bored and just became disinterested in winning." (sour grapes anyone????)


Now, onto Federer. These same posters want to bring Federer down to their level. They want to believe that since they could blame the frame, then so must Federer. It justifies their own pathetic abilities on a tennis court, and in trying very hard to believe that Federer should do the same thing they do>>> it somehow puts them on the same level as him. It doesn't occur to them that these guys (pros) are eons away from what us hackers on a tennis board could do on a tennis court. How many times has one seen threads where these same posters start threads like>>> How many games would a 5.0 get off Federer??? They seriously want to believe they are not far from what these guys could do.

Again, they somehow think that by Federer doing what they do (changing frames every few weeks), it somehow puts them on the same plane of existence, and justifies them changing frames (just like fed), rather than "owning" their ability, or lack there-of, and putting the work on the court to improve.
Click to expand...

Thoughtful analysis and excellent post. :)
 
Federer lost 6-3,6-1,6-0.....he got only four games off of Nadal. How much worse would Roger possibly do with a 95 inch racquet?

One thing is certain.....He is not doing well with the 90 inch.
 
King of Aces said:
Federer lost 6-3,6-1,6-0.....he got only four games off of Nadal. How much worse would Roger possibly do with a 95 inch racquet?

One thing is certain.....He is not doing well with the 90 inch.
Click to expand...

Will you name his accomplishments with a 90 in racket for me? The list would be pretty long
 
Melzer has changed more frames (four) this year than many people on these boards :-). He went from 18X20 to 16X19 then back to 18X20 and now 16X19 in less than a year, can someone explain that to me:confused:
 
Last edited:
How much better could he get? Its not like hes going to suddenly starting hitting the ball 10-15 mph harder with more consistency.

But i would like him to try and change SOMETHING. Even if its string set up.
 
Craig A. Clark said:
Interesting. Good analysis Drak. The 'skills' on display! :)
Click to expand...

haha. I was half asleep when I wrote this. If I would have really put "my skills" to the fire, it would have been a 5 page bio psycho-social report, with history, examples/links, conclusions, recommendations, etc.

Craig A. Clark said:
BTW, a 5.0 would get "ZERO" games from Fed. I've hit with some of these guys (no where even NEAR Fed's level, but ATP pros). They are INCREDIBLE.

CC
Click to expand...


Yup. People seriously don't realize how good these players are. They are simply not like us. Although it may look slow, or easy>>> what they are doing is quite amazing really, and until one is actually on a court with one of them, one can't fully appreciate that.

BreakPoint said:
Awesome post, drakulie! :)

I think this may be your best post ever (out of numerous excellent ones)!

I agree 110%. :)
Click to expand...

THANKS, BP!!! Very nice of you, and much appreciated. :)


King of Aces said:
Federer lost 6-3,6-1,6-0.....he got only four games off of Nadal. How much worse would Roger possibly do with a 95 inch racquet?

One thing is certain.....He is not doing well with the 90 inch.
Click to expand...

You know, coming from someone who thinks Uncle Toni invented the Nadal FH, I shouldn't even respond, but>>>>>>

I think you are correct, and absolutely agree with you, when you say Nadal is a lousy and very lucky player. Because, as you point out>>> if Fed played with a larger frame, Nadal would have absolutely zero chance of beating him. We all know, as **YOU** point out, that Fed's losses to Nadal have absolutely nothing to do with Nadals tennis skills, rather have more to do with 5 square inches.

Thanks for enlightening us. Wasn't aware you were such a Nadal hater.
 
NotSoSuper said:
How much better could he get? Its not like hes going to suddenly starting hitting the ball 10-15 mph harder with more consistency.

But i would like him to try and change SOMETHING. Even if its string set up.
Click to expand...

Why not try it at the FO....at this point what the hell does he have to lost? Federer only got 4 more games off of Nadal than I would have.....and I would have done it for a lot less money!:shock:

breakpoint said:
You know, coming from someone who thinks Uncle Toni invented the Nadal FH, I shouldn't even respond, but>>>>>>

I think you are correct, and absolutely agree with you, when you say Nadal is a lousy and very lucky player. Because, as you point out>>> if Fed played with a larger frame, Nadal would have absolutely zero chance of beating him. We all know, as **YOU** point out, that Fed's losses to Nadal have absolutely nothing to do with Nadals tennis skills, rather have more to do with 5 square inches.

