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

[Rabbit]

To further complicate this, I've read that the grass courts in Laver's time were (maybe not radically) but certainly different. The US Open's courts were hated by the players and the amount of rain received made them a quagmire on most years. The Aussie played faster than even Wimbledon as their courts were baked from the summer sun. England had the truest grass courts and the fairest play.

Nonetheless, the courts were different probably as much as the difference between Plexipave and Rebound Ace; i.e. the same but different?

The clay courts in Laver's time were also slower than today as they had a different foundation, so I've heard. In addition, there was no universal ball as the pressureless balls were in play during the European claycourt season. This would have also slowed play even further.

It should also be noted that while today the tournaments between the majors are designed to give the players practice on the upcoming major surface, in Laver's day this was not a universal. In Laver's day, they played on different interim surfaces between the majors including indoors, hard, and clay. The tour wasn't nearly as organized which would have presented a challenge to the players not faced today. Again, different, but the same.

 

[crosscourt]

The Australian was played on grass until quite recently. It was even won by Mats Wilander. For all his brilliance I don't think Wilander ever got near winning Wimbledon -- his game wasn't suited to conditions. So grass in Australia could be very different to grass in England (then again Mark Edmondson won in Australia...).

Would a hard court in Australia and a hard court in the US be more or less different than grass at Kooyong and grass at Wimbledon?

cc

 

[pmerk34]

The Australian was played on grass until quite recently. It was even won by Mats Wilander. For all his brilliance I don't think Wilander ever got near winning Wimbledon -- his game wasn't suited to conditions. So grass in Australia could be very different to grass in England (then again Mark Edmondson won in Australia...).

Would a hard court in Australia and a hard court in the US be more or less different than grass at Kooyong and grass at Wimbledon?

cc

According to MacEnroe the courts at Kooyong were higher near the net and tapered down towards the baseline to facilitate drainage. This altered the equation just enough to not allow Serve and Volleyers to dominate even though it was on grass.

 

[pmerk34]

Interesting argument. I know some folks who played all four of the Slams and will be happy to ask them and see what they have to say concerning just how 'variable' the surfaces actually are....in fact one of my friends would have played on both the 'old' Wimbledon grass and the 'new'.

As for 'whiffing', just keep playing long enough and you WILL (I respectfully predict!) eventually 'whiff' a ball yourself. The better you get, the faster your racquet head speed, and the 'nastier' the incoming balls, it becomes inevitable.

BTW, I totally agree Fed's problems (if you can call being in the last three French Open finals and standing one slam away from history a 'problem') have NOTHING to do with his equipment.

Best,

CC

Equipment is more important at the highest levels of tennis, not less. This is why the top players are obsessed with getting frames the same exact weight, have custom frames from the manufactures and have personal stringers. None of us knows for sure that his equipment has NOTHING to do with his drop in play and perhaps a different frame wouldn't suit the 2009 Federer as opposed to the 2008 version of himself.

 

[0d1n]

To further complicate this, I've read that the grass courts in Laver's time were (maybe not radically) but certainly different. The US Open's courts were hated by the players and the amount of rain received made them a quagmire on most years. The Aussie played faster than even Wimbledon as their courts were baked from the summer sun. England had the truest grass courts and the fairest play.

Nonetheless, the courts were different probably as much as the difference between Plexipave and Rebound Ace; i.e. the same but different?

The clay courts in Laver's time were also slower than today as they had a different foundation, so I've heard. In addition, there was no universal ball as the pressureless balls were in play during the European claycourt season. This would have also slowed play even further.

It should also be noted that while today the tournaments between the majors are designed to give the players practice on the upcoming major surface, in Laver's day this was not a universal. In Laver's day, they played on different interim surfaces between the majors including indoors, hard, and clay. The tour wasn't nearly as organized which would have presented a challenge to the players not faced today. Again, different, but the same.

The Australian was played on grass until quite recently. It was even won by Mats Wilander. For all his brilliance I don't think Wilander ever got near winning Wimbledon -- his game wasn't suited to conditions. So grass in Australia could be very different to grass in England (then again Mark Edmondson won in Australia...).

Would a hard court in Australia and a hard court in the US be more or less different than grass at Kooyong and grass at Wimbledon?

cc

Good couple of posts above. I totally agree with them. Like I said before, the "two surfaces" - "rebound ace" and "decoturf" are fancy names for hard courts (yes Drakulie, I know very well they are named differently...).
The 2 types of hard courts play a bit differently I admit...but they are certainly not "worlds apart" and I am convinced of the fact that GRASS can be made to play just as differently ... if not more !
As a result the so called "4different surfaces" that Agassi and Sampras had to deal with as opposed to the so called 2 different surfaces that existed during Laver's era are WEAK arguments usually given by Americans in order to support "their boys" cases for greatness.
They were both great, there is no need to further "advertise it" through the 4 different surfaces, and trying to minimize Laver's achievements using these weak arguments is quite frankly disrespectful.

