Racket Testing

Is Racket testing the biggest folly of the tennis industry?

Maybe.

I’ve demoed a few rackets and many of my tennis partners have also gone on demoing binges.  I know from experience that I have not clicked with a single racket within days of testing it, and this begs the question: what if you chose the wrong stick?  It takes months before I can really decipher whether or not a racket was designed for my hands, and my game.  And so I ask again, is racket demoing a pointless endeavor?  I do not believe it is pointless, but I also do not believe it to be a productive use of a rec player’s sparse hitting windows.

Let’s say you demo four rackets over the course of a week.  And then four more over the course of the next week.  Trading off rackets every few games during match play and then again during groundie sessions.  Perhaps distinctions will be made, but the technology produced today is so homogenous that the differences will be minor from brand to brand, and model to model.  You may detect these differences but you will not understand their impact until you really learn how to drive the racket.  And I will poset here that we cannot really drive a racket until we have been through the trenches with it - I’m talking about ugly three set losses were everything implodes in the third set.  The kind of third set where you keep glancing at the racket in your hand, wondering if you’re using the right weapon, or if there might be a more reliable one out there.

Maximizing a racket’s potential takes a long time.  It takes a long time to really drive a racket well.  You might swing one racket with a full blown western grip and another with an eastern grip.  I’ve noticed that the smaller the head the more prone I am to eastern grips, and the larger the head the more I tend towards extreme western grips.  Maybe that’s just me though.  Groundstrokes are one beast.  Volleys and half volleys are another beast entirely.  Let’s say it takes you two months to master the groundstrokes on a demo or new stick.  It will take you at least half a year to have the slightest idea on how to land a drop volley without your opponent running up and blasting a forehand pass.

With the potential lengthy learning curve of a racket’s tendencies I again ask, is it useful to go on demoing binges?  Personally, I do not believe it is.  But I’ve heard the other side many times too.  It just depends on the player.  I am done demoing though.  My philosophy for changing rackets is to read the reviews and go for a racket with similar specs to my previous favorite, unless of course you’re going for massive changes in your game and how you impose yourself on your opponent.

Then again, the year just turned and so did the entire racket inventory of every single retailer in the country.  There are new rackets left and right - volkl, wilson, head, dunlop, you name it.  All of a sudden I’ve detected the slightest notion of doubt in my trusty older frames.  What if some of these new sticks will gave my groundies an extra 10mph of pop?  I’m thinking about a demo binge right this second.  Wow, will we ever wield the proper stick?  Here’s to flipping off the new frames and continuing to rip on the older models.

Playing in the Wind

Playing in the wind is a pain in the ass.  If you’ve ever agreed to the blustery gusts, and not left the courts in frustration, then you’ve suffered through just as much frustration trying to hit the damn ball semi accurately.  The only thing worse than playing in the wind is not playing at all, but that often sounds more appealing when you are faced with the decision to fight through the wind, or just play another day when it isn’t so windy.

Playing in the snow or rain is preferable to the wind, if you ask me.  In the rain the court becomes wet and slick but you tailor your movement to the surface and this extra caution keeps you upright - I’ve had three rain sessions and never eaten it. I slide out from under my shoes semi regularly when its dry.  We all assume we cannot overpower the traction on the bottom of our shoes when it is dry - but we can.  The wet conditions should not hinder you, nor install fear in the back of your mind.  If you are athletic you can definitely play in the rain.  Just prepare for heavy rain soaked balls that feel like brick walls every time you try to unload on a forehand approach.

Back to the wind though.  The wind is by far the most evil condition to play in.  It enters  your mind when you are serving and literally blows you over.  You whiff pretty much every first serve you actually go for.  Rolling in your seconds isn’t much easier.  You dial up doubles faults uncontrollably and sometimes out of sheer frustration and surrender.  And your mind festers and festers and begs for you to get off of the court so you can be happy again.  Persist though.

Like your mental woes, the wind fluctuates so frequently and comes and goes in intervals (not always, but usually), and even the if the wind is steady you should try to fight through it.  It will make you feel invincible in terms of shot placement the next time you find yourself playing in peaceful windless conditions.   It will build great mental fortitude too, and we could all use more of this.  That strength that digs you out of triple break point service games - or fails to ninety percent of the time.

