Why did Federer stick with a 90 square inch for so long?

R

rb120134

New User
Hi,
I am sometimes wondering, why did Roger Federer use a 90 square inch headsize for so long, because a bigger head size only has advantages right? If the ball is slightly off center you still get alot of pace and you wont hit so many mis hits right? So why did Federer stick with a 90 so long? Did the precision and feel really add up to the unforced errors? Or is there something special that kept him from switching to a bigger head size.(I know he switched recently) but still, why didnt he switch earlier to a bigger head size?(Knowing the advantages)Does a smaller head size have any advantages over a bigger head size?
 
When you hear people saying you're the best player that ever lived and you've won more slams than any other man in history, you don't make changes hastily.
 
Because like all people, he doesnt like change.

He was comfortable with the racket and any change would induce a learning curve he didnt want to partake if he didnt have to.
 
Tinkering with his gear when he was still winning nearly everything was less reward than risk. As time caught up with him it was a different balance there.

This is not to say the risk would have really been there, he is supremely talented and probably could've done just as well had he used 95-97 all along had tha size been more common for player's sticks as he was developing.
 
Because he's Roger Freaking Federer...

Oh, and he tried bigger racquets - allegedly never found one that 'worked' for him. Only he (and his very inner circle, maybe) know how hard he tried to make them work.
 
asifallasleep said:
He'd still be winning if he were using the 90 today. His game took a dip because of back injuries.
Click to expand...

pretty much this

Also a 90 does have a solidness to it that obviously worked for his forehand and serve. The game has become more defensive but he was winning majors just a few years ago.

Honestly he needs a little luck to win another, but that is fine...it isnt really luck then...it is being ready when luck strikes. Still, he couldnt capitalize on the USO in 2014. Yet, he got a Davis Cup and is aiming for an Olympic gold in singles too. I may actually root for that.
 
rb120134 said:
Hi,
I am sometimes wondering, why did Roger Federer use a 90 square inch headsize for so long, because a bigger head size only has advantages right? If the ball is slightly off center you still get alot of pace and you wont hit so many mis hits right? So why did Federer stick with a 90 so long? Did the precision and feel really add up to the unforced errors? Or is there something special that kept him from switching to a bigger head size.(I know he switched recently) but still, why didnt he switch earlier to a bigger head size?(Knowing the advantages)Does a smaller head size have any advantages over a bigger head size?
Click to expand...
Oh, most definitely! That's why Sampras using his 85 sq. in. racquet beat Agassi using his 107-110 sq. in. racquet EVERY single time they played against each other at the US Open and at Wimbledon (and that's a lot of times!). And look at Federer's record using his 90 sq. in. racquet against Roddick using his 100 sq. in. racquet.

A smaller racquet gives you more control, more feel, more precision, more mass concentrated in a smaller area, more maneuverability, faster swing speed due to being more aerodynamic and just by being smaller and less obstructive, more reach due to the center of the stringbed being further away from your hand, etc. Too many to list.

If bigger really is better, everyone would be using 200 sq. in. racquets by now. :shock:
 
Fed has had to adjust his strokes with the larger head. I remember watching him right after he switched and he was spraying balls long. Its taken him some time but it looks like he's figured it out now. At the highest levels, sustained confidence is a big factor.

He switched back and forth when he first tried the larger head size but at this point it looks like he's committed to the larger. He gets more on his serve and he's dialed in his accuracy even though it looks like the margins on height and depth look a little bigger than they used to with the 90.

Like I've said before, I'd love to have his game with a 90 any day.
 
You don't change when you are winning. Pretty simple. It took awhile once he started losing, but once he switched, his game picked up again.
 
The back injury was never the reason why Roger switched. He said himself that he meant to switch for some time, but never found time to. After his early Wimbledon exit his schedule was clear until Cincinnati. He used that extra time to test a prototype in Gstaad, and Hamburg. The Masters in Cincy came around and Fed went back to the 90 again until the off season came around and he could adjust.
Thinking that the reason Roger switched racquets was a back injury is delusional. You want to know what's not delusional? He could still win using a 90.
 
BreakPoint said:
Oh, most definitely! That's why Sampras using his 85 sq. in. racquet beat Agassi using his 107-110 sq. in. racquet EVERY single time they played against each other at the US Open and at Wimbledon (and that's a lot of times!). And look at Federer's record using his 90 sq. in. racquet against Roddick using his 100 sq. in. racquet.

A smaller racquet gives you more control, more feel, more precision, more mass concentrated in a smaller area, more maneuverability, faster swing speed due to being more aerodynamic and just by being smaller and less obstructive, more reach due to the center of the stringbed being further away from your hand, etc. Too many to list.

If bigger really is better, everyone would be using 200 sq. in. racquets by now. :shock:
Click to expand...

Vintage BreakPoint. Good luck getting away with this drivel in the real world. But on the Internet, you can post again and again and again and again and again and again and again....
 