Then I suppose you feel Roddicks clay court titles on har-tru are the same as the red clay of Roland Garros??

Sorry, but before the AO recently changed surfaces, there were 4 very different suraces:

rebound ace
clay
grass
hard court

when laver was around:

grass
grass
grass
clay

Yeh... right. See above ^^. By the way, the "hard court" at the US Open is called "decoturf" if you want to get THAT technical.
Bottom line, both the AO and the US Open are played on HARD COURT, which plays a bit differently, just like the different types of grass courts played differently between US of A, Australia and England during Laver's time.

Am I wrong or are you one of the guys that was very vocal about the recent years "green clay" at Wimbledon that allowed Nadal to win it?? Are you singing a different tune now ???

 

[BreakPoint]

there are 2 ghost pages at the end of this thread.... creepy.

if tennis balls are now bigger than they were 5 years ago as i have read, is it mathematically demonstrable that the smaller sweetspot on a 90in2 racquet now has less potential power than 5 years ago, and that there is therefore an advantage to using a slightly larger headsize? just trying to cover all options here, this thread seems to have become the definitive fed-->larger headsize and lord knows i'm not starting another. i'm wondering if any mathematicians on the board have thought about this.

I have never heard that tennis balls are bigger now than they were 5 years ago. In fact, I haven't noticed any changes in the size of tennis balls over the past 35 years.

 

[drakulie]

Good couple of posts above. I totally agree with them. Like I said before, the "two surfaces" - "rebound ace" and "decoturf" are fancy names for hard courts (yes Drakulie, I know very well they are named differently...).

and are made of completely different materials (not just named differently).

Go look it up.

The 2 types of hard courts play a bit differently I admit...but they are certainly not "worlds apart"

yes they are "worlds apart". They play **VERY** differently.

Heck, in south florida you could have two "hard courts" that are made of the same exact material and play completely different and "worlds apart", just based on how much sand is put in the paint.

One could be lightining fast and low boucning, where as courts such as the Sony Ericsson, play slower and higher bouning than har tru (clay) courts.

I would know, I've played on all of them.

Including another type of "hard court" found in south florida that literally feels like smooth marble.

Want to guess how that plays??? (slick ice).

and I am convinced of the fact that GRASS can be made to play just as differently ... if not more !

agreed.




Don't know what you are referring to in the rest of your post.

 

[Rabbit]

^Drakulie's exactly right. I have played on some hardcourts that were almost like sheets of ice they were so slick. My club resurfaced the indoor courts once and had so much sand in them that everyone was pulling calf muscles due to the grip. Hardcourts can be made to play anywhere from very slow to lightening quick.

I guess my point was that in Laver's day, the grass was different at every venue which made adjusting to the conditions much like it is today at the majors. The biggest difference was the pros didn't have 5 - 6 tournaments on surface to practice on between majors.

 

[0d1n]

^^ Nobody is denying that hard courts can play differently. However let's not start comparing 10 year old hard courts which are slick as ice and as a result very fast, with "freshly resurfaced" hard courts which will be more gritty and slow, and will take spin better.
We are talking about the two specific surfaces at the 2 slams, and those surfaces are BOTH in tip top shape, and don't differ that vastly.
Yes, rebound ace is slightly more "rubberized" and as a result a bit slower / higher bouncing / takes spin a bit better, but it is NOT a night and day difference ... and not any more different than 2 different grass surfaces can be made to play ! As a result we can't use the "4 surfaces excuse" in order to "push" modern players when comparing them with guys like Laver (who won PLENTY of hard court matches/tournaments as well).
That was my point and I stand by it.

 

[drakulie]

^^ Nobody is denying that hard courts can play differently. However let's not start comparing 10 year old hard courts which are slick as ice and as a result very fast, with "freshly resurfaced" hard courts which will be more gritty and slow, and will take spin better.

Not sure what you are failing to understand.

Hard courts are made differently.

There are hard courts, like the one rabbit, and I are talking about that are made out of a very slick material. (almost like a marble or smooth tile). (not cement) They are not gritty. They are specifically made this way. When it rains, one could literally slide bare foot from one side line to the other.

Other hard courts, like the Sony Ericsson are made to be very gritty, slow and highbouncing. They put a lof of sand in the paint to make them play this way. Others are made with less sand in the paint, and as a result, play quicker. There are other variables in the materials as well.

Rebound ace, which is made of yet another material, plays **VERY** differently than the US Open courts.

Period. This is a fact. They are not the same. The only thing they have in common is both are refererred to as "hard courts", in the same way har tru, and red clay are referred to as "clay courts". Yet, har tru and red clay do not play the same. They are night and day.