Thanks for enlightening us. Wasn't aware you were such a Nadal hater.
Click to expand...

1- I do thin Toni and Rafa invented that forehand. I have never seen anyone else hit the ball that way. Furthermore I dont see anyone else in the entire world even being able to teach that forehand......simply because no one else knows how the hell to hit the ball that way. Its like a freaking trick shot.

2- I never said Nadal would have zero chance,,,,rather that Federer merely got 4 games off of Nadal last year. he needs to do something very different. Why not try a larger racquet.......Pete Sampras admitted that he wished he was not so stubborn and used a larger racquet at the FO.....so why the hell not Federer????

In fact there have been many articles suggesting that Federer switch to a larger racquet. I know you are a purist.....but Feds current startegy is clearly failing. If you keep doing the same thing over and over again you are going to get the same results......hello?????
 
Last edited:
King of Aces said:
1- I do thin Toni and Rafa invented that forehand. I have never seen anyone else hit the ball that way. Furthermore I dont see anyone else in the entire world even being able to teach that forehand......simply because no one else knows how the hell to hit the ball that way. Its like a freaking trick shot.
Click to expand...

here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k1riob_aOI

now you have seen someone else hit that FH.

As I said to you earlier in this thread, Robert Landsdorp has been teaching that FH for over 30 years (Nadal is 22).

Tracey Austin, Pete Sampras, Capriatti, Ivanovic, etc, etc, etc are all players that use it.




Now go learn something about tennis before spewing your filth again. You have no clue what you are talking about and are suggesting federer LOST to nadal because of 5 square inches on a frame, rather than giving credit to a beast of a player >>>>NADAL>>>> who *BEAT* Federer. BIG DIFFERENCE.
 
TennezSport said:
Having strung and measured both the N and K90's, I can tell you they are both the exact same size.

The reason that Fed has more trouble on clay vs. other surfaces is that Fed likes to take the ball early, and with a true bouncing surface his timing is perfect and he makes it look easy.

On clay however, the bounce is not true bouncing most of the time, especially when the clay gets rippled from a lot of ball bounces. This can make the ball take crazy bounces, which will put a lot of pressure on anyone trying to take the ball early.

This is why so many clay courters like Nadal, Moya, Ferrer, etc., stand so far back to give them time to line up their shots. That is not Fed's natural game which will always make it harder for Fed to win the French.

TennezSport :cool:
Click to expand...


Why is this simple yet correct explanation not popular?
 
Puma said:
Why is this simple yet correct explanation not popular?
Click to expand...


Here is the reason:

drakulie said:
Here is my take.

These boards are filled with posters who are constantly looking for a "fix-it-all". If it ain't the frame, it's the string, or tension. They are constantly looking for a majic wand to fix their game, rather than looking at improving. Rather than place the blame on themselves, they look at an outer entity to take responsibility for their own short-comings. One must understand that "I" am perfect, and in no way would "I" lose. No way,- no-how will I ever admit to that. So what becomes the fall guy??????>>>> Its gotta be the frame>> right????

Unfortunately, we live in a society where "responsibility" is non-existent. We are always looking to blame someone/something else. Such as,,,,,, "I lost to a pusher today. I'm better than him, but he doesn't play **REAL TENNIS**, so I got bored and just became disinterested in winning." (sour grapes anyone????)


Now, onto Federer. These same posters want to bring Federer down to their level. They want to believe that since they could blame the frame, then so must Federer. It justifies their own pathetic abilities on a tennis court, and in trying very hard to believe that Federer should do the same thing they do>>> it somehow puts them on the same level as him. It doesn't occur to them that these guys (pros) are eons away from what us hackers on a tennis board could do on a tennis court. How many times has one seen threads where these same posters start threads like>>> How many games would a 5.0 get off Federer??? They seriously want to believe they are not far from what these guys could do.

Again, they somehow think that by Federer doing what they do (changing frames every few weeks), it somehow puts them on the same plane of existence, and justifies them changing frames (just like fed), rather than "owning" their ability, or lack there-of, and putting the work on the court to improve.
Click to expand...
 
Drak,

dude your right...........once more...

I also aggree with your statment about Nadal being a beast. Have you seen him play lately. Wow!!!!!!!!! He is putting that forehand anywhere on the court at anytime. How can a person defend that?

