TENNIS.com Gear Editor Justin diFeliciantonio and his technical advisers answer your equipment questions every Monday in the Mailbag. Click here to send in a question of your own. Here is a story about Nadal's racquet weight…What does it mean? Does it make sense? "Babolat…told us that rather than focusing on the overall weight of the racquet, they have fine-tuned Nadal's racquet swingweight by seven points to make it more headheavy and provide extra punch through the air.—Howard Beale
Howard,
Nadal and company indeed chose to make only minuscule changes to the racquet's "overall weight," focusing instead on slightly altering its balance and swingweight. So where does Nadal's Babolat AeroPro GT currently stand? According to Jean-Christophe Verborg, International Sports Marketing Director at Babolat, the frame's new specifications (unstrung) are as follows:
The racquet's total mass, as you can see, has increased by three grams, a measly sum. In itself, this is not a very significant change. But when we consider where the weight was placed—read: toward the tip of the racquet—we start to see a difference, specifically a more headheavy balance and an increase in swingweight. These tweaks, in Verborg's words, should effectively give Nadal "a little bit more power" off the serve and the ground "without changing the global specifications of his racquet too much." How much more power, however, is yet to be seen.
What exactly is "swingweight"? I hear this term thrown around all the time by racquet gurus at my club, and am puzzled about what it means.—Joan
That's a good question, Joan. Swingweight—usually determined with a fancy piece of equipment called a Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center—tells us how heavy a racquet feels to swing. In short, swingweight is calculated by cobbling together two variables: (1) mass (or how much the racquet weighs) and (2) balance (or how that mass is distributed along the length of the racquet).
"Consider a rod," as Cross and Lindsey do, in Technical Tennis, "that is the same length as a racquet (say 700 mm) and that weighs 280 grams. The balance point will be in the middle of the rod, 350 mm from each end, if the rod has its weight uniformly distributed along its length. It will feel the same to swing regardless of which end you hold. Now suppose we add 20 grams so that rod weighs 300 grams. Being heavier, the rod will feel heavier to hold. We can add the extra 20 grams anywhere we like and it will still weigh 300 grams. However, the balance point and swingweight each depends in different ways on where we put the extra 20 grams, and this will affect the way it feels to swing the rod."
If, for example, we place that 20 grams at the midpoint, the rod will remain evenly balanced, and the swingweight will increase only slightly—simply because of the 20 grams of added weight. But on the other hand, if we place that 20 grams opposite the end of the handle, the rod's balance will shift toward the tip—the rod effectively becomes "headheavy"—and the swingweight will increase significantly. Though both rods weigh the same, their balances are different; the second feels heavier to swing and thus has a higher swingweight.
An increase in swingweight of 6-8 points translates to a ~3 gram increase at the tip of the racquet. Since that could be less than the difference between one set of strings and another, and it is literally less than the weight of most string dampeners, this is truly a tempest in a teapot. Why is Rafa making such a fuss about this? And talking about how hasn't gotten to practice enough with it? And how it'll get worse before it gets better but it'll be worth it?—d
It's true, d, that a three gram difference, at least in a laboratory setting, has an extremely small effect on a racquet's performance. But even though three grams, for all practical purposes, does not change much in the way of racquet to ball contact, that added weight does alter how the racquet feels in hands of an experienced player. Back at last year's U.S. Open, Tom Perrotta wrote a very interesting piece for the Wall Street Journal, in which he tried to determine how attuned long-time pro Michael Russell was to small changes in his equipment. What he found was surprisingly impressive: Russell, Perrotta wrote, "is so familiar with his racquets he's able to register a weight difference as small as one gram, or about four-hundredths of an ounce." Four-hundredths of an ounce! This is truly negligible. But Russell can feel it, and it has to feel right; if it doesn't, his play suffers. "Racquet performance," as Cross and Lindsey perceptively note, "is as much psychology as reality."
According to sources, Rafael Nadal has decided to add weight to his racquet, the Babolat AeroPro Drive GT. In its stock iteration, the AeroPro Drive is 11.3 ounces (strung) and balanced 4 points head-light. Reportedly, Nadal is modifying his equipment with hopes of adding more speed to his serve.
