Simon – I love that answer “I use a racket that I'm comfortable with” Need we say anymore?

Paul – “I still wish to get as much pleasure from the racket that I can” I think I can agree with that one!

I think yves has got some great reasons for changing his racket in singles. His strengths are his speed, his ability to hit with variation overhead, and his aggressive mentality. Its interesting that Sketchy has picked out the “lack” of power as a weakness that is in some way overcome by the racket. However, we could see it this way: the smash is good, but not powerful. He likes to be an attacking thinker – control is the key to winning with this style. He said that the racket gives great control – thus giving him what he wants from the point of view of the attacking thinker style. Now, coupled with the on court speed and “aggressive” style, this additional extra power could be seen as enhancing his strengths – his aggression, speed and now a little extra variation in terms of increasing the pace of the shot – it gives one extra variation to add to his playing style – a very valuable weapon indeed for someone who uses variations as their means of winning! But this variation wasn't possible before using the racket. From here, we can either conclude that the extra pace can give his aggressive game a little extra (enhancing his strengths) OR that it covers up a weakness – an inability to hit with real power. I guess this is where a difference in terminology is perhaps not helpful. Is improvement in a certain area “covering up a weakness” or “gaining overall strength”? Is it both?

The reason I ask this is that I see the same information (racket gives a bit more power) being used in two different ways. Sketchy says it covers a weakness (not as powerful without it), and Yves says it enhances his natural game (attacking) – although obviously big hitting isn't apart of Yves natural game as he said himself. Both of these hence would claim that the racket is chosen for a different reason – one covers the weaknesses, the other wants to enhance his strengths! 

Just to throw some more spanners in the works, I remember when I started playing. I concluded that I was an attacking player, with strengths in attacking with power and variation from the rearcourt, but my defense was useless. I decided that I wanted to play with a racket that aided my defense and not my attack. Was this because my defense wasn't good enough? Yes. Obviously. But did I do it with the intention of improving my defense? Yes. Obviously! But what about my attacking game? My natural game? The reason behind my choice was not that I wanted to play a defensive game, but that I knew that my aggressive game was being hindered because I felt that if anything went wrong, I didn't have good defense to fall back on. So, with rubbish defense, I was very tentative in attack, very cautious, afraid I might get it wrong and have to defend and hence lose. So, I chose a racket to cover my weaknesses, because I felt it would enhance my natural attacking game. Now, with better defense, I could really go for it when on the attack, knowing that If I had to lift, I would be ok.

How strange eh? I chose a defensive racket, to increase my attacking style of play. Now that I am better, what are my thoughts? Well, I am always working on my defense, trying to improve it. As a result, its a lot better. My racket of choice now that I have a much more complete skill set, is a racket that will increase my ability to hit with power overhead – helping my natural aggressive game.

If I played now with a lighter, and what I consider a more defensive racket, I would have to play in a more defensive way. However, when I was still improving, I felt that I NEEDED that defensive racket, to play a more aggressive game, and an aggressive racket would have made me more cautious (given my rubbish defense) and played a more defensive game. How confusing! Any thoughts?

Does the choice depend on just how weak the weakness is? Does changing racket mean you have to change styles? Does style have anything to do with it, or is it just a case of which shots it improves and which it doesn't? Interesting…

I have given examples of where weaknesses were covered with a racket to promote an opposite style, but why this wasn't appropriate later on where it was much more appropriate to enhance on court strengths. The racket was related to a certain style of play at the time, but is related to a different style of play later on for the same player.