I've played on the same courts as the US Open, on center court at the Sony Ericsson, tile-like hard courts, on slow hard courts, fast hard courts, etc. None of them play the same. Har tru (clay courts) are actually faster and lower bouncing than the courts at the Sony.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Equipment is more important at the highest levels of tennis, not less. This is why the top players are obsessed with getting frames the same exact weight, have custom frames from the manufactures and have personal stringers. None of us knows for sure that his equipment has NOTHING to do with his drop in play and perhaps a different frame wouldn't suit the 2009 Federer as opposed to the 2008 version of himself.

I'm reasonably familiar with higher levels of play and with equipment, thanks.

I will, however, rephrase: IMO, Federer's recent 'slump' (ha!) is not PRIMARILY related to his choice of equipment (especially since it's the same equipment that's won him all those slams).

BUT, in the end analysis, NONE of us can know with certainty. On this point, we agree.

CC

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

^^ Nobody is denying that hard courts can play differently. However let's not start comparing 10 year old hard courts which are slick as ice and as a result very fast, with "freshly resurfaced" hard courts which will be more gritty and slow, and will take spin better.
We are talking about the two specific surfaces at the 2 slams, and those surfaces are BOTH in tip top shape, and don't differ that vastly.
Yes, rebound ace is slightly more "rubberized" and as a result a bit slower / higher bouncing / takes spin a bit better, but it is NOT a night and day difference ... and not any more different than 2 different grass surfaces can be made to play ! As a result we can't use the "4 surfaces excuse" in order to "push" modern players when comparing them with guys like Laver (who won PLENTY of hard court matches/tournaments as well).
That was my point and I stand by it.

I think the two types of hard-courts do play VERY differently, BTW. Rebound Ace is MUCH slower than PlexiPave. CC

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

As a result we can't use the "4 surfaces excuse" in order to "push" modern players when comparing them with guys like Laver (who won PLENTY of hard court matches/tournaments as well).
That was my point and I stand by it.

And just so I am clear, I consider Laver a Tennis God. He deserves ALL the credit and accolades he's been given, and more. CC

 

[pmerk34]

I'm reasonably familiar with higher levels of play and with equipment, thanks.

I will, however, rephrase: IMO, Federer's recent 'slump' (ha!) is not PRIMARILY related to his choice of equipment (especially since it's the same equipment that's won him all those slams).

BUT, in the end analysis, NONE of us can know with certainty. On this point, we agree.

CC

I'm sure you're a fine player but unless you are incognito you haven't played and are not currently playing at the elite level of the game. Maybe you have been around top touring pro's and I have not but from what I have read those guys are freakish over their racquets.

I don't agree that Fed is in a slump. From watching him I think his level of play is permanently lower than his peak years. The reason IMO is that he has lost some speed and quickness (much like McEnroe did after is hamstring tear in Nov of 1984). Fed's loss is simply due to the aging process we all go through. He's the most precise powerful no 1 in the history of tennis and that requires world class positioning. That little half step he has lost has altered the equation. I don't buy for one bit this mental block garbage.

That's why it is speculated that maybe a more powerful, forgiving frame may give his game a boost as he no longer strikes the ball as cleanly as he once did. Of course no one knows for sure but it's not absurd to suggest a racquet change might help the 2009 Federer.

 

[drakulie]

That's why it is speculated that maybe a more powerful, forgiving frame

not sure if you are aware of this, but the k90 is more powerful than even the mighty babolat pure drive.

Anyway, is Federer hitting his serve, fh, bh with less pace than he once did??? Would you care to provide some links to back up the claim that he needs something more powerful??

As for "forgiving", everyone shanks>>> even Nadal. So, are you suggesting he needs to hit with somthing larger than 100 sq inch frame???

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

I'm sure you're a fine player but unless you are incognito you haven't played and are not currently playing at the elite level of the game. Maybe you have been around top touring pro's and I have not but from what I have read those guys are freakish over their racquets.

I don't agree that Fed is in a slump. From watching him I think his level of play is permanently lower than his peak years. The reason IMO is that he has lost some speed and quickness (much like McEnroe did after is hamstring tear in Nov of 1984). Fed's loss is simply due to the aging process we all go through. He's the most precise powerful no 1 in the history of tennis and that requires world class positioning. That little half step he has lost has altered the equation. I don't buy for one bit this mental block garbage.

That's why it is speculated that maybe a more powerful, forgiving frame may give his game a boost as he no longer strikes the ball as cleanly as he once did. Of course no one knows for sure but it's not absurd to suggest a racquet change might help the 2009 Federer.

Thing is, the K90 is one of the most powerful frames available. Take a look at the TTW Professor Page if you doubt this claim. If he needs something more powerful (and frankly, I think anyone here looking to 'counsel' Federer on matters related to tennis is laughable) maybe he should go with a KPS 88.

Further, if no one can know with certainty what role his frame plays in the equation, how can you know his recent (ah-hum) 'slump' is in fact a permanent fall to a lower level of play (a MUCH broader assumption)? People said the same thing about Sampras when he lost to George Bastel, you know.