But, hey, i gotta go. I'm going to go buy me a bigger racket so I can challenge some 5.0's. Wish me luck!
 
The fact of the matter is we don't know if Fed had or had not tried out a 95 sq in frame or something larger.

What makes anyone of us here even think we know better than he does as to what he plays best with?

mawashi
 
^^^ LOL, Puma. Let us know how it goes. :)

Why people have such a hard time giving their opponents credit is beyond me.
 
Great post, drak....as per usual well reasoned an absent emotion....


I tend to agree more with another post someone made that had a quote from Jose Higueras who has probably forgotten more about tennis than some alleged internet coaches ever knew. I think it boils down to the following more than anything (again per Higueras)

  • 99.9% of Federer's problems are between his ears, Nads has gotten the bluff in on him
  • Federer needs a game plan. He needs to listen to an objective 3rd party and make some changes. This has been said by more than one world class tennis personality. Wilander basically said the same thing as Higueras ableit in more manly terms.
  • Federer is getting older. Hard to believe, but it happens to everyone. Father Time lays his burden on us all. Federer was never the physical specimen that Nads is, and going on 23 Nads is hitting his prime where Federer is on the downhill side of his.
Federer should take on a coach. He should listen to that coach. He should listen to the old adage as far as Nads is concerned. "Never change a winning game, but always change a losing one."
 
Rabbit said:
Great post, drak....as per usual well reasoned an absent emotion....


I tend to agree more with another post someone made that had a quote from Jose Higueras who has probably forgotten more about tennis than some alleged internet coaches ever knew. I think it boils down to the following more than anything (again per Higueras)

  • 99.9% of Federer's problems are between his ears, Nads has gotten the bluff in on him
  • Federer needs a game plan. He needs to listen to an objective 3rd party and make some changes. This has been said by more than one world class tennis personality. Wilander basically said the same thing as Higueras ableit in more manly terms.
  • Federer is getting older. Hard to believe, but it happens to everyone. Father Time lays his burden on us all. Federer was never the physical specimen that Nads is, and going on 23 Nads is hitting his prime where Federer is on the downhill side of his.
Federer should take on a coach. He should listen to that coach. He should listen to the old adage as far as Nads is concerned. "Never change a winning game, but always change a losing one."
Click to expand...

The only technical comment that Higs made was that Fed's BH has not kept pace with the competition. You missed the crucial one. When technical competence declines, no amount of mental smarts will help. And technical competence these days has an equipment component - just watch anything from swimming to skiing.
 
drakulie said:
I think you are correct, and absolutely agree with you, when you say Nadal is a lousy and very lucky player. Because, as you point out>>> if Fed played with a larger frame, Nadal would have absolutely zero chance of beating him. We all know, as **YOU** point out, that Fed's losses to Nadal have absolutely nothing to do with Nadals tennis skills, rather have more to do with 5 square inches.
Click to expand...

I agree. A larger frame will not help Federer win against Nadal. It might avoid getting him bageled at RG, or help him win against Murray or Wawrinka. Beating Nadal is an impossibility for Fed as Nadal is by far the better player now.
 
Last time Federer changed to a bigger racquet, he got a lot better, from a top ATP pro he became a super champion, so I think he should give it a try, he's got nothing to lose.
 
drakulie said:
here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k1riob_aOI

now you have seen someone else hit that FH.

As I said to you earlier in this thread, Robert Landsdorp has been teaching that FH for over 30 years (Nadal is 22).

Tracey Austin, Pete Sampras, Capriatti, Ivanovic, etc, etc, etc are all players that use it.




Now go learn something about tennis before spewing your filth again. You have no clue what you are talking about and are suggesting federer LOST to nadal because of 5 square inches on a frame, rather than giving credit to a beast of a player >>>>NADAL>>>> who *BEAT* Federer. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Click to expand...


Im sorry Nadals Forehand looks very different than Sharapovas forehand to me. Its not even close. Samopras , Austin and those others all hit with easterns or continentals....how can you say they had the sam forehands as Nadal?

If thats "filth" then Im sorry.

Secondly Sampras realized he needed to change to a larger head for the FO. Tennis magazine has said the same thing as well. Why on earth are you so angry?
 
