Efficiency - Example #2

(This example #2 is a follow-up from a previous post here)

More than a few times, I came across tour or serious  competitive players with very difficult to use rackets.

When asked, they would sheepishly tell of how small the sweetspot is, how heavy and difficult to maneuver and how tough it was to generate power or spin.

I could not understand why.

Suppose if a chef uses an old blunt knife to prepare food, then cooks over a candle flame instead of a stove, and serves soup on disposable paper plates without cutlery, what would your impression of the chef be?

Even if they were the greatest player on earth, was there any need to make things difficult? Would they earn more points if they use old rackets? Or triple points and prize money for using a woody?

Not surprisingly, many of these same folks, whom I asked about their challenging equipment, all admitted struggling in matches.

All quoted impeccable feel or sentimental reasons for sticking with their "old faithful".

Player B

Mid 30s. 1.7+ metres tall. Weighs about 70 kg. Moves well but commented he was not as fast as before. Reads opponents fast and accurately.

Flattish or sidespin forehand. Flat or slice backhand. Flat to mid-spin serves. All serves and strokes executed with very good placements to opponents' weaknesses. Volleys often and well to end points fast.

Initially played with the ProStaff 85, then to a 90 sq inch Yonex and to a 100 sq inch for about one year. Been struggling with touch and feel and confidence of the 100 sq inch, so would rotate back to the 90 occasionally.

After initial hits, I was impressed by his extremely consistent contact point on the stringbed. There were very few shots I could see that missed the sweetspot. Even those did not miss by much.

When I examined his used stringbed, the deepest notches were concentrated in the centre 8 mains and crosses. He mentioned that usually one of the centre strings would snap after some use.

I had him rotate between his 90 and the 100 while he showed me his serves. The difference was huge. The ease and relaxation, the smoothness of the swing, pronation and release, tempo and most importantly, the consistency and placement accuracy was superior with the 90.

When I measured both his 90 and 100, the weights were all very close. Some matching had been done.

My thoughts

Topspin is an extremely inefficient stroke (link) and difficult to execute well. Since he hits flat, and does not swipe the racket upwards steeply to generate topspin, he rarely frames the ball or catches it off-center.

With the very consistent notches, he proved his ability to hit the centre regularly. In this rare case, I suggested he ditch the 100 and switch back to the 90 with two minor weight tweaks - redistribution and reduction.

While this might seem a simple conclusion, there were important reasons behind this decision.

First, the isometric shape of the 90 sq inch Yonex played with an almost similar sweetspot size of the 100. Only thing was, according to him, the 100 sweetspot felt distinctly less "sweet".

Second, even though both the 90 and 100 were on similar specs, I felt the weight was more "productive" in the smaller 90. 

With a smaller hoop size, the advantage was the weight in the hoop was closer to the sweetspot. That contributed to better feel. And less weight was needed to stabilize the smaller hoop, making it more efficient and allowing weight to be redistributed to achieve other objectives, while maintaining a lower total weight than the 100.

Third, the sweetspot in the 90 Yonex was located  significantly higher on the racket face than the 100. That was exactly the spot I saw him deliver some of his best placed serves.

Fourth, I felt he had no need for a larger head size as he does not use topspin. During the hitting sessions, I did not observe any instance where he brushed the ball upwards. It was all flat or slices.

Since hitting flat or slices was much more efficient in imparting energy to the ball, this reinforced my view that he did not need any extra "free power" from a larger head size. For without topspin, the ball would float out, which I saw some with the 100.

The changes

The 90 still performed extremely well for his serves, as he had full control of his own ball toss, tempo and timing. But since I have never seen his play last time, I could only base my recommendation on his own remark that his movement was not as fast as before. 

That recommendation was to reduce the weight of the 90 just a tad, to speed it up, to make up for "lost time" from the slightly slower footwork he claimed.

In this instance, his greatest efficiency was achieved by downsizing back to a 90 sq inch which performed best to his natural strength, ability and style of play. 

It might not work for another player, but in my opinion, the weight adjusted 90 was a much better fit for him than the 100. 

In my opinion, for the 100 to play similar in feel, control, stability and power with the 90 would require the 100 be substantially heavier than the 90. That would not be efficient, nor advisable given his remark about feeling slow.

When I asked him a few months after, he was still using the 90 exclusively, happily.