Best, CC

 

[pmerk34]

Thing is, the K90 is one of the most powerful frames available. Take a look at the TTW Professor Page if you doubt this claim. If he needs something more powerful (and frankly, I think anyone here looking to 'counsel' Federer on matters related to tennis is laughable) maybe he should go with a KPS 88.

Further, if no one can know with certainty what role his frame plays in the equation, how can you know his recent (ah-hum) 'slump' is in fact a permanent fall to a lower level of play (a MUCH broader assumption)? People said the same thing about Sampras when he lost to George Bastel, you know.

Best, CC

People here counsel Federer all the time. He needs a coach, he needs to work on movement he needs to be fitter, he needs to get over some mental block. I don;t think any of that is the problem. He's not as good as he once was and his frame may be making it that much tougher on him. But as you said who knows.

 

[vsbabolat]

People here counsel Federer all the time. He needs a coach, he needs to work on movement he needs to be fitter, he needs to get over some mental block. I don;t think any of that is the problem. He's not as good as he once was and his frame may be making it that much tougher on him. But as you said who knows.

What about Jose Higueras? Is it all right for him to council Federer and give his expert opinion?
Jose Higueras, Roger’s most recent high-profile coach (not counting Darren Cahill, of course) spoke to Spanish newspaper, Publico, recently about Roger Federer’s slump. His conclusion: change or die.



On what it’s like to coach Roger Federer:

“He’s exceptional, he feels the game like nobody else, it’s instinct and that’s why working with him is very different. In spite of everything, he would benefit by having a person to help open his eyes at certain moments.”
On deciding to leave Federer to join the USTA:

“I would have stayed with him longer, even passed on the job offer that I have at present, but Roger only offered me 10 or 12 weeks a year to work with him, which wasn’t enough time to make any changes that would be evident on the court.” (Higueras is now Director of the USTA’s Elite Player Development program.)

On Roger’s current problems:


“When you stop improving, you deteriorate; in tennis it’s always like this” says the coach, who was prohibited by contract to speak about the Swiss last year. “But Federer continues just as before. His backhand, which today seems weak, is good, but the players have grown accustomed to it and that’s why it’s less effective, now it seems to play worse.”


Roger’s immobility contrasts with Nadal’s aptitude for reinvention. “In two years, (Nadal) is a completely new player, he has improved and changed his style. Federer keeps on being the same: now others can attack him. He has stagnated.”On changes that need to happen:


It’s not only a problem of competition, but also of philosophy. “Tactics always work better if they win - it’s a question of confidence. Federer can improve his style of play, he doesn’t always use the most appropriate style. When I was with him, he played two brilliant matches, the semifinals and final of the US Open.”
“He was aggressive, he approached the net well, he was very fast, that’s why he won, this is the way he always has to be.” Higueras says on Federer’s current game, which has problems of strategy when he doesn’t cover the backhand, his worst shot, to optimize his resources. “The backhand has always served him well, it is a big shot, but the players know it. His forehand is more devastating and more difficult to defend,” says Higueras

http://www.gototennisblog.com/2009/04/20/higueras-federer-change-die/

 

[pmerk34]

What about Jose Higueras? Is it all right for him to council Federer and give his expert opinion?
Jose Higueras, Roger’s most recent high-profile coach (not counting Darren Cahill, of course) spoke to Spanish newspaper, Publico, recently about Roger Federer’s slump. His conclusion: change or die.



On what it’s like to coach Roger Federer:

“He’s exceptional, he feels the game like nobody else, it’s instinct and that’s why working with him is very different. In spite of everything, he would benefit by having a person to help open his eyes at certain moments.”
On deciding to leave Federer to join the USTA:

“I would have stayed with him longer, even passed on the job offer that I have at present, but Roger only offered me 10 or 12 weeks a year to work with him, which wasn’t enough time to make any changes that would be evident on the court.” (Higueras is now Director of the USTA’s Elite Player Development program.)

On Roger’s current problems:


“When you stop improving, you deteriorate; in tennis it’s always like this” says the coach, who was prohibited by contract to speak about the Swiss last year. “But Federer continues just as before. His backhand, which today seems weak, is good, but the players have grown accustomed to it and that’s why it’s less effective, now it seems to play worse.”


Roger’s immobility contrasts with Nadal’s aptitude for reinvention. “In two years, (Nadal) is a completely new player, he has improved and changed his style. Federer keeps on being the same: now others can attack him. He has stagnated.”On changes that need to happen:


It’s not only a problem of competition, but also of philosophy. “Tactics always work better if they win - it’s a question of confidence. Federer can improve his style of play, he doesn’t always use the most appropriate style. When I was with him, he played two brilliant matches, the semifinals and final of the US Open.”
“He was aggressive, he approached the net well, he was very fast, that’s why he won, this is the way he always has to be.” Higueras says on Federer’s current game, which has problems of strategy when he doesn’t cover the backhand, his worst shot, to optimize his resources. “The backhand has always served him well, it is a big shot, but the players know it. His forehand is more devastating and more difficult to defend,” says Higueras

http://www.gototennisblog.com/2009/04/20/higueras-federer-change-die/

Higueras alludes to how Federer "was very fast". Well he isn't as fast as he once was and Jose doesn't say he can be or will be. So I agree with Higueras.