"I had to make the change even if I am not better in the beginning," Nadal told reporters. "We had to make the decision so that it will be better in the future. Probably that hurts my game a little bit to begin with. Is that a risk at the beginning of the season—yes. But it was still the right moment, to change. If not now, then when?"
It is not yet clear how much extra heft has been added to the frame. (Remember: How mass is distributed through a racquet, whether toward the tip or butt, directly affects its balance point.) Still, the question naturally arises: What are the consequences of a heavier racquet for Nadal's game?
First, let's briefly speak to how a racquet's mass affects its playability. All other things being equal, heavier racquets are more powerful. As physicists Rod Cross and Crawford Lindsey, in Technical Tennis, write, "If a heavy and a light racquet are each swung at the same speed, the ball will come off the heavy racquet faster because the heavy racquet has more momentum and more energy that it can transfer to the ball, and it will lose less energy."
The caveat, of course, is that a player may not be able to swing a heavy racquet as fast as a light racquet. Heavy racquets are relatively more difficult to accelerate, not to mention maneuver; and so, for a recreational player in average physical condition, a heavy racquet may not in fact increase speed of shot. (Though they may, as Cross and Lindsey note, provide a bit more control, as "they don't need to be swung as fast to achieve the same ball speed.")
Tour players, on the other hand, are exceptionally fit and technically accomplished; Nadal, as we all know, is one of the fittest and accomplished of them all. So, with a heavier racquet, will Nadal be able to maintain his racquet-head acceleration through the ball? Will a heavier racquet give Nadal more power—and, by extension, more free points on his serve?
I would answer a tentative yes, though to what extent is far from clear. (I'll try to find out more about Nadal's racquet tinkering, and will report back if and when I do.) In the meanwhile, we'll just have to watch and see.
*****
UPDATE
—In a press conference at the Qatar Exxonmobile Open this past Monday, Nadal clarified, as a commenter below noted, that the weight was added to the top of the racquet—a strategy for increasing service speed: "...I trying to play with a little bit heavier racquet and on the top of the racquet to get a little bit more power...I try to play with a little bit heavier than what this racquet is today, but we take the position that we have to change the racquet or we try to have to change the racquet. Not the racquet, only the weight, no?"
—Many of the comments below have expressed concern that the increase in racquet mass will negatively affect Nadal's sore shoulder. But it may in fact be that players using heavier racquets are less likely to suffer arm injuries. Consider the following passage from Cross and Lindsey in Technical Tennis:
"In theory, a heavier racquet should help to reduce arm injuries. There is anecdotal evidence from veteran coaches that arm and shoulder injuries increased when heavy, wood racquets were replaced with modern, light racquets at the end of the 1970s. When you strike a ball coming towards you, the ball tends to push the racquet head backward as your arm swings forward. Alternatively, the head slows down while your hand is still accelerating. Light racquets get pushed backward more than heavy racquets. A sudden twist of the arm or the wrist, repeated many times, can result in tennis elbow and other injuries. The problem is magnified by the fact that light racquets need to be swung faster to pack the same punch as heavy racquets, so the impact shock is likely to be greater, especially if you miss-hit the ball near the tip of the racquet or near one edge."
We’ve all had those moments on court—haven’t we?—when, struggling to learn a new shot or perhaps find our groove, we admonish ourselves: “You’re thinking too much. Just hit it like this!” If only we could easily put into practice Steffi Graf's counsel in Andre Agassi's autobiography Open: “Stop thinking, she says. Feeling is the thing…[I]t’s one thing not to think, but you can’t then decide to feel. You can’t try to feel. You have to let yourself feel.”
To play by feel: A useful truism, indeed, for a skilled player with sound mechanics. But for those of us with less than professional form, a rejoinder naturally arises: How can I play by feel if I’ve never experienced what it should feel like?
For years, from middle school through college, I struggled with my slice backhand. I wanted so badly for the ball to cut through the air straight and true—to skid low through the court. But however hard I tried, my slice flew like a creampuff. In crucial match situations especially, it'd float lethargically across the net and bounce up all nice and juicy, giving my opponents ample time to set up and cream it.
I ran the gamut of professional opinion. "Lay your wrist back," my father/coach reminded me. "Keep your arm straight," "Make a v with your wrist," "Swing around your body,” other pros prescribed. Clearly, I had no shortage of knowledge about how to hit a slice. But I could never translate those verbal cues into physical movement. I could never achieve that precious aha! feeling toward which I could work to reproduce consistently through practice. It just never felt right.
