good evening fellow players!! i have a quick question that i dont believe has been addressed b4: in general, are head heavy/offensive/attacking rackets more expensive than all-round or defensive rackets. im getting the impression that they are. if they really are, why do we think that is? could it be that players seem to prefer head heavy rackets or prefer to attack on the court. in which case offensive rackets would be more popular and sell better so the manufacturers can increase the list prices. wot do u guys think, does that make sense or am i just being silly???? thanks for ur thoughts regards bf
Arcsaber series is even balanced (Both offensive and defensive) is pretty expensive. Nanospeed series is head-light (Can be offensive and defensive) is quite expensive.
I don't think so, as far as my knowledge goes, most brands have expensive offensive/balanced/defensive rackets.
Thats not necessarily true. The Ti series has been out for a while....look at the 1st gen. Ti-10...its one of the most expensive rackets in the market. The more r&d and technologies built into the racket, the more expensive it is.
a more head heavy racquet is definitely more towards offensive. in my opinion, it's the player. he can be a very offensive player with a defensive racuqet or a defensive with a offensive racuqet & strike when there's a chance. Look at LCW, he's more defensive when facing LD but he's using a AT900P. i think it's pretty direct that when we face a stronger opponent, we tend to be defensive disregards whatever racquet you are holding. for me at least.
i would agree with this statement, in general the more expensive rackets will tend to be more offensive based but there are excepetions...if you look at the yonex range the most offensive racket in each range 'generally' is the most expensive. if you look at the nanospeed range, i think we can say that the 9900 and 9000 are the most offensive rackets followed by the 8000 then the 7000 then the 6000 (which is very defensive) and then the 4500 (which is more attacking than the 6000 so doesnt follow the trend) so i think we can safley say that this theory does apply to the nanospeed range..if we look at the arcsabre range, the arc 10 is the most expensive and the most offensive, in the armortec the 900p is the most attacking but it also has the 900t which is a very defensive racket...if we look at the ashaway range the the 8000sq is the most expensive and the most offensive followed by the rest of the range which decreases in price and becomes less offensive so i think, generally this statement is correct..in my opinion
i reckon the marketing aspect of it is playing towards the perception of the consumer. most people will think that they would benefit more from more offensive racquets (ie very stiff and head heavy) because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are able to utilise the full potential of the racquet to generate that power. hence, it's slightly playing on the ego of the user, so the marketing strategy is more offensive = better = more expensive. that's one way of looking at it.
Also most international players use the offensive rackets ,so we would be getting charged more for the offensive rackets.
i would definetly agree with this, i think there are alot of people who have this perception that an attacking more expensive racket will somehow give them the edge, but the truth is that not all rackets, especially the more stiffer top end rackets are suitable for, lets say the average club player..so more offensive = better...if.....you have the skills too utilise its full potential....still= expensive whichever way you look at it