Andy Murray won his first grand slam at the US Open in conditions that were windy.  Somehow he fought and won the fifth set after Djokovic clawed his way back into the match.  Murray’s mind must have been a living nightmare between the wind and the reality that Djokovic was on the brink of an historic comeback after losing the first two sets.  Somehow Murray battled on and won the fifth set.  I was fully confident Djokovic had the match after taking the fourth set.  This victory gave Murray the confidence to win tough matches and got him through a five set epic comeback in his semi final against an on fire Verdasco in Wimbledon the year he finally won the championships.

Play in the wind every chance you get.  Don’t walk away.  It will improve your game as much as hitting with a bigger hitter than yourself or taking lessons.  Playing in the wind has nothing to do with technique and everything to do with mental toughness.  Nobody can teach you to be mentally tough.  The wind can.

The Great Debate - Round One

Let’s talk heads.  Every single pro with the exception of Federer is pretty much using 98 and 100 square inch heads.  Some even larger.  Has the game evolved?  Has the technology evolved?  The answer to both questions is yes.

A larger head means more access to spin and power.  Done.  The string pattern (18x20, 16x19, 16x18, 16x14, etc...) is almost as significant. If more space between your strings means less friction and more snapping back and forth, then that also means more spin and more pop power.  That also means less control when you flatten your shots out.  An 18x20 string pattern has the least amount of space, and therefore the least amount power.  An 18x20 string pattern on a 93 square inch head is a rare combination that equates to almost zero off-the-string-bed power.  The beholder must swing with force in order to hit high velocity shots.  This happens to be the set up of yours truly and not a single semi-competitive rec player has failed to critique the equipment in my hands.  From rec players to coaches to open players, they all have words about the smaller racket.

That said, I can hit winners with my set up like few others in my competitive bracket - most people at my skill set are playing on the same sticks that Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic wield.  They’re the best, therefore their sticks must be too.  Are you sure about that?  They grew up playing what they were told to swing.  Me and you and every other rec player grew up playing with what we decided to pay hard earned cash for.  When Murray and Djokovic were respectively growing up, more power and spin was the hype in racket technology - and their coaches gave them this revolutionary equipment.  Not a single one of them can serve and volley like Federer.  Not single one of them can rip obscene winners, or carve the ball with more slice and precision than Federer.  Federer predates the technology they are wielding and uses technology that is considered outdated by most so called tennis experts. Yet his shot library is much vaster than all of his younger rivals’ libraries combined.

Today I was in my local racket shop debating this topic vigorously with two stringers, who also play, and currently string my (outdated?) clubs.  They were both jabbing me for my 93 square inch head size.  Salesmen or honest tennis junkies?  Who knows.  I do know this though.  A good magician doesn’t need a big hat to hide the rabbit.  Similarly, a good tennis player does not need a larger head to create power.  A large reason Nadal generates the ferocious topspin and power that he does on his forehand is his racket.  He is using a larger trampoline to put it simply.  His large head takes away from his control though.  Without extreme spin Nadal could never hit his targets.  The ball would sail long every time.

And you look around at the competitive club guys and everyone seems to be ripping it long, frequently.  Everyone is on mid plus and oversized heads.  One out of every fifteen players is using a smaller head.  Are smaller heads going extinct?  I do not believe they are.  There are rumors of a new fleet of 93s from different big name racket producers hitting the market in 2014.  You just leaned in.  Don’t worry.  I did too when I learned of this earlier today.

I know that we are being sold on larger heads.  We are told that we need larger heads by the tennis industry (pro shop stringers and junkies and coaches alike) because they want to please us with fewer errors on the court and quicker results.  Are they selling themselves on knowing which racket you will hit the fewest errors with, or are they selling to your needs?  What about your technique?  A large head on a light stick is easy to whip.  Topspin is the name of the game right now; but I believe we will see a revolution to smaller sized heads soon.

The rage around larger heads intrigues me, partially because I am a rare outlier on the tennis courts.  Is everyone around me in the tennis circles on to something that I am missing out on?  I do not think so.  I honestly believe they are missing out on the joy of carving a ridiculously low slice or punishing the put aways with complete conviction that the ball will not sail long because of the precision and softer touch of the smaller head.  I am truly engaged in this debate and cannot contain my intrigue in the dark side.  It begs me to join every time I play tennis or go to the shop or read the forums.  I will not be biased.  Not totally at least.  I ordered a 95 pro staff off ebay today to test drive some of the hype - I guess I could have gone bigger, but I was too fearful falling in love with topspin and forgetting how to blast a flatty winner down the line.  The soon to be new frame is lacking in power so I should be fine.  Tennis-warehouse gave it a 71 there.