That is, until about a year ago, when I got my hands on the Racket Bracket: a fascinating little contraption which—by immobilizing the wrist—reprograms muscle memory and thus improves footwork and stroke biomechanics.
Why immobilize the wrist for better technique? As Dr. Keith Coleman, a USPTA teaching pro and certified psychologist, explains, “The wrist, in concert with your brain, will flex and make numerous adjustments to hit the tennis ball at multiple contact points, thus exponentially increasing your inconsistency. It also, inadvertently, ‘trains’ your body not to prepare for the ball appropriately and your feet not to get into the proper position for consistent ball striking (the bane of most players from beginners to pros).”
Technical details aside, my results using the Racket Bracket were and continue to be largely positive. With the Racket Bracket’s help, I have finally been able to experience the proper “feel” for my slice. Through weekly sessions with the R.B., and along with the help of a certified pro (my father), those slices are now gliding low and true.
A few other experiential notes: The device improved the form and footwork of my volleys, as well as that of my one-handed backhand—again, by providing a slightly different but ultimately more effective feel for the technique. But it did not prove constructive for my semi-western forehand. As the R.B. makers also note, it's not too useful for those looking to improve upon forehands with modern grips. (And obviously, it won't do much for your serve.) Although it could be a plus for beginners or for those with more traditional forehand grips—say, from continental to eastern.
Your experiences with the Racket Bracket, of course, may be very different. (And please let me know in the comments below.) But I’d encourage those of you with aspirations for improvement this New Year to give it a try. It could help you feel what you’ve been looking for.
*****
UPDATE
Some practical considerations, in response to your questions:
—The Racket Bracket costs $39.99 + shipping, and can be bought on the manufacturer's website at tennisracketbracket.com. The website also features several videos demonstrating how the R.B. can be used, along with proper instruction, to improve your technique.
—Note that the Racket Bracket is a training aid; it is meant to be used practicing one stroke/grip at a time, not while playing points. "Locking in" a new grip does take a few seconds, but overall it is not too difficult to use. (The R.B. comes with several rubber pieces which adjust to different grip sizes, so that the "hoop" doesn't slip from the grip.)
—And my name, well, what can I say? I'm a Happy Anthony.
Hello, my name is Justin, and I’m excited to be TENNIS.com’s new Gear Editor. (Richard Pagliaro, come next year, will return to writing about his first love: the pro game.) I grew up in a tennis family—my father is a career tennis professional—and studied English at Swarthmore College, a small school in the suburbs of Philadelphia. I also played tennis there on the college team.
So, as fitting for an introduction, how about a story?
*****
I was in high school when I first experienced pro tennis in-person. One Friday in March, my Dad and I packed sandwiches, a couple extra shirts, and proceeded to drive 600 miles to Miami for a day and change at what was then known as the NASDAQ-100 Open. It was 2005—the year Roger Federer trailed Rafael Nadal by two sets in the final and, teetering on the edge of defeat, clawed his way back for the victory.
But that wouldn’t be until the following Sunday. The morning we arrived at Crandon Park—only 10 a.m. but already in the throes of dazed perspiration—the tournament was still buzzing with early-round frenzy. Those first hours passed by in a blur: reddened, middle-aged men with exotic headgear and sweat towels; bevisored women in skittle-colored outfits; bands of wide-eyed 12-year-olds, felt pens and tennis balls in hand, on the prowl for autographs; Nadal and entourage driving phalanx-like through the jostling throng; Tim Henman skittering deftly to the net; Gael Monfils limping melodramatically to the line and then cracking an ace; that sense of “being there.” So much to see, too little time, etc.
Yet memory sharpens when I recollect that afternoon’s marquee match: Federer vs. Olivier Rochus. Up in the nose-bleeds initially, we soon snuck down and claimed some decent seats in the mezzanine, ending up about yay close. The match was powerful to behold, but not because of any competitive suspense. No, this contest was but a formality, its outcome never in doubt. So I’m overstating a bit. Still, this was 2005, amid the zenithal years of Federer’s supremacy. His few losses in the mid-aughties were aberrations—even Federer’s first defeat to Nadal at a major, an ominous one indeed, in the semis at Roland Garros ‘05.
