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

[Topspin Shot]

Isn't that better than losing to random players at the park, like you do? :wink:

Hey, I've lost at the park too. Then again, I've demonstrated on here that I can play unlike some posters. :wink:

 

[SoBad]

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?

He couldn't beat Nadal in slams, so he needed an excuse, like player stick.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Then what does Agassi have anything to do with me beating guys using 100-110 with my 85-90?

You brought up Agassi, not I.

 

[BreakPoint]

And in the real world I also win with my 85-90 against guys using 100-110. :smile:

But against Agassi?

You brought up Agassi, not I.

Um..no, you did. What does Agassi have anything to do with me winning with my 85-90? Did you think I play against Agassi on a regular basis? If so, you were badly mistaken.

 

[RanchDressing]

"My anecdotal experience is better than your anecdotal experience. Also my opinion is correct while yours isn't. I've played tennis 10 thousand years, and I'm probably as good as federer on a good day, so I know what he's thinking."

"No your anecdotal experience is based off of nothing. You're wrong, and your opinion is wrong, while mine is correct. You're not as good as federer, but I am, and I know what he's thinking"


/Thread

 

[Rock Strongo]

Oh God, not this again.

 

[BHud]

Success...even at 32 he was still kicking butt with it compared to most players on the tour (wasn't his lowest ranking #6 or so for a short time?).

 

[velvel95]

Combination of improved competition in power and consistency categories with slower hard courts.

Also, notice major drop in drop shots from Roger with amplified net approach.

Increased necessity of winning key points with more power and net approach instead of his custom ingenious point creation required move to a bigger frame.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Um..no, you did.

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!).

Page one.
10 chx

 

[BreakPoint]

Page one.
10 chx

So what does Sampras playing against Agassi have anything at all with me playing against guys at my local park?

You asked me if Agassi was the one I was winning against with my comment, which you quoted with your question. Did you really you think Agassi plays down at my local park and that is who I play against? If so, you must think I play on the same level of Sampras. :shock:

And in the real world I also win with my 85-90 against guys using 100-110. :smile:

But against Agassi?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Anyway, you brought up Agassi in the discussion. My point being that you could probably lose to a guy using a bigger racket than you.

 

[coolschreiber]

Another thread down the toilet

 

[Smasher08]

Oh God, not this again.

This is why NoPoint is the only poaster on my ignore list.

One click, and all that Asperger-y drivel went bye-bye.

 

[LapsedNoob]

This is why NoPoint is the only poaster on my ignore list.

One click, and all that Asperger-y drivel went bye-bye.

We should start a club.

 

[BreakPoint]

Anyway, you brought up Agassi in the discussion. My point being that you could probably lose to a guy using a bigger racket than you.

Talk about "NoPoint". Yeah, I would lose to Agassi even if he used a ping pong paddle. Nothing to do with the size of the racquet.

And, no, I did not bring up Agassi in the discussion/response about my tennis. You did. Everyone else seems to be able to follow the thread just fine except you.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Talk about "NoPoint". Yeah, I would lose to Agassi even if he used a ping pong paddle. Nothing to do with the size of the racquet

Exactly my point.

 

[cuteflu]

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.

Your point stands in almost of any case. Buuuuut not in Roger's case.

 

[mctennis]

I had read Roger is very hard headed and does not like to change anything. So I think that may have been the reason he stayed with the 90 sq in version for so long. Then he started losing more often than he was use to so perhaps he thought something needed to change- thus the racquet switch.