I have a six-year-old child who is open to starting tennis lessons. What I wanted to ask is, what kind of racquet should he use? From what I understand, it would be better if he used a junior racquet instead of an adult one, but there are so many different sizes of junior racquets. My son is relatively coordinated for his age. Could you make some recommendations?—

In addition to age and height, another factor to be taken into consideration when selecting a junior racquet is skill level. For a child, say, who’s very coordinated and aware of his or her body, a longer racquet—perhaps even an adult racquet—may be warranted.

One final note, Mary: Try to resist the spendthrift urge to buy a racquet that your child will “grow into.” Swinging a racquet that’s too heavy or cumbersome will probably detract from his enjoyment of the sport; it may even encourage bad form. Finally, consult a knowledgeable tennis pro or pro shop; they’ll be able to help you choose a racquet that’s right for your child(ren).

For reference, the standard racquet sizing chart reads as follows:

Racquet Length / Child’s Age / Child’s Height

19” / 2 years and up / 35”-39”

21” / 4 years and up / 40”-44”

23” / 6 years and up / 45”-49”

25” / 8 years and up / 50”-55”

26” or 27” / 11 years and up / 56”+

*****

I have been following your mailbag posts, and I’ve noticed for multiple posts that you recommend stringing polys at 40s-low 50s. I was wondering: Do you mean that only for full beds of poly? What if you’re hybridizing polyester in the mains and gut or a multifilament in the crosses? Do you still lower the tension on the poly? What about on the other material? I imagine dropping the tension on a multi or gut would cause a huge increase in power? But also cause a decrease in control? What’s the solution?—Tom

Thanks for your question, Tom. You’re correct that I recommend that most players string polyester at tensions in the high 40s to low 50s (lbs). The stringers, professionals and otherwise, who I’ve spoken to agree that poly, because it’s a stiffer material, is friendlier on the arm, feels better, and generally performs best when strung at lower tensions.

To answer your question, Tom, this tension range doesn’t only apply to full stringbeds of poly; it also applies to polyester that’s strung in hybrid jobs. If, as you suggest, you put poly in the mains, those strings should be pulled in the high 40s to low 50s (lbs.).

However, unless you’re suffering from an arm injury or need a tremendous increase in power, I wouldn’t recommend that you similarly drop the tension on a multifilament or natural gut string, regardless of whether it’s a full bed or part of a hybrid configuration. A multi or gut string in the low 50s will undoubtedly increase the speed and depth of your shots, but it’ll also make controlling the ball difficult, especially if you’re a player with fairly quick, medium to long swings. By all means, you can—and should—experiment with a variety of different tensions. But with respect to natural gut or a multifilament, I recommend you stay within your racquet’s recommend tension range.

*****

I've been playing tennis for about eight years now, and I use an extreme Western grip on my forehand. My main problem is that I do not generate as much power nor do I have enough control on that shot as I have on the backhand wing, where I play pretty flat. Do you think I should experiment with and/or switch my grip to a semi-Western, Western, or even a two-handed grip? Or do you think it would be a frustrated attempt, as I've been playing like this for a while now?—Raphael C.

Every stroke has its strengths and weaknesses, Raphael. An extreme Western grip has the advantage of being able to more easily handle balls hit above the shoulder. Typically, the grip also yields more spin, because it forces one to really swing upwards at a steep angle—that is, if the ball’s to go over the net. On the other hand, an extreme Western makes it much more difficult to dig out low slices and flatten out shots for hard-hit winners.

If you’re having trouble hitting with pace and placement with that grip, experimenting with a different, less extreme grip may be what the doctor ordered; it certainly can’t hurt. So that you’re not completely overwhelmed, I recommend that you first test out a grip that’s only marginally different from what you’re currently using. Which means going to a Western grip.

I don't think yours will inevitably be a frustrated attempt. As with learning any new skill, it takes time and patience to adjust to a new grip; remember that your stroke production will likely get worse before it gets better. The best thing for you to do will be to consult the expertise of a certified teaching pro. Through the course of multiple lessons, he or she should be able to guide you toward your new forehand.