Maybe this wasn’t the case for older generations of fans who’d watched earlier champions rise (and fall), but it certainly was for my adolescent tennis friends and me. We were animated by a narcotizing, pro-Federer energy. It ran rampant through the junior ranks, inspiring some games but ruining most others. I saw the best players of the local pond slow their irregular but quick footwork (in self-delusional fluidity) and exchange their consistent two-handed backhands for erratic one-handers (under the pretense that it “gave you more reach”).
The Fed emitted an invulnerable glow; this was the context. And so, I didn’t find it odd at all when Rochus began the first rally of the match, rather desperately, with a rushed and poorly-executed drop shot. It was in keeping with the spectatorial thinking of the time, the throw-the-kitchen-sink-at-Fed strategy—of course still hopeless, but better, we all thought, than rallying with him and getting drummed.
Federer started with an easy hold and, as the match progressed, I got lost in the focused intensity that attends radical interest. Little thinking or internal dialogue, just staring, numb, at Federer’s play: his effortlessly light footwork; his eyes mesmerized by the ball’s flight; the titillating, liquid flourishes of his form. Then suddenly, Federer hit one of those wicked, left-to-right backhand passes. It all happened so fast: Rochus approaching the net, Fed running to his left, an emphatic flick of the arm, the ball practically turning over sideways as it passed over the net, Rochus stumbling into the ground as it whirled ridiculously out of reach, the stadium crowd erupting—gatdamn!
After that spectacular moment and throughout the rest of the match, I remember being struck, one after the other, by two feelings.
The first came on abruptly, a giddy sense of joy and excitement. There I was, watching a body move with hitherto unseen power and grace. (Federer didn’t look like this on TV.) There was a sense of untapped human potential—of unforeseen gifts that I could perhaps access. If only I could somehow plumb the depths of my own intrinsic abilities, I thought, perhaps I could move and play with power and grace, too. Federer’s play was instructive. It gave hope for personal improvement.
But as that initial pleasure subsided, a second insidious feeling crept up inside me: an intensely sad conviction that I’d never be able to play like that. Of all of us who love playing this game, surely I’m not the only one who’s felt this? In this sense, Federer’s play was not so much self-edifying as psychically destructive—a potent dose of inadequacy. He was gifted, and I was not. I could only resign myself to praise and deify him.
I continue to vacillate back and forth through these antithetical states when I reflect upon Federer’s and my own game, and have yet to figure a solution. I suspect, though, that we can reach some satisfaction by working toward and building upon our own small on-court achievements, those short moments of personal improvement and repose.
It’s in this spirit that I hope to serve as your Gear Editor—by making aware to you the equipment, techniques, and tools which can, in however small a way, help us release those self-imposed limits on our own potential, whatever they (and it) may be.
Happy holidays. Let’s try to surprise ourselves this New Year.
TENNIS.com Gear Editor Justin diFeliciantonio and his technical advisers answer your equipment questions every Monday in the Mailbag. Click here to send in a question of your own.
I live up north and love to play year-round, but unfortunately I don’t have access to indoor facilities. So during the winter, my buddies and I throw on coats and gloves and head out to the courts at the local park. It feels fine playing on more temperate days, but when the temperature drops below about 50°, it feels like I’m hitting a rock. What can I do to feel the ball in cold weather?—Andrew
It’s true, Andrew, that as temperatures approach freezing, frames and strings stiffen, and balls lose their pliancy and bounce. All together, this can make for a pretty harsh, “rock-like” feel upon contact. While changes to equipment cannot make your racquet and ball—as well as your arm—feel and play like it will on a balmy spring day, there are a few remedies that may help soften the blow.
First and foremost, make sure you’re using a top-of-the-line, regular-duty felt tennis ball—like the Wilson US Open or the USPTA ProPenn. Albeit more expensive, high-quality balls are manufactured more carefully and with higher quality materials; as a result, they produce a livelier, more responsive bounce, and will play better than a “bargain ball” in colder weather.