Jeez, I would hope that Nadal's forehand would look different than Sharapova's...the point is that the Nadal forehand stroke is not something new; he has just taken it to a new level. It has become comical that some people think the problem with Federer's results lately is the headsize of his frame...just comical.
 
Nadal's FH is unique. Better to go by how a former top 5 analyzes it than someone here. It doesn't look like Shapapova or Davenport's at all. The degree of disguise is infinitely more. Just watching it on TV without analysis makes you think "something is unique about his forehand." And its effectiveness is made possible by his 100 sq inch frame and strings, no doubt about that.
 
King of Aces said:
Why on earth are you so angry?
Click to expand...

Because many posters here identified with Fed's small head and one handed BH and elegant style. It was evident even in "real" life, where I saw the older generation upset when he would lose to Nadal. That was the time when we thought he might win. This scene was played in clubs all over the country - older adult males who had earlier identified with Sampras now identified with Federer and could not bear to see him lose. It was more than just about tennis. It was old vs new, elegance vs brute force, politeness vs aggressiveness, jacket vs sleeveless shirt, country club vs street artiste.
 
sureshs said:
Because many posters here identified with Fed's small head and one handed BH and elegant style. It was evident even in "real" life, where I saw the older generation upset when he would lose to Nadal. That was the time when we thought he might win. This scene was played in clubs all over the country - older adult males who had earlier identified with Sampras now identified with Federer and could not bear to see him lose. It was more than just about tennis. It was old vs new, elegance vs brute force, politeness vs aggressiveness, jacket vs sleeveless shirt, country club vs street artiste.
Click to expand...

Man, did you hit the nail on the head or what!
 
sureshs said:
Because many posters here identified with Fed's small head and one handed BH and elegant style. It was evident even in "real" life, where I saw the older generation upset when he would lose to Nadal. That was the time when we thought he might win. This scene was played in clubs all over the country - older adult males who had earlier identified with Sampras now identified with Federer and could not bear to see him lose. It was more than just about tennis. It was old vs new, elegance vs brute force, politeness vs aggressiveness, jacket vs sleeveless shirt, country club vs street artiste.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you've written here. People of 'fans' of certain players for a reason! That reason is that they identify with them on some level. ;)

However, I am not all sure Fed advances his chances to defeat Nads by getting a frame w/ a slightly larger head.

No one answered my question: How big a deal is it to change frames? Because if it is a BIG deal, it's probably a bad idea. Think of what happened to the JC Ferrero, Lubicic, et al when they changed frames.

I am NOT saying it is an impossibility that it would help. Just that it would be a fairly large gamble. Does Fed NEED to gamble in that way right now, or just make some minor tactical adjustments?

CC
 
I think that Fed knows what's best for him!! He probably tried different head sizes and decided that 90'' is best for him!! And you can just guess head size from the picture!!
 
King of Aces said:
Im sorry Nadals Forehand looks very different than Sharapovas forehand to me. Its not even close. Samopras , Austin and those others all hit with easterns or continentals....how can you say they had the sam forehands as Nadal?
Click to expand...

That is because Sharapova is a right-hander, and has a pair of boobs, in addition to the fact that you have no clue.

They both hit with what is called a "reverse forehand". Look it up. You don't need to use a western grip to hit one. You could use a continental, eastern, semi, or full western. Landsdorp has been teaching it for years.

Here is Pete Sampras hitting "reverse forehands".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_DFjZvwShU


King of Aces said:
Secondly Sampras realized he needed to change to a larger head for the FO.
Click to expand...

Sampras "realized" nothing. All he said was he wished he would have tried something else, and **PERHAPS** he may have had better results at the French. He also made note, that going to something else may have effected his results elsewhere.

Lastly, Jim Courier won the French Open two years in a row using THE SAME RACQUET SAMPRAS USED, AND DURING THE SAME ERA.

As I said, Fed didn't lose to Nadal >>>>>>> NADAL WON. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Again, stop posting your filth and go learn something.
 
Craig A. Clark said:
Does Fed NEED to gamble in that way right now, or just make some minor tactical adjustments?

CC
Click to expand...

Perhaps both. But unfortunately, he doesn't have a coach who can look closely at his game and make suggestions.