For visuals and a detailed explanation of how to employ a Western grip, read our Grip Guide. Also check out the Instruction section of our website, which includes pages devoted to learning the forehand. If you live in the U.S., search here to find a certified USPTA (United States Professional Tennis Association) teaching professional in your area. If you live elsewhere in the world, search here for a teaching pro certified by PTR (Professional Tennis Registry), or check with your local tennis federation.

—Janko Tipsarevic, at this year's Miami Masters, on his relationship with racquet sponsor Tecnifibre.

*****

Earlier this year in Key Biscayne, Fla., I had the opportunity to interview the second-ranked Serb—currently the world No. 8—before a practice session. We previously published a part of that interview, on the tournament's playing conditions and Tipsarevic's equipment preferences, here. Now, the rest of the interview.

*****

On why he swings a Tecnifibre T-FIGHT 325 VO2Max, notions of "feel," and the care pros take in switching sticks:

On TennisFlex and Extreme Balance, two of the training gadgets he uses to stay in good form on tour:

Tipsarevic warming up for a hitting session with TennisFlex:

On his mental approach to match play, and why Rafael Nadal's pre-point routine is so successful:

*****

At the 1978 U.S. Open, Pam Shriver became the first player to play a Grand Slam final with an oversized racquet, namely the 110-square-inch Prince Classic. Though she lost the match to still-wood-wielding Chris Evert, Shriver’s performance with the aluminum frame despoiled the woody in many eyes, setting the stage for the emergence of game-changing racquet technologies. As Stephen Tignor explains in High Strung: Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, and the Untold Story of Tennis’s Fiercest Rivalry, “[Shriver’s] frame had been manufactured two years earlier, but it had been widely derided among recreational players as a ‘cheater’s racquet.’ Once Shriver legitimized it, the floodgates were open.”

By the end of the 1980s, the “preposterously small wooden racquets” of yesteryear had been replaced en masse “by a wave of bigger, more explosive, atomically manipulated frames” made from graphite- and carbon-based composites. Before long, Tignor continues, “players were hitting with power and spin that would have been unimaginable just 10 years earlier.”

So what exactly changed? How did racquets manufactured with new materials enable players to hit with so much more pop and spin? The generally accepted narrative is that modern frames return more energy to the ball, and thus allow for greater power—“rather like,” in the words of David Foster Wallace, “aluminum baseball bats as opposed to good old lumber.” Hence, the story goes, today’s prevalence of Samprasian serves and booming ground strokes: The racquets are supercharged.

But this explanation, while not wholly untrue, is flawed. Indeed, due to their added stiffness, graphite frames are much more lively than their wooden counterparts. (Newer frames permit decent pace even on balls struck outside of the stringbed’s center, which was less common in the old days; balls hit off the tip of a woody simply died.) Yet, it’s not so much a disparity in energy transfer that separates old sticks (and games) from the new, as much as a difference in head size. As Wallace duly notes, in “Roger Federer as Religious Experience,” “The truth is that, at the same tensile strength, carbon-based composites are lighter than wood, and this allows modern rackets to be a couple ounces lighter and at least an inch wider across the face than the vintage Kramer and Maxply. It’s the width of the face that’s vital. A wider face means there’s more total string area, which means the sweet spot’s bigger.”

This extra inch of frame width—10 inches, say, as opposed to the wooden nine—ultimately leads to more spin- and pace-friendly racquets. Why? What’s the big deal about wider frames? Perhaps unsurprisingly, the answer has everything to do with topspin.

Bracketing the question of polyester strings and “snap-back” effects, there are, to speak somewhat reductively, three different ways that players can manipulate racquets to impart more topspin onto the ball. The first is simply hitting the ball harder. “Suppose the racquet head slides across the back of the ball at 10 mph,” Rod Cross and Crawford Lindsey explain, in Technical Tennis. “The ball will start to rotate if it wasn’t already spinning, and it will continue to rotate faster until the back of the ball is also traveling at 10 mph. At that point sliding stops and the strings grip the ball,” preventing it from spinning faster. Upon leaving the strings after impact, the back of the ball will be spinning faster than the middle of the ball, yielding 22 revolutions/second, or 1,320 rpm. If the ball is hit harder, it will naturally spin faster. “At 20 mph the ball will spin at 44 revolutions/second,” Cross and Lindsey estimate. “At 40 mph the spin will be 88 revolutions/second.”