In terms of string, switch to a more pliable, thinner-gauged natural gut or synthetic multifilament string—like Babolat VSTeam or Head FiberGel. And consider stringing it at the lower end of your racquet’s recommended tension range. As racquet guru John Swetka of Swetka’s Tennis Shop in Mountain View, CA explains, “This will allow the strings to deform more and return more energy back into the ball,” creating a more pliant feel in frigid conditions.
And if you’re really willing to experiment, you could try playing with a more flexible racquet. This, too, should help produce a softer feel at impact. Note, however, that racquets with softer beams are typically engineered for more advanced players with longer swings.
Finally, work with a qualified tennis professional or racquet technician. They can be an invaluable asset as you search for the racquet and string combination that’s best for you, your game, and the conditions in which you play.
I’m a beginner 3.0 player. I want to improve my strokes, but I can’t afford lessons with a pro right now. What are some simple, down-to-earth tools I can use to get better?—Anonymous
How about trying a mirror?
As vain as it may sound, swinging in front of a pane of glass can be an innovative—and cost-effective—way to increase awareness of how your body moves when you swing, allowing you to improve your form by feel.
Consider the following story about how Jack improved his self-described “terrible” backhand, from Timothy Gallwey’s classic book The Inner Game of Tennis:
“I asked Jack to take a few swings on the patio where we were standing. His backswing started back very low, but then, sure enough, just before swinging forward it lifted to the level of his shoulder and swung down into the imagined ball…‘Your backhand is all right,’ I said reassuringly. ‘It’s just going through some changes. Why don’t you take a closer look at it.’ We walked over to a large windowpane and there I asked him to swing again while watching his reflection. He did so, again taking his characteristic hitch at the back of his swing, but this time he was astounded. ‘Hey, I really do take my racquet back high! It goes up above my shoulder!’ … After lunch I threw Jack a few balls and he was able to remember how the stroke felt and to repeat the action. This time he just felt where his racket was going, letting his sense of feel replace the visual image offered by the mirror. It was a new experience for him. Soon he was consistently hitting topspin backhands into the court with an effortlessness that made it appear this was his natural swing.”
And of course, there’s no more reliable a partner than the wall:
There was a time when tennis bags looked as blandly utilitarian as sleeping bags, but traditional carry-alls aren't the only means for transporting your racquets anymore.
If you're: A woman who values fashion as well as functionality; seeking a unique holiday gift for your significant other; a commuter who squeezes in a couple of sets during a busy workday; or an urban multitasker who prefers a compact backpack as you navigate the masses swarming subway cars, Wilson has created a series of sleek, stylish bags that can comfortably carry racquets, cosmetics and gear.
The Wilson Milan Backpack (MSRP: $95) is a combination tennis backpack and cosmetic carry-all that takes its design cues from European travel bags. It's a stylistic departure for the brand whose trademark W logo has long been a staple of its conventional racquet bags.
The bag measures 17.25” x 9.5” x 13.5”. A large front compartment can carry two oversized racquets, with locked zippers to keep your sticks secure. A large main compartment can house your clothes and comes with organizing compartments and a key ring clip. The front pocket carries a matching cosmetic case to help you freshen up after the match. Versatility extends to the back of the backpack: The multi-function strap enables users to wear it as a backpack or sling.
For players who prefer to carry, rather than wear, their bags, Wilson has created a Milan Tote, which offers some of the same features of the backpack—front compartment for housing racquets, a main compartment with organizing pockets and a key ring clip and a separate cosmetics case—in a tote version.
A slightly larger option offering distinctive detailing is the Trento Backpack (MSRP: $95). The 20” x 10.25” x 13” bag features a larger main compartment containing organizing pockets and a key ring clip. The rear racquet compartment houses two over sized racquets, and like the Milan backpack it keeps your sticks safe with locked zippers.
The large front pocket comes with a matching cosmetic case designed to fit the front flap perfectly, and available side pockets can carry sweatbands, headbands and grips. A cool detail of this backpack is the inclusion of a small lined pocket to protect sunglasses, watches, cell phones or iPods with a functional clip attached to hang the bag.
A Trento tote version of the backpack measures 22” x 9” x 14.25” with a removable, adjustable shoulder strap.
Andy Murray will run with a revamped accomplice as he adds some flash to his footwork at this week's ATP World Tour Finals in London.