Why winning hurts more than losing

Believe it or not, winning is more painful than losing.  When Djokovic wins the Australian Open next year he will have suffered more physically and mentally than any of the opponents he beats on the way.  Losing hurts, no doubt, but most of that hurt is mental.  Whoever takes you out suffers more mentally though - because we all know that handling prosperity is a much more challenging ask than getting the break back when you’re down.  Likewise, injecting pace and offense is much more taxing than stabbing the ball back into play or counterpunching pace.  It takes more energy to win, but sometimes we forget this and expect our manicured strokes to do all of the work.

To win matches and tournaments you must be willing to suffer more than your opponent.

A lot of tennis players are under the vastly incorrect impression that immense coaching and technique results in Ws.  Not so.  I don’t care how finely tuned the strokes are, if you can’t drop it all and fight through the rough mental patches, and physical ones too, you are not going to have much success in tennis.  Nadal is the best example of this.

His strokes are not half of Federer’s in technique nor precision (he uses a racket that has ten square inches of additional string bed and just rips topspin - his energy output is fierce and results in great action on the ball but you could never label him a shot maker), yet he holds an impressive winning head to head record against Federer.  He is much more willing to suffer.

Federer relies so heavily on his technique and confidence (based on that technique) that fighting and scrapping is not really a term he understands at the level of Nadal or Djokovic.  His precision aggression wins and loses all of the points he plays.  Scraping points out is not something he is accustomed to doing.  Don’t think Federer is not one of the best fighters of all time.  He is.  No questions about it, but when comparing him to his peers, they are much more accustomed to this high effort type of tennis required today with all of the high spin strings and larger racket heads - the fight.  The grinding, the scraping.

All of his opponents know this type of tennis well.  They’ve learned to hustle like nobody before them.  Their games have evolved to counterpunch with the primary purpose of beating Federer.

Whether you are a counterpuncher or a vintage attacker styled after Fed or Sampras, you are going to use more calories and suffer more mental agony during your wins than your loses.  Now some of you may say bullshit.  I say bullshit.  Ripping your opponent side to side takes a lot of effort per stroke.  Likewise, if you defend well enough to put yourself in a position to rip a winner in a given point then you are definitely out hustling your attacker.

I hope this post lights a fire under your ass to run a little harder on D, and swing a bit harder on the attack.  We can all improve here.  And win a bit more.  I know, just thinking about it hurts.  Suck it up.

Double Fault

The serve is the biggest weapon in tennis and also the most under utilized. If you can put in the sweat and teach yourself how to hit any point in the service box, and at different velocities, you will win the majority of matches you play. Then again, even yours truly is lacking in the motivation to smack a bucket of balls once a week. Us weekend warriors crave points. We want to battle on the courts when we make it onto the courts. It is all we think about as we slog away all day at our life jobs. At the end of the day, the only thing on our minds is our next battle. Our next thirteen stroke rally. Enough. The serve is the biggest weapon in the game, and the serve is also the most difficult and painful to master. And the most taxing mentally and physically during match play.

Over the years of playing competitive matches I, like everyone else, have hit way too many double faults. Worse than a double fault though is a poachable second serve that your opponent can rip a winner off of, or set up a winner on his or her next shot. At the recreational level the second serve wins and loses the majority of matches. Djokovic and Nadal proved that you don’t need much of a second serve if you are a freak on the baseline. Most of us aren’t the next Djokovic. So we must improve our second serves. Lets unveil a new term: the double fault quota, or the number of a double faults each of us is allowed to hit before we recalibrate our seconds. My double fault quota is two. Once I hit two, I must rip my next second serve like it is a first serve. Again, you are not going win, by lobbing in serves. You have to go for it. At the 4.0 and surrounding levels you can get away with a few lobs when your opponent makes an unforced error cracking your second, but even at these levels the second serve is crucial.

This past weekend I was battling a friend and I felt myself getting mental in one of my service games. It was a long game and he probably had three or four break points. I was so mental. Now, I have done this before and had success and it worked again last weekend. I went for a couple big serves on second serve and won those points. Next time you find yourself giving up second serves to double faults or winners, I want you to do this: tell yourself that you are going to go for it. Go for a first serve and just say screw it. It has worked wonders for my game and rescued me on more than a dozen occasions. Don’t fret additional faults. At least your opponent is not hitting a winner and gaining momentum. The momentum lies on your racket. Another double fault will hurt you less than a winner off your opponent’s racket.

With the above considered, next time you find yourself in a tense match and you’re trying to avoid your third double fault (or maybe fifth if your have a higher double fault quota than me), just rip it. Cut lose. See what happens. I think you will surprise yourself.