The second way that players can use their racquets to put more English on the ball is by swinging with an angled stroke. Brushing upwards on the ball at a steeper angle—to hit, say, a topspin lob—will cause the ball to slide across the strings, spin faster upon leaving them, and clear the net with a greater margin.

And finally, the third way is to tilt the racquet face, such that the stringbed is not facing the net but instead angled toward it. “That is equivalent to having the ball approach the strings at an angle farther from a right angle path,” Crawford and Lindsey say, which, just like brushing up at a steeper angle, causes the ball to slide against the strings and turn over on itself. 

Today’s more forgiving racquets (wider than wood by at least an inch, recall) enable players to do all three of these things—swing hard, brush upwards on the ball, and tilt the racquet face—without having the ball clip the frame. But the narrowness of wooden racquets made it tough. As Crawford and Lindsey explain, “Players used topspin and backspin in the old days, but the amount of spin was limited by the fact that the racquet head needed to remain vertical as they swung the racquet head upward for topspin or downward for backspin…By keeping the head vertical, the sliding distance of the ball across the strings [upon impact] was kept to a minimum, which also helped to keep the ball away from the edge of the frame.”

The final calculus is that wider frames, which allow for an inch (or more) of potential ball-string sliding distance, can augment spin production by four (or more) times. The rest of the story then falls into place. Able to generate more topspin without mishitting, players have been able to swing faster and hit the ball harder without fear of spraying the ball long or wide. And swinging faster, in turn, has allowed players to generate more topspin…which has enabled players to swing even faster and hit even harder. The arms race continues today and, as new technologies continue to emerge onto the scene, it shows no sign of abating.

*****

CORRECTION: It was indeed the Prince Classic. My mistake. And yes, I meant abating instead of abetting. Thanks for reading.

Ron Rocchi, Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Principal Designer
Global Tour Equipment Manager
Innovations & Design Group
Racquet Sports

***

Justin diFeliciantonio: Do you see a correlation between types of string used, or string set-ups, and player types/styles of play?

Ron Rocchi: I see a correlation in the sense that string technology has really caught up to racquet technology. Five to seven years ago, you had a lot of racquet technology leading—better materials, more feel, stiffer materials, different geometries. A lot of things that were imparting more power to the ball and allowing the racquets to move faster through the air. And the string technology, in my opinion, was lagging behind. You still had all of the strings from the older generations of racquets. But as we sit here today, whether it’s a Luxilon string or a Wilson string or a Babolat string or whichever, strings have caught up with racquet technologies; they are better suited to these modern racquets. And that to me is what I’ve seen over the past five to seven years as the innovation part of tour racquets, that the strings finally last long enough, impart the spin pros want, have the feel they want.

JD: What about tension? How has that progressed over the years?

RR: Tension has generally come down. In the old days you had natural gut, which you string very tightly and still get performance out of it. But today's polyester and monofilament strings seem to play better at lower tensions.

JD: But even a few years back when people first starting using Luxilon, were they stringing it tighter then?

RR: Yeah, I think everyone starts tight. They think, “Well, I’ve always played at 60 lbs, so I’ll put this in at 60 lbs.” Then they realize that it doesn’t play particularly well. And when you drop the tension down, the string actually performs better. There are pros who are stringing at 45 lbs, which is unheard of. But their set-up, the type of string they’re using, it performs right for them at that lower tension. Because the string, in a sense, is actually a little stiffer and a little more durable. So you can drop the tension and still be ok. If you drop natural gut that low, you’d be back fence all day [laughter].

JD: What would you say the average is now on the men’s tour for tension?

RR: I’d say the average 10 years ago was about 60 lbs. And nowadays, it’s probably in the 50 to 52, 55 lbs. range. It’s come down 10 percent, which hasn’t happened in a really long time.

JD: And I assume there are some outliers? Players who string especially loose or tight?

RR: Oh, absolutely. There are players who are still tight or loose. But if you look at a correlation of the whole, tensions have come down.

JD: Are players secretive about their equipment?