The third-ranked Scot will bring a stripe show to the O2 Arena's blue court as he debuts the new adidas Barricade 7 shoe, which will hit retail stores on Monday. Murray will wear the white/black/red version of the new streamlined shoe, which weighs about 15.3 oz.—1.06 ounces less than its predecessor. The men's Barricade (MSRP: $140) also comes in white/iron/black, with a white/red/blue version set for January release and a black/red version scheduled for launch next April.
The women's Barricade 7 (MSRP: $130) will debut in white/red/metallic silver, with a white/metallic silver/red model released on January 1, followed by a black/metallic silver/red version set for release next April. Andrea Petkovic will wear the women's Barricade 7 starting in Australia in January. The women's Barricade 7 weighs 10.4 oz., and adidas says it offers a softer forefoot flex thanks to the use of more malleable material in the forefoot. Both men's and women's shoes are backed by a six-month outsole limited durability guarantee.
The seamless synthetic upper is one place where the shoe seems to have shed some weight. The trademark stability claws on the sides of the shoe are designed to help players maintain balance when making quick lateral cuts and sudden changes of direction.
The shoe equivalent of a special effects-laden film franchise that continues to crank out successful sequels at the box office, adidas' Barricade has a loyal following. So what's the most dramatic difference in this latest edition? The lighter weight. It's the most marked characteristic of this shoe, though male weartesters tell us a wider toe box and wider-ranging flex point are discernible enhancements over the 2011 model, which retailed for $120. The Barricade 7 is not nearly as stiff as some of its predecessors, and as a result long-time wearers may well notice a quicker break-in time.
Loyal Barricade-user Murray can infiltrate opponent's minds with his anticipation, agility and quick court coverage that seems to shrink court space to the size of a parking space. Adidas says it applied the feedback it received from Murray and 30 other elite endorsers in designing the new shoe.
"Over a period of more than 18 months we tested the shoe with more than 30 professional and semi-professional players," says Graham Williamson, adidas vice president of business unit tennis. "Our product testing department spent roughly 2,500 hours with athletes to make sure the shoe is the best Barricade ever. When we showed the final samples to our players they were reluctant to give them back and wanted to play in them immediately."
We will post a complete review of the new Barricade 7 after our weartesters have spent time playing and practicing in the shoe, so stay tuned for more.
Known for his fearless forehands, James Blake now concedes he once felt a fear of flying.
It wasn't vertigo, but a bag check that sometimes sent shivers down his spine. Once down to four racquets without a ready replacement, Blake spent some time stressing the prospect of lost luggage.
"If I flew on a smaller plane and they made you check your racquets at the gate, I'd get pretty nervous about the racquets getting there," says Blake.
The American, who used Dunlop during his peak seasons, spent years looking for a suitable replacement and finally found it in the new Donnay Pro One. The 97-square inch racquet will go on sale in early December with a 16 x 19 string pattern, but Blake has been playing with a customized version much of the year.
Blake learned to play tennis at the Harlem Tennis Center and returns to New York City to host his seventh annual Serving For A Cure charity concert event at Jazz at Lincoln Center on November 28. Actor Justin Long will emcee the event, which features a musical performance by Brett Dennen, a cocktail hour with athletes and celebrities, a fast-serve contest and an auction with items including a Venus Williams-autographed racquet and Dave Matthews Band tickets. The event supports the Thomas Blake Sr. Memorial Research Fund, which Blake established to support cancer research at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer. All proceeds from the event benefit the fund, named in honor of Blake’s father, who died of gastric cancer in 2004.
“It makes it a lot more meaningful for me to have it in New York because I have so many family and friends here,” says Blake, whose Foundation has raised more than $2 million for the cause. “A lot of people who knew my father can attend and that means a lot seeing so many people are still helping out, still thinking of him and still speaking his name seven years later. It's emotional: I remember him so fondly and have so many great memories of him and to be in that room and hear other people talk about my father and their fathers as well puts a smile on your face.”
For more information and to order tickets to Serving For A Cure, visit www.jamesblakefoundation.com or call (305) 461-9296. We caught up with Blake to chat about his gear, game and charity.
TENNIS.com: Why did you select Donnay? What was the process of customizing this racquet?