 

[OliverSimon]

O mah gosh

 

[vsbabolat]

Higueras alludes to how Federer "was very fast". Well he isn't as fast as he once was and Jose doesn't say he can be or will be. So I agree with Higueras.

That is some leap. Where does Higueras says that Federer has lost foot speed? Also how does a bigger racquet increase foot speed?

Here are two very important quotes.
“When you stop improving, you deteriorate; in tennis it’s always like this”
“But Federer continues just as before. His backhand, which today seems weak, is good, but the players have grown accustomed to it and that’s why it’s less effective, now it seems to play worse.”

“In two years, (Nadal) is a completely new player, he has improved and changed his style. Federer keeps on being the same: now others can attack him. He has stagnated.”


“He’s exceptional, he feels the game like nobody else, it’s instinct and that’s why working with him is very different. In spite of everything, he would benefit by having a person to help open his eyes at certain moments.”

 

[0d1n]

Not sure what you are failing to understand.

Hard courts are made differently.

There are hard courts, like the one rabbit, and I are talking about that are made out of a very slick material. (almost like a marble or smooth tile). (not cement) They are not gritty. They are specifically made this way. When it rains, one could literally slide bare foot from one side line to the other.

Other hard courts, like the Sony Ericsson are made to be very gritty, slow and highbouncing. They put a lof of sand in the paint to make them play this way. Others are made with less sand in the paint, and as a result, play quicker. There are other variables in the materials as well.

Rebound ace, which is made of yet another material, plays **VERY** differently than the US Open courts.

Period. This is a fact. They are not the same. The only thing they have in common is both are refererred to as "hard courts", in the same way har tru, and red clay are referred to as "clay courts". Yet, har tru and red clay do not play the same. They are night and day.

I've played on the same courts as the US Open, on center court at the Sony Ericsson, tile-like hard courts, on slow hard courts, fast hard courts, etc. None of them play the same. Har tru (clay courts) are actually faster and lower bouncing than the courts at the Sony.

Not sure what YOU are failing to understand. This is why I would never be good as a teacher...I lack the patience to explain things over and over, and I have a low tolerance for "playing dumb" (you ARE "playing dumb"... right ???).
As you state in your post, the Sony Ericsson courts which are "the same" as the US Open courts, are gritty, play slower and higher bouncing than the so called "tile-like" hard courts you mention (not sure why these were even brought in the discussion as there's no major played on those types of courts).
These are exactly the same characteristics that the rebound ace courts in Australia have, but extended a little further (slower...higher bouncing).
My "hard courts" classification discussion was only made with one purpose and one purpose only...to prove that whatever differences there are between hard courts can exist between grass courts and clay courts.
As a result trying to diminish the results of people like Laver because they had to play "3 grass court majors" which "lacked variety" is stupid and ignorant because those grass court majors could have been at least as different as the hard court majors today.
Also, the guy won pretty much anything and everything on other surfaces as well (including hard courts !)...which makes this "no variety in playing surface" argument even dumber.
Anyway, this offtopic discussion has carried on long enough, and I propose we end it and "part ways still amigos"...ok ?

 

[0d1n]

I think the two types of hard-courts do play VERY differently, BTW. Rebound Ace is MUCH slower than PlexiPave. CC

Just like 2008 Wimbledon grass was very different to 1998 Wimbledon grass .

And just so I am clear, I consider Laver a Tennis God. He deserves ALL the credit and accolades he's been given, and more. CC

Fine, then we have nothing to argue about really, as we seem to agree that if Federer and Nadal would switch rackets both of their games would suffer...even if Federer would be (gasp) going up in head size .

 

[crosscourt]

I spoke to someone a year or so ago who had played on the US Open courts shortly before the US Open of (I think) 2007. He was hitting partner for one of the women. One of the things that I recall him saying was that the court surface was amazingly abrasive. It just took shreds of the ball. I asked him about the differences between those courts and the rebound ace courts at the club we were both playing at. The difference was primarily the respective hardness of the surfaces, their abrasiveness, and all that entails.

Rebound ace is certainly different to the US Open courts. But obviously the differences between the US and Australian Open courts do not reflect the extremes of difference that there can be between different types of hard court. If nothing else, the efforts that have gone into improving the quality of the mens game in the last five to 10 years mean that courts are slower. Nobody wants to go back to the mid-90s tedium of one hit tennis from Ivanisevic, Krajicek and so on. Even if the changes have had some detrimental effects, and there is less serve and volley tennis than before, the quality of the contests in the mens game is far superior today to that of 10 years ago.