RR: Yeah, I think some players are a little bit superstitious about sharing all their details. They’ve come up with what they’ve considered to be a secret formula for their racquet that makes them play the way they do. And they’re a little reluctant to share everything about that to people. They feel very personal about it.

JD: What about the strings?

RR: No, the types of strings and the tension is fairly common information. It’s not like we post logs everywhere, but you can get the information; it’s not that hard.

JD: Comparing players who use hybrid patterns, who I understand are in the minority, versus players who play full poly or co-poly strings: What difference does it make?

RR: The hybrid sort of gives you the best of both worlds. In theory, the main strings of your racquet do the work and are the power component. Whereas the cross strings in some regards are the spin component. And when you put two different strings in your racquet, you’re now blending characteristics. So there are a group of players who put a soft string in their mains that gives them a lot of power, then they put a monofilament in the crosses that sort of backs the power down and gives them spin. There are some players who need durability, and they’ll end up putting the monofilament string in the mains, so that the racquet will not break, but they get performance and feel out of the softer crosses. So you’re talking about a matrix grid now that’s immense. And usually players have to try a whole bunch of configurations to figure out where they want to be.

JD: What are the playing styles of those on the pro tour who are using full sets of poly versus half sets?

RR: I’m not sure you can make that comparison. It’s all across the board. It comes to what a certain player wants the racquet to do for them, and it’s very individualistic. Prior to Roger Federer, the vast majority of hybrids were the durability component in the mains and something else in the crosses. And when Roger came out with the natural gut in the mains and the Luxilon in the crosses and started winning, so many players tried that. Like everyone was coming in and saying they wanted to try it. They felt like it might have been the magic elixir. And they all went back to what they played before. Just because it works for Roger doesn’t mean it works for everybody else.

JD: What about the Luxilon Team: What qualifies one to become a part of the Team?

RR: The current Wilson/Luxilon Team is made up of really accomplished stringers from all over the world. To even be thinking that you want to be part of this team, you have to have lots of experience at tournaments, you have to be willing to work long hours under pressure for very little reward. It’s a pressure cooker when it comes to stress and time, and not everyone can do that. We’ve had very accomplished stringers just crumble, because it’s too much pressure at a tournament. But I think over the years, we’ve been able to assemble a team of the right people. And I believe that right now we’re the best team in the world.

JD: So people actually crumble.

RR: Yes. I mean, if they’re at home in their shop, they can string 20 racquets a day with no mistakes and everything’s fine. But you put them in this environment, and we’ve actually had stringers who have packed up and left, because they know they can’t handle it.

JD: So what is it about the pro stringing environment?

RR: The turnaround time, the amount of racquets you have to do in a day. It’s not uncommon for a stringer on our team to have to do 30 racquets a day, without a single mistake, with a proper stencil, in the right bag, with the right strings, you know, on time, if the player said 2 pm and they show up at 1:50 pm. And there’s on-court racquets. There’s a lot coming at you as a stringer, and you have to be able to manage that. You have to rise to a level that you didn’t think you could string at.

JD: What’s the average time for stringing a racquet?

RR: At a tournament, we like to keep a pace of about somewhere around five racquets in two hours. And that includes cutting the strings out, putting the strings back in, stenciling, bagging, inspection. And you have to do those 5 racquets in 2 hours and sometimes you’ll have to do 30 racquets a day or more.

JD: How do the stringers stay organized?

RR: We’ve developed a very transparent, check-and-balance system. When the racquets are being checked in at our desk, we’re gathering the right information about how the player wants it strung, which string goes where, the right tension. We offer nuances such as pre-stretching, if they want two knots or four knots, if they want power pads, if there’s tubing. There’s a lot of variables. Once we get all this information, it’s relayed very precisely to the stringer. Each racquet has a work order, and that work order specifically states exactly what’s to be done. And there’s not a lot of question. But the challenge is to do it correctly—after you’ve been on your feet for 18 hours and this is racquet 34.

JD: Wait, how many hours? 18?

RR: Yes, there are some days we’re here 20 hours a day [smiling].

JD: So people aren’t sleeping very much?

RR: There are some days we’re not getting very much sleep. But we know what we’re capable of, we sort of gut check the tough days, and as players lose and we progress into the tournament and the draws get smaller, it eases up and we start getting smaller as a team as well.