James Blake: I'd been looking for a new racquet probably about two years. I was trying pretty much everything out there and and couldn't find a racquet. Since Donnay had been out of the racquet business for a while, it wasn't one of my first thoughts. They let me try a few racquets. I was very happy right away and they were also great about making some little tweaks to the racquet to customize it the way I wanted so that I felt comfortable out on the court. There really isn't a huge difference between a lot of the top players so a little bit of a bad feeling can really affect your game negatively. I felt comfortable almost immediately with Donnay.
TENNIS.com: What are the specs of the Donnay you use?
James Blake: It's 357 grams unstrung; that's the weight I've been using for some time. When I started out on tour, I added weight very slowly, because if you do it too quickly it can be dangerous to your shoulder and elbow. When I was about 22, I would add about two grams at a time and play with that for a week or two and then add two more grams, and gradually it became a process of adding weight. Eventually, I got to the point where I felt, 'If I add anymore I'm not going to be able to get the racquet through the hitting zone quick enough.' I use Luxilon Big Banger (strings), which I've used for most of my career because I love the way it feels.
TENNIS.com: You had a big win against Juan Martin del Potro in Stockholm last month. What did that do for you confidence and how can you build on that going into 2012?
James Blake: That really did help me because del Potro is one of the best players in the world, so that was a great feeling. The only difference is that I've been healthy. My knees felt good though toward the end of the fall the pounding started to take a toll again. I felt really good about it and the direction I'm going. I pulled out of Paris to give my knees some rest, but I feel really good about the fact I know I can play that well again. The difference between the top guys and guys ranked a little lower is consistency. I think if I can stay healthy that's gonna be the difference, because I still have the ability to play well—it's just not all the time: I don't have that confidence to do it day in and day out. If I stay healthy and I'm able to train the way I was training toward the end of this summer, then I think the confidence will come back.
TENNIS.com: You've come back from serious injuries in the past—how do those comebacks help now, or does each comeback present its own challenges?
James Blake: Each one is different especially considering how unique my injuries were. Having a sickness where you don't know if you're going to play again and having a broken neck aren't usually the normal injuries for tennis. This one, I have patellar tendinitis, is more common to tennis. But they're each different because they came at different times in your career. When I got injured in '04, I'd had a pretty good career, but I hadn't had the success like getting to number four in the world, reaching the finals of the year-end championships. When you're coming back at 31 years old you understand in no sense of the word are you in the middle of your career—you're at the back end of your career. So you're trying to get as much as you can out of it and it changes your options: If I were to have patellar tendinitis when I was 22, I'd be looking at the possibility of surgery that might keep me out for six months, but surgeries that are going to keep me out six months to a year are not plausible at this point.
TENNIS.com: You played Roger Federer in the 2006 Tennis Masters Cup Shanghai final and you played Novak Djokovic in March. How do you compare the level of Federer in '06 to Djokovic's level now?
James Blake: They've both had exceptional seasons. In my book, right now Roger has to go down as the greatest of all time. Obviously Djokovic is still in the early stages of his dominance. If he can continue it, he can possibly give Roger a run, but right now, in my mind, Roger is the greatest of all time. That '06 Masters Cup final was the best I was playing; I beat Rafa, Nalbandian and Davydenko, and at that time I felt when I was playing my best I could beat anyone in the world. I went into that final and Roger showed me he had a whole other gear. That's one of the few times in my career where I've gone out on the court and played my best and didn't stand a chance of beating Roger that day.
TENNIS.com: How do you assess Donald Young and Ryan Harrison? What's their potential?
James Blake: I think Donald's got a ton of talent and it sometimes takes guys like that a little while to figure how to play because they have so many options. He's doing a great job; the only thing I would try to help him with is with his training and playing with guys who are going to beat him more consistently. Getting him down at Saddlebrook with me or down with Andy [Roddick] in Austin or somewhere he can practice with top level guys consistently. I think that makes a big difference, because you learn so much from playing with guys that you need to play your absolute best against to beat. [John] Isner's on the right track; he's already been Top 20 and I think he has a chance to be in the Top 10 and really wreak havoc in Grand Slams, because no one wants to play a guy that serves the way he does and can be as aggressive as he wants on the return game, because he's so comfortable holding serve. Harrison is a good player; he's got the best attitude and as a result he's gonna get the most out of his talent. He's willing to work, he's curious to learn, he's got real fight in him so he's going to keep improving.