At a guess I would say that the difference between the old Kooyong courts and the Wimbledon grass is hardness. This may be as suggested below due to drainage. But living in London I guess a lot of it is to do with climate. We just don't have anything like the heat of Australia to temper our courts.

cc

 

[SteveI]

not sure if you are aware of this, but the k90 is more powerful than even the mighty babolat pure drive.

Anyway, is Federer hitting his serve, fh, bh with less pace than he once did??? Would you care to provide some links to back up the claim that he needs something more powerful??

As for "forgiving", everyone shanks>>> even Nadal. So, are you suggesting he needs to hit with somthing larger than 100 sq inch frame???

Power Rating (USRSA)

K90 = 1966
Pure Drive = 2222

 

[drakulie]

As you state in your post, the Sony Ericsson courts which are "the same" as the US Open courts, are gritty, play slower and higher bouncing than the so called "tile-like" hard courts you mention (not sure why these were even brought in the discussion as there's no major played on those types of courts).

Where do I say the courts at the Sony are the same as those at the US Open???? In fact, I said they are very different. :?

Rebound Ace, and the courts at the US Open are also **VERY DIFFERENT** are made of different materials, and play night and day from one another, in the same way har tru and the red clay of Rolan Garros play very differently.

But I guess you are right. Since har tru, and roland garros are the both referred to as "clay", they are the same.

Thanks, I wasn't aware Andy Roddick had a few French Open titles. I'll contact the French Tennis Federation to make sure they don't forget to put his name on the trophy.

 

[drakulie]

Power Rating (USRSA)

K90 = 1966
Pure Drive = 2222

As you could see, the k90, according to the TW Professor is more powerful in the sweet spot, and below.

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi...ure:Drive|RCBAB|x&racquetC=none&racquetD=none

 

[0d1n]

Where do I say the courts at the Sony are the same as those at the US Open???? In fact, I said they are very different. :?

Rebound Ace, and the courts at the US Open are also **VERY DIFFERENT** are made of different materials, and play night and day from one another, in the same way har tru and the red clay of Rolan Garros play very differently.

But I guess you are right. Since har tru, and roland garros are the both referred to as "clay", they are the same.

Thanks, I wasn't aware Andy Roddick had a few French Open titles. I'll contact the French Tennis Federation to make sure they don't forget to put his name on the trophy.

Fine. I have misunderstood your sentence with regards to the US Open and the Sony Ericsson Open.
Also, you are right Roddick does indeed have a few French Open titles, I am tired of having pointless debates with pig-headed people.
You are deliberately choosing to ignore my real points and address stupid little details in order to take the discussion offtrack.
Congrats...you may have a future in politics.
Strangely enough you are probably a nice guy "in real life" otherwise you wouldn't have gathered around you quite a few posters off this board who have met you in person.
However, your "online" personality seems to suffer severe alterations and as a result I will have further conversation with you when your "online alter-ego" grows up (I won't hold my breath). Keep on trolling, you've already succeeded in "pushing away" a poster from these boards...poster who albeit having his obvious personal biases was still providing what many posters have found to be valuable feedback.

 

[0d1n]

Power Rating (USRSA)

K90 = 1966
Pure Drive = 2222

Those power ratings are simply blindly applied formulas and as a result they may not be true when a real person is involved and does the hitting.
In my experience (gasp, I'm agreeing with Drakulie) the k90 is more powerful than the pure drive when hitting the sweet spot.
However, "tapping into" that power potential is an entirely different matter which I won't get into now...because it's irrelevant and off-topic.

 

[SteveI]

As you could see, the k90, according to the TW Professor is more powerful in the sweet spot, and below.

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi...ure:Drive|RCBAB|x&racquetC=none&racquetD=none

I like the USRSA numbers more... . I have played with both. The Pure Drive in "my hands" has more power, all things being equal. The USRSA numbers seem in-line to me. I have clocked my serve with both. The Pure Drive "in my hands" created more MPH. Indeed, if I was a better player and could hit the sweetspot each time without error (and I could create the same swingspeed.. which I can't).. the K90 might be the more powerful... but I doubt it. Thanks for the nice reference to the other data.. "very interesting" "raises eyebrow".. .

I am out..."Jim Rome"

Steve

 

[drakulie]

Fine. I have misunderstood your sentence with regards to the US Open and the Sony Ericsson Open.

Yes, and you also have a huge misunderstanding that "hard courts" are made of different materials and different quantities of certain materials, and as result>>> play like night and day.

The rest of your post is garbage. I never insulted you, rather, provided you facts. If you feel that being proven to be incorrect is an insult, than I suggest you lock yourself in a box where you won't have contact with the outside world.

Lastly, I agreed with you about the differing grass. Guess you overlooked that to justify your insulting comments.

 

[0d1n]

Yes, and you also have a huge misunderstanding that "hard courts" are made of different materials and different quantities of certain materials, and as result>>> play like night and day.