Our team is based on a lot of regionality. The team I’ve assembled has who I feel to be the very best stringer from Argentina. When he’s in our stringing room, the majority of the South American players come in—they know him, they've had him string for them at home, for Davis Cup, you know; they want Luis to string their racquets when they’re at the tournament. We have a stringer from Japan, so all the Asian players know him and really respect his work. So we’ve got some U.S. guys, we’ve got a guy from Croatia, we’ve got a guy from France, so when the French players come in, they know Benoit. Having that familiarity gives the players a lot of confidence in our team. They know the level we’re going to string for them at.

JD: So you’re stringing all year long then?

RR: Yeah, multiple events. We string at the Australian Open in January, Miami in March, and at the U.S. Open. There’s about nine or 10 smaller events we’re at throughout Europe—they’re [ATP] 250 events or 500 events. For those the team consists of only one, two, three people. But the big three tournaments are the ones we gear up for.

JD: How do you select new stringers? If you’re an up-and-coming stringer, what’s the path you have to take?

RR: It’s not a very clear path. But we have in the past had a need to add a few stringers. And we’ve developed a training program—a boot camp, if you will. It's a two-day event, when we’re trying to push that stringer to the breaking point and maybe a little past and see how they react. We train them on ways we do things, certain knots we like to tie, and we sort of throw everything we can at them. And to date, we have about a 25 percent success rate with that, so one out of every four makes it through.

JD: So it’s like a simulation.

RR: Yes, very much so. Usually we do it a tournament. So we stick them in a back corner. They’re not stringing players' racquets, but it’s the same type of process. And they get a sense of what it’s really like. And if they can get through the two days, they have a chance of trying to make it on the team to be, say, a qualifier stringer one day. It’s a process of working your way up the ladder.

JD: So it’s competitive then.

RR: Very competitive. There are a lot of people who want on the team, but there are very few spots.

JD: So does it just come down to sheer accuracy and speed?

RR: It comes down to speed, accuracy, and quality, and how long you can do that for.

JD: So it’s almost statistical.

RR: Yes, in a way it’s very statistical. If you’re a stringer, this is the apex of the stringing world.

JD: The Major Leagues.

RR: This is the World Series of the Major Leagues. There’s nowhere else to go from here. If you can survive here, you’ll be fine anywhere on the planet.

JD: How are stringers rewarded?

RR: Every team is different. Our philosophy has been we want to compensate our stringers fairly and well for the work they do. There’s a lot of different philosophies about how you do that, and I’m not going to go into the details of it. But they do receive money for the days that they string. We take care of them as far as hotels and things like that. But we want to make it equitable. They take a tremendous sense of pride back to their home countries when they can say, “I’ve strung for the Wilson Team at the U.S. Open,” or “I’ve strung for the Luxilon Team in Miami.” And it’s not something that everyone can say. So they’re willing to meet us half way and give us their very best effort, and we want to make sure that we compensate them fairly for the job that they do, because the players—at the end of all this, the players have to be happy. And if we keep the players happy, we’re doing our job.

JD: And the players are happy?

RR: The players are very happy. They like our service. It’s accurate. It’s on time. We don’t have any issues.

JD: Do players ever disagree with you about what they receive?

RR: Occasionally. But a lot of times you can talk to them and have a meaningful and relevant conversation. And occasionally things will go awry, but we will fix them and make them happy.

JD: I see that everyone here is using Wilson stringers.

RR: Yes, the machine that I’ve invented is called Baiardo. It’s the only machine in the world that adjusts to the stringer. So if you’re stringing at a tournament for 18 or 20 hours, it’s not a good idea to be hunched over with your back. So this machine actually rises and tilts and adjusts to the human body of a stringer. And that’s one of the reasons, I believe, that we can string more accurately for a longer period of time. If you string on other machines, you have to lean over and you’re not as efficient—especially after 18 hours on Day 4.

JD: Have there been efforts to figure out the best way to position the body when stringing?

RR: There's been quite a lot. The stringing machine hadn't really changed in almost 100 years; the Baiardo was really the first one of its kind—again, it puts you in the right position ergonomically and biomechanically.

JD: What I mean is, do stringers need to be standing up to perform well?

