While the second attempt of the Lendl pattern (link) offered a lot more comfort, power and control over the first, it was still not enough to placate this syn gut lover.
My set of old and lazy bones needed just a little more comfort, a little more pocketing and a LOT more power. Extra spin would be nice too!
However hard I try, my footwork was no longer fast enough. That meant insufficient time for those old school long loopy swings that I have been accustomed to.
Many previous attempts skipping crosses compromised control in return for comfort, power and spin. (link1)(link2)(link3)
Now, by skipping every third instead of alternate cross, maybe I could tone down some power and add back control? In addition, I was also hoping for a little more pocketing to deal with the harsh feel when the stiff poly stringbed stops giving.
Not sure how to interpret the ITF tennis rules regarding this string pattern (link):
"The hitting surface, defined as the main area of the stringing pattern bordered by the points of entry of the strings into the head or points of contact of the strings with the head, whichever is the smaller, shall be flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings, which shall be alternately interlaced or bonded where they cross. The stringing pattern must be generally uniform and, in particular, not less dense in the centre than in any other area. The racket shall be designed and strung such that the playing characteristics are identical on both faces."
Probably best left to the professional umpires and judges while I have fun trodding down unconventional paths!
Another variation could be skipping every fourth cross instead... I'll let the playtest dictate where this goes...
Playtest:
- The stringbed softened significantly and became as comfortable as any soft syn gut or multi.
- Directional control were good for medium hits, but when I cranked up the power, the control dipped terribly. The crosses were just not enough to support the heavy impact.
- By control dipping, what I meant was the ball depressing very deep into the stringbed and an exceptionally high rebound angle. So heavy topspin shots became topspin lobs which was fun to see, especially towards the end when it dived down steeply.
- Strangely, other aspects of control remained intact, even for serves.
- Spin was good as the mains could really slide and snap-back.
- Volleys were good too and effortless to execute. Just get the racket in the way of the ball and voila! Perfect dropshot!
- Since the rules dictate that the stringing pattern cannot be less dense in the centre, I think it will be good for anyone intending to try this, to string an extra one or two crosses in the centre of the stringbed. That might stiffen up the sweetspot a little to bring ball trajectory nearing to earth.
- Another option could be to string the same but using poly in the crosses instead of syn gut.
- Not much string movement after play, but some ball fur stuck on the strings.
Someone emailed me after reading my previous "Lendl Pattern" attempt (link).
He suggested I string the outside perimeter strings first, then the centre mains and crosses. Previously, I used a soft poly in the centre and syn gut around the perimeter.
The explanation was interesting and sounded convincing. Syn gut, being the softer string is almost always strung at a higher tension than poly. If the lower-tensioned poly was strung before the syn gut, he noticed that his racket frame would compress a little more during the syn gut stringing.
Since the frame was compressed, that led to some "tension loss" of the poly which made it play flat and dead from the first hit.
But how did he know the frame shortened since the racket was mounted?
Well... he claimed he dismounted the racket after completing the poly centre mains and crosses and measured hoop length and width. Complete with a starting clamp dangling at the side!
And he measured again after the softer perimeter strings were done. Shorter it was!
However, when the order was reversed, the dimensions remained constant, he claimed.
While I have several experimental frames to muck around with, I have no intention of finding out how my racket internals look like yet.
So for me, no dismounting halfway, but I'm game enough to give it a try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Also, he added that soft poly strings play much better when strung with lock-out machines as compared to the constant tensioning of electronic and dropweight machines.
Below pic shows the higher-tensioned outer perimeter syn gut being completed first...
Could it be Lendl himself who sent the email? Or his stringer?
Playtest:
- I was pleasantly surprised how comfortable and yet controlled this stringbed played from the first hit!
- The sweetspot was right smack in the middle of the poly strings. It was very easy to find because it was so soft. I cannot recall when have I ever enjoyed this poly so much before.
- Spin seemed average to me, perhaps because I have been using so many extreme spin setups that this did not stand out. As usual, backhand slices were better than forehand topspins.
- Compared to the dead, stiff, boardy and powerless previous attempt (link), this felt like a totally different racket with different strings and different tension. Yet, everything was the same! Only the order of stringing was different!
- Pocketing was nice and harder flat hits were rewarded with accurate and powerful rebounds, with some unintended winners.
- Compared to syn gut, the poly pocketing was still "limited" in how much it gives before the feeling of hitting a wall took over.
- That was the only thing I disliked because the distinct stiff feel of poly was most clearly felt there, when the pocketing reached its limit.
While playing friendly singles with "Z", he was lamenting how he lost most of the points to double faults.
But I felt otherwise. So, I got him to keep score while I did some mental "Shot Stats" for him.
According to my count, the shot stats for the second and third set were, respectively:
6-12-5-1
4-6-12-2
The first, second, third & fourth numbers respectively indicated, for Z, the:
(1) number of double faults,
(2) number of shots hit into the net,
(3) number of shots hit out, and
(4) others like inability to get to the ball, frame hits, double bounce, etc
Clearly, out of 24 points in each set, he lost between 71-75% of the points to what I would deem as "loss of control" issues - hitting into the net or out of court.
As Z was racket testing as well, he used a different stick for each set.
Assuming he was consistent, and adopting the ceteris paribus principle, the numbers seem to indicate, that either:
(1) the racket used in the second set was a little too low-powered for him, or the stringbed's rebound angle was too low, or the strings were dead, or
(2) the racket used for the third set was too powerful, had too high a rebound angle, or was tensioned too low.
Whichever case it was, I still think his serve was very decent for someone who has only been playing casual tennis (mainly rallying) for only six months.
Just before April Fool's day, a friend was dropping off two rackets to be restrung when I asked if he would like to test some new stringing idea I had.
We have done this many times, so he readily agreed, not even asking what was to be done.
This friend held a firm belief, that in order to play his very best, the strings must be freshly strung and pulled tight. He uses multi/syn gut hybrid at 67/65 lbs and restrings after every 8-10 hours of play.
For the pair of matched sticks, I strung one normally, and "experimented" with the other.
Of the total 35 (16+19) mains and crosses, I hand-pulled 20% of them, which is a total 7 strings!
Specifically, all four outer mains and crosses, plus the left mains #3, #4 and right mains #5 were tensioned by hand, aided by a starting clamp while mounted on the stringing machine!
All I intended, was to prank him and get him to loose some control. Then restring that for him at my expense. Instead, this threw up a new discovery!
From the first few hits, he noticed one racket was strung looser. "Not very much looser", he said, but "distinguishable". I was surprised he found it playable and asked him to tell me more, not revealing the secret to him yet.
Thinking it was some exotic setup, he adjusted his strokes and tried to identify areas where this setup could play well. Although looser strung, it was completely different from how his usual setup played after it had lost tension.
This was livelier and controllable! Totally unlike the loss of control and unpredictable rebound of worn strings that had lost tension!
Then I dropped the bomb...
Suffice it to say, he is now happily experimenting with slightly lower tensions and beginning to enjoy them.