The rest of your post is garbage. I never insulted you, rather, provided you facts. If you feel that being proven to be incorrect is an insult, than I suggest you lock yourself in a box where you won't have contact with the outside world.

Lastly, I agreed with you about the differing grass. Guess you overlooked that to justify your insulting comments.

I don't have ANY misunderstanding with regards to tennis playing surface or anything else we debated earlier with the obvious exception of what I have already admitted.
I wasn't any more insulting than you were through your obviously condescending tone...used over multiple posts. I wasn't insulting, I just stated so called "facts" (since opinions seem to be facts when you state them ... I will also reserve the same right for myself).
With regards to my "garbage post"...in my defense when you post garbage, expect to receive some garbage in return. I can deal it with the best of them so bring it on.
Inferior intellects are also inferior when "posting garbage"...but then again in their own mind they probably "win all battles" anyway, so ... you just won this debate ...wink wink.

Yes I saw that you agreed grass can play differently, thank you very much for your honesty , you just didn't admit the fact that the "different grass" effectively means that Laver's wins were on "different surfaces" just as much as Agassi's hard court (AO+USO) wins were "on different surfaces" which was my original and ONLY point.

 

[drakulie]

^^^Nice spin.

 

[sureshs]

Federer does not the use stock K90 (at a minimum there is lead under the bumper) and Nadal also leads up his frame. So TWU numbers don't apply, they are for stock.

And in any case, the power of the K90 is available only if it is harnessed properly. Fed is better off moving to a 95 to get more backhand balls deep into the court, otherwise he is getting another bagel at RG this year, assuming he reaches the final at all, which is doubtful.

 

[0d1n]

^^^Nice spin.

Thanks...it comes from my "head speed" not from anything else like "head size" or "head shape". :twisted:

 

[pmerk34]

Federer does not the use stock K90 (at a minimum there is lead under the bumper) and Nadal also leads up his frame. So TWU numbers don't apply, they are for stock.

And in any case, the power of the K90 is available only if it is harnessed properly. Fed is better off moving to a 95 to get more backhand balls deep into the court, otherwise he is getting another bagel at RG this year, assuming he reaches the final at all, which is doubtful.

Oh no doubt. Nadal looked unbeatable with his Babolat against Roger seemingly able to place balls on a dime. Roger looked inept with his K90, unable to generate the pace, spin and depth needed against his nemesis on the crushed red brick of Staid Roland Garros.

Nadal is driving a Ferrari while Fed sticks with his 8 year old Buick Century

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Just like 2008 Wimbledon grass was very different to 1998 Wimbledon grass .



Fine, then we have nothing to argue about really, as we seem to agree that if Federer and Nadal would switch rackets both of their games would suffer...even if Federer would be (gasp) going up in head size .

Agreed! And I don't like to argue, but do enjoy a good discussion. I will however make an effort this weekend to call my friend and ask about the difference between the grasses at 1998 Wimby vs. 2008 Wimby.

Best,

CC

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

I like the USRSA numbers more... . I have played with both. The Pure Drive in "my hands" has more power, all things being equal. The USRSA numbers seem in-line to me. I have clocked my serve with both. The Pure Drive "in my hands" created more MPH. Indeed, if I was a better player and could hit the sweetspot each time without error (and I could create the same swingspeed.. which I can't).. the K90 might be the more powerful... but I doubt it. Thanks for the nice reference to the other data.. "very interesting" "raises eyebrow".. .

I am out..."Jim Rome"

Steve

Hey Steve,

I've hit both the PD and K90 as well. All my hitting partners tell me my ball is 'heavier' and more difficult to handle with the K90 (even more so with the KPS 88). I did get a few more MPH's on the serve with the PD, but at the expense of precision in placement. Also, I can't 'go for' the second serve with the PD (precisely because I lack the precision with it to do so). So, on the whole for me the K90 is both more powerful and a 'better' serving frame. However I am sure the opposite could be said for some players.

Best,

Craig

 

[LPShanet]

That is some leap. Where does Higueras says that Federer has lost foot speed? Also how does a bigger racquet increase foot speed?

Here are two very important quotes.
“When you stop improving, you deteriorate; in tennis it’s always like this”
“But Federer continues just as before. His backhand, which today seems weak, is good, but the players have grown accustomed to it and that’s why it’s less effective, now it seems to play worse.”

“In two years, (Nadal) is a completely new player, he has improved and changed his style. Federer keeps on being the same: now others can attack him. He has stagnated.”


“He’s exceptional, he feels the game like nobody else, it’s instinct and that’s why working with him is very different. In spite of everything, he would benefit by having a person to help open his eyes at certain moments.”