RR: I believe so. You need to be standing up, and you need to have the racquet close to you and raised. One other thing is that when we're doing the weaving process, which is the most difficult part of stringing the racquet, we actually tilt the racquet anywhere from 5 to 15 degrees, depending on what the stringer's preference is. And that allows a couple of things. No. 1, you can see the holes better; they become illuminated as the light comes through. And No. 2, you get to see the string closer to your eyes, as far as the path it has to take. So you make fewer mistakes. If you have to hunch over the machine, then your body actually blocks a lot of the light in the most detailed part of what you’re trying to do.

JD: Where do you see string technology moving in the future?

RR: I think materials are going to play a huge part in what the next generation of strings are. If you look at the limited number of materials that are used in strings—and what materials are available on the open market—I think that going forward you’re not going to see anything radical other than some materials being used that haven’t been used before.

JD: So some sort of transfer from another industry.

RR: Yeah. A de-regulation of the military, or a way to process a material you can’t use today because, say, you can’t get it to bond with nylon. I really think racquets aren’t going to inherently change that quickly; they’re not going to become orbs, they’re not going to fold in half. The racquets are pretty much going to share today's basic configuration, of course with added technologies. But I think there’s more room for strings to change and to become something other than what they are today.

I have a question about tension and the "straightness" of cross strings after being strung. I regularly have my racquets restrung on a modern Wilson stringing machine at a local sporting goods store. However, I notice that they often pull the tension on the cross strings without adjusting them to be perfectly straight, resulting in most of the cross strings being slightly curved in one direction (usually curved down). I straighten these out either on my own or by hitting the ball. But when I have my racquets strung at my local tennis specialty shop, the cross strings are straight. I do feel a difference: When my racquets come back from the specialty pro shop—with straighter cross strings—they play tighter, but also stiffer with less "feel." So my question is: Do curved cross strings affect tension outcomes? I use a full bed of poly, with the mains 2-3 lbs tighter than crosses—usually 50 lbs. in the mains, 48/47 lbs. in the crosses. (The sports store where I usually have it strung charges half the price of the pro shop.)

That’s a tough call, Celso, trying to find an arm-friendly, medium-weight, control-oriented stick. I would look for a racquet with a more flexible construction and a thinner beam, in the order of ~21mm. Typically, thinner beams—as opposed to thicker beams with stiffer constructions—are easier on the arm and shoulder; they also tend to be less powerful.

In more concrete terms—and staying within the racquet brands you mentioned—consider demoing the Head YouTek IG Speed 300. Strung, it’s just over 11 ounces, is 3 pts. HL, and sports a 20mm beam. The Speed is pretty similar in weight and balance to the Instinct, but has a slimmer profile. Which, again, should reduce shock and increase control. (For a racquet with similar specs, but a higher swingweight, consider also the Head Radical; it, too, has a relatively thin and flexible frame.)

If you’re looking for something a tad bit heftier than the Speed—but still not as hefty as the 12+ oz. racquets you say fatigue your arm—try out the Prince EXO3 Rebel 98. Built into its flexible 22mm beam are unique string suspension inserts, which, judging by our playtesters’ experiences, soften up the hit for a smooth, control-oriented feel upon impact.

*****

I’m a pretty sweaty guy, which causes somewhat of a problem with my grip. It’s constantly slippery and at times even flies out of my hands. Do you have any advice other than the obvious? I frequently replace overgrips to little avail.—Andre W.

You’re not alone, Andre. This is a perennial problem encountered by guys with overly active sweat glands; playing during the summer and in humid climates doesn’t help, either. Of course, as you mentioned, it’s a good idea to regularly replace base and overgrips when they’re worn and are no longer effectively absorbing moisture. On this front, I’d recommend experimenting with various synthetic base grips (as opposed to leather, which doesn’t absorb moisture very well) and extra tacky overgrips. Wristbands may also help, as they prevent sweat from running down your arm and onto your grip. You may even want to consider alternating between multiple racquets when playing.

I, too, often develop somewhat sweaty hands during the course of a playing session. One anti-sweat product I’ve been pleased with is called Gorilla Gold. It’s a tacky towel that you can apply to your hands and/or grip. Check it out here.