ShahofTennis said:
The back injury was never the reason why Roger switched. He said himself that he meant to switch for some time, but never found time to. After his early Wimbledon exit his schedule was clear until Cincinnati. He used that extra time to test a prototype in Gstaad, and Hamburg. The Masters in Cincy came around and Fed went back to the 90 again until the off season came around and he could adjust.
Thinking that the reason Roger switched racquets was a back injury is delusional. You want to know what's not delusional? He could still win using a 90.
Click to expand...
Nobody said that he switched because of his back injury. But before his back injury, he was playing well enough with his 90 that there was no reason to switch. The point is that his results dropped off in 2013 NOT because of his 90 but because of his back injury. So I agree with you that he would be playing just as well (or better) with his 90 today as he does with his 97.
 
rb120134 said:
Hi,
I am sometimes wondering, why did Roger Federer use a 90 square inch headsize for so long, because a bigger head size only has advantages right? If the ball is slightly off center you still get alot of pace and you wont hit so many mis hits right? So why did Federer stick with a 90 so long? Did the precision and feel really add up to the unforced errors? Or is there something special that kept him from switching to a bigger head size.(I know he switched recently) but still, why didnt he switch earlier to a bigger head size?(Knowing the advantages)Does a smaller head size have any advantages over a bigger head size?
Click to expand...
Uhm, because he won 17 majors? Besides he allready went up from 85-90.
 
He was too good for his own good. If he'd switched earlier, he'd be around 25 slams by now.
 
Another factor I feel is equally important is the thin box beam control frame vs. the somewhat thicker rounded beam frame. By that I don't mean the shape of the beam is the key factor, but there is a huge difference between f.inst. the PS 95 and the 6.1 95. The former the extreme in its control, whilst the latter is a power machine.

Which, to me, explains why he took so long to make the transition, much more so than the increase in head size.
 
I think he actually switched for more easy power.

The new frame is like 8 % larger, 1 cm in width and height, not that much of a difference.

But his game seems to be more relaxed.
 
It's the archer and not the bow or arrow...

This is true for any head size.

To say that Roger would have more slams had he switched earlier is just as stupid as claiming that he was better with the 90.
 
If he had switched in 2013 and had the same results at the end of the year, everyone on this board would be asking the opposite question.

He probably wanted to try something new to give him an edge after what he would consider a probably low performance 2013. Why everyone gets so personal about this debate I don't understand.
 
SpinToWin said:
It's the archer and not the bow or arrow...

This is true for any head size.

To say that Roger would have more slams had he switched earlier is just as stupid as claiming that he was better with the 90.
Click to expand...

Lol, Breakpoint #2. Equipment matters a lot, you should know. Otherwise the tour would still be filled with PS 85. Even Sampras doesn't play with it anymore.

Some people take a while to recognize this, like Federer did. Some people never do.
 
Attila_the_gorilla said:
He was too good for his own good. If he'd switched earlier, he'd be around 25 slams by now.
Click to expand...
LOL Yet, he's won ZERO Slams since switching two years ago.

But of course we know that Agassi would have at least as many Slams as Sampras if he had only switched to a smaller racquet earlier. :)
 
Attila_the_gorilla said:
Lol, Breakpoint #2. Equipment matters a lot, you should know. Otherwise the tour would still be filled with PS 85. Even Sampras doesn't play with it anymore.

Some people take a while to recognize this, like Federer did. Some people never do.
Click to expand...



Sorry, it matters, but it doesn't matter a lot.
In Federer's case, it's probably a mental aspect, since his game didn't change at all after the switch.
A bit more consistency on the backhand, but overall slightly less shotcrafting => mental thing
 
Attila_the_gorilla said:
Lol, Breakpoint #2. Equipment matters a lot, you should know. Otherwise the tour would still be filled with PS 85. Even Sampras doesn't play with it anymore.

Some people take a while to recognize this, like Federer did. Some people never do.
Click to expand...
He's no longer competing for Slams and now only plays for fun.
 
rb120134 said:
Hi,
I am sometimes wondering, why did Roger Federer use a 90 square inch headsize for so long, because a bigger head size only has advantages right? If the ball is slightly off center you still get alot of pace and you wont hit so many mis hits right? So why did Federer stick with a 90 so long? Did the precision and feel really add up to the unforced errors? Or is there something special that kept him from switching to a bigger head size.(I know he switched recently) but still, why didnt he switch earlier to a bigger head size?(Knowing the advantages)Does a smaller head size have any advantages over a bigger head size?
Click to expand...

A midsize racquet hits a bigger ball into a tighter space. There is no free lunch; cost vs benefit.
 
I didn't even bother reading the other post, because the answer is simple...comfort with what has always worked and an extremely hard to overcome resistance to change that most successful athletes have.

At their level it is simply tough to "mess with success"...we are not even close to being so finely tuned that we'd notice slight gear changes, let alone big ones.

Hell, Del Potro is a perfect example, he was running out of frames because he stubbornly refused to switch models, and it was even bothering his wrist but he couldn't mentally make the change!

It's a big adjustment, and the miniscule "off season" doesn't leave much time for tinkering...that is why it took so long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Why 27 inch ?
Replies
27
Views
3K
Kirko
Kirko
R
90 square inch too small for modern game?
35 36 37
Replies
2K
Views
101K
BGod
BGod
M
Tell me, IYO, what is better and why, a 90 inch head or a 100+
Replies
29
Views
3K
makinao
M
F
Big racquets for sucky players?
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
Power Player
Power Player
thatguymattin
I can't play with 98's
2
Replies
94
Views
10K
sma1001
S
Back
Top