I think a major point that Jose makes (and that VSB pointed out in his post) is that when people on the inside of the game refer to Federer "getting worse", they're referring less to the idea that he's hitting the ball less well, or playing less well, but that by not changing, his ability to win has gone down. Historically, the tour's players have adjusted to every big weapon or player in the game, and if you don't keep changing and evolving your game, you will start winning less. This seems to be what Higueras said is happening, not that Federer is suddenly a poorer striker of the ball. Meanwhile, as Higueras points out, Nadal's game has evolved and improved. If you need historical precedent, you need look no farther than the "big forehand" players of previous generations, whom the tour caught up to as well, such as Courier. For a while, no one could handle him, and then they all adjusted. Same goes for big "straight ahead" servers like Roddick.

As for switching head sizes, there are very few pros at the top of the game who would stand to gain as much by using a larger head as a recreational player does. The adjustment it would take to retool strokes grooved over a lifetime of hitting thousands of balls with a particular racquet would probably outweigh any slight benefit the racquet provides at this point in his development. And certainly the last thing Fed needs right now is any tentativeness or loss of confidence in his actual striking of the ball. As most of the top tennis minds have said, he needs to switch tactics and strategy, not racquets.

 

[grizzly4life]

LPS, good comments.....

of course, i don't agree with too many.

i think it's obvious roger has got slower, whether jose said it or not. slower = less time for perfect setup, but presumably roger still has the incredible racquet head speed that made him great.

i think roger hits the strangest unforced errors of any good player i've ever seen, and now they're starting to pile up. huge count of huge misses now. makes it obvious to me that he should look into changing racquets.

i don't know that much about tennis players and their racquets. but roger has already changed once and i assume almost all players have changed at least once (not including when they were young kids)........ in golf, tiger woods has changed his equipment a few times. for sure some adjustment period, and of course, it can be the wrong choice but you can always change back or change to another piece of equipment.

to me, it just seems like roger needs a much better chance at breaking serve. bigger serve by roger too, but that's very secondary to the chance to break serve...... i think a new racquet would give him a chance to go after rafa's second serve alot more aggressively.

yes, there might be some downside against other guys in trying to optimize your game vs. rafa, but my own view is he'd play better against everyone.

for sure, roger should give up on the french open which somewhat weakens my argument i realize.

 

[hoodjem]

I dunno maybe it's just me.

You're right--it's just you.

 

[0d1n]

Agreed! And I don't like to argue, but do enjoy a good discussion. I will however make an effort this weekend to call my friend and ask about the difference between the grasses at 1998 Wimby vs. 2008 Wimby.

Best,

CC

I was using "argue" in it's "discuss/debate" sense rather than the "quarrel/bicker" sense.
I can't really think of any reasons why any reasonable person would want to quarrel with you even when having different opinions. You always present your opinions in such a nice, good-tempered, nonabrasive way that it almost demands the same from your discussion partner.
Can't say the same for most people around here (myself included).

 

[drakulie]

^^or me. :evil:

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

I was using "argue" in it's "discuss/debate" sense rather than the "quarrel/bicker" sense.
I can't really think of any reasons why any reasonable person would want to quarrel with you even when having different opinions. You always present your opinions in such a nice, good-tempered, nonabrasive way that it almost demands the same from your discussion partner.
Can't say the same for most people around here (myself included).

Thanks. My general approach to life and relationships is 'kindness and respect'. Whenever I feel 'baited' here, I just remind myself of that creedo. CC

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

^^or me. :evil:

Come on Drak, you know you are a Teddy Bear. CC

 

[drakulie]

^^^^

I try not to be.

 

[Richie Rich]

Thanks. My general approach to life and relationships is 'kindness and respect'. Whenever I feel 'baited' here, I just remind myself of that creedo. CC

that's a good disposition to have.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

that's a good disposition to have.

Thanks. I try. CC

 

[LPShanet]

i think roger hits the strangest unforced errors of any good player i've ever seen, and now they're starting to pile up. huge count of huge misses now. makes it obvious to me that he should look into changing racquets.

i don't know that much about tennis players and their racquets. but roger has already changed once and i assume almost all players have changed at least once (not including when they were young kids)........

Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that he should go to a larger racquet to reduce misses? I don't think the prevailing theories on how control works would support that theory.

Further, when you say he's already changed once, which switch are you talking about? As evidenced by many long threads on these boards, it's highly debatable whether there was ever actually a switch that took place in the transition from his "ncode" paintjob to his current frame. However, there may well have been one much earlier, though that was before he became the dominant player that he was.

You may want to clarify on those statements.

 

[pmerk34]

Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that he should go to a larger racquet to reduce misses? I don't think the prevailing theories on how control works would support that theory.

Further, when you say he's already changed once, which switch are you talking about? As evidenced by many long threads on these boards, it's highly debatable whether there was ever actually a switch that took place in the transition from his "ncode" paintjob to his current frame. However, there may well have been one much earlier, though that was before he became the dominant player that he was.

You may want to clarify on those statements.

Didn't Roger switch from the PS 85" to the NCode 90" early on? I know I frame a lot more balls with a 90" inch frame than a 95 or 98 inch frame.

At Rogers level I don't know what the effect would be.