Change of frame is a big step for any player. But it is not without precedent. More recently, in September last year, table tennis changed its rules to disallow the toxic speed glue to stick the rubber to the paddle. Manufacturers came up with new rubbers and the top players are changing. Not only that, the reduced spin and pace required them to make adjustments - the common theme was that rallies were longer, and players trained for the changes. It can be done. The ball comes much faster over a much smaller distance with much more spin than tennis, and reflexes are everything. Yet the top players adapt.
 
Craig A. Clark said:
I don't disagree with anything you've written here. People of 'fans' of certain players for a reason! That reason is that they identify with them on some level. ;)

However, I am not all sure Fed advances his chances to defeat Nads by getting a frame w/ a slightly larger head.

No one answered my question: How big a deal is it to change frames? Because if it is a BIG deal, it's probably a bad idea. Think of what happened to the JC Ferrero, Lubicic, et al when they changed frames.

I am NOT saying it is an impossibility that it would help. Just that it would be a fairly large gamble. Does Fed NEED to gamble in that way right now, or just make some minor tactical adjustments?

CC
Click to expand...

Changing frames is clearly a big deal and it can turn bad as your examples show, but then think what happened to Nadal and even Federer himself after they changed frames, so it can turn out very well.

In my opinion, Federer should gamble, because he needs to change something, but he should gamble smartly, that is in a master series event, not in a slam. He's been losing all the master series for years anyway, so it's not like he's got anything to lose.
 
Nadal Switched from the Pure Drive to the AeroPro Drive at the end of 2003. Nadal started 2004 with the AeroPro Drive and has not changed racquets since. Only paint jobs have changed.
 
^^That's what I thought. Thanks, vs!!!

So in other words, fed should have his racquet painted a different color. :)


Seriously, Nadal kept that same frame for 5 years. He didn;t change frames, rather looked at improviing his game AND LOOK WHERE THAT HAS GOTTEN HIM.

What a concept. Improving your technique, and working your butt off, rather than looking at your gear to do it for you.
 
Last edited:
^^^ Other than Fed (according to you), so is nearly everyones elses on the ATP, yet they aren't ahead of Fed.

Try again.
 
drakulie said:
^^That's what I thought. Thanks, vs!!!

So in other words, fed should have his racquet painted a different color. :)


Seriously, Nadal kept that same frame for 5 years. He didn;t change frames, rather looked at improviing his game AND LOOK WHERE THAT HAS GOTTEN HIM.

What a concept. Improving your technique, and working your butt off, rather than looking at your gear to do it for you.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, he did change the frame 5 years ago and his game improved. Federer also changed the frame in 2003 and look what happened.
 
JediMindTrick said:
Last time Federer changed to a bigger racquet, he got a lot better, from a top ATP pro he became a super champion, so I think he should give it a try, he's got nothing to lose.
Click to expand...
But by that logic, Nadal would never lose another match in his life if he also switched to a bigger racquet.
 
King of Aces said:
I
Secondly Sampras realized he needed to change to a larger head for the FO. Tennis magazine has said the same thing as well. Why on earth are you so angry?
Click to expand...
That's like me saying if I had only chosen those winning Lotto numbers, I would have won $100 million dollars!

Instead of switching racquets, Sampras probably could have won the French if he became a baseline grinder just like Courier, who won the French twice with the same racquet as Sampras. But then Sampras probably wouldn't have won 7 Wimbledons, would he have? I'm pretty sure Sampras will take the 7 Wimbledons over one measly French.
 
sureshs said:
Perhaps both. But unfortunately, he doesn't have a coach who can look closely at his game and make suggestions.

Change of frame is a big step for any player. But it is not without precedent. More recently, in September last year, table tennis changed its rules to disallow the toxic speed glue to stick the rubber to the paddle. Manufacturers came up with new rubbers and the top players are changing. Not only that, the reduced spin and pace required them to make adjustments - the common theme was that rallies were longer, and players trained for the changes. It can be done. The ball comes much faster over a much smaller distance with much more spin than tennis, and reflexes are everything. Yet the top players adapt.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but those table tennis players were forced to change, they didn't choose to do so. I'd bet none of them would have changed if they weren't forced to do so. No one is forcing Federer to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Switching a VCORE 95 23 for a 98 23?
Replies
10
Views
456
Chilled
Chilled
Bender
Big 3 racquet specs and what it means for their respective games
2
Replies
87
Views
16K
blablavla
B
Back
Top