Tennis balls: pressures, weights and speeds

In theory, a tennis ball is an essential, but simple piece of tennis equipment. There are different lines and makes, but you know that all of the main brands are going to be of a good enough quality.

But for something so small, at just 6.7cm, a tennis ball is often far from simple. With variations in weight, felt, pressure and rubber, no two lines of ball are ever the same.

This, of course, isn't something exclusive to tennis. The unpredictable swerve, and subsequent goalkeeping blunders, caused by the adidas Jabulani ball in the 2010 football world cub was barely off the back pages, while the swinging Tiflex cricket balls, used in the County Championship second division last season, hasn't gone down too well with some batsmen. But in tennis, a sport in which getting a good feel of ball on racket is extremely important, there is certainly a credible case for a more standardised ball.

For the casual player it's not necessarily a big deal - whatever tennis balls they can get hold of they will make the most of. But for the more serious, competitive player, the disparity from ball to ball can sometimes be a frustrating experience.

With varying degrees of aerodynamics, some balls will fly through the air while others arrive noticeably slower. With precision and timing so important, even the smallest of changes can be the difference between a ball landing perfectly on the line, and flying several feet beyond the baseline. Different weights of ball can have an impact on the speed through the court, while two balls with an identical bounce is not a common sight. Even the ATP and WTA will use different balls depending on sponsors, so imagine the mix and match present on the club scene.

The major disadvantage is that it's hard for tennis players to have any continuity and consistency. But you could also argue that this is the main plus point. Playing with different balls can, potentially, give a player more experience in different conditions and situations. A big part of tennis is being able to thing, adjust and adapt, so surely there's an equally strong argument for actively trying to practice with a wide range of tennis balls in order to prepare yourself for the challenges a competitive tennis match throws up at you.

With the increasing popularity of pressureless balls for training, and the colour coded 1-2-3 balls for young juniors, the variety is, if anything, continuing to increase. Both sides have a solid argument, but no matter what you're opinion, if you're a serious tennis player then it's time to start getting used to the quirks of different balls - because they're not going away anytime soon!

Can the ATP schedule be changed?

Despite the rumblings about possible player strikes, meetings and the like since the problem riddled 2011 US open, this weeks Shanghai Masters is pressing on as normal. Unfortunately two of the worlds top four players, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, have played no part due to injury.

As a result, the ongoing debate about the men's tennis schedule has not gone away. Some continue to say the off season is far too short, just over a month from the end of the ATP finals to the new season, while others point out that only 12 tournaments or compulsory and a maximum of 18 tournaments count towards the rankings. In theory, a player could get away with playing just 12 tournaments a year, yet many choose to play more than 18.

But if the calendar was to be restructured, there are definitely ways it could be done.

The first thing that jumps out to me is that four of the nine Masters Series tournaments are in North America. The US open series (Cincinnati and Toronto/Montreal) makes perfect sense - but is there a need for both Miami and Indian Wells right before the clay court season? If any tournaments feel out of place I'd say it's these two. At least one could go, or they could perhaps alternate every other year like Toronto and Montreal. One could potentially be downgraded to a 500, and slot into the pre US Open schedule. Sure, there'd be less top players, but you could also argue that interest in tennis would be higher around the time of the Open.

Another option would be to push back the Australian Open a little bit, perhaps by 3 or 4 weeks, and place the Asian swing at the start of the season. The Shanghai Masters already boasts an extravagant retractable roof, so it could potentially be turned into an indoor hard tournament. Other Asian tournaments, such as Bangkok, would have an ideal climate in January so wouldn't need to be changed at all. As a result, everything after the US open could move forward slightly, and with a little restructuring of a few 250 and 500 tournaments, perhaps incorporating the South American clay court swing with the regular clay court season, there would definitely be potential for an earlier finish and perhaps a slightly later start.

The later start could potentially be sacrificed by moving the first round of the Davis Cup to the very start of the season. Most players will be fresh, and will only play a maximum of three matches in a Davis cup tie, it would be a great, entertaining way of getting warmed up for the long season ahead.

These solutions aren't perfect, and may or may not be better than the current schedule. But if something is to be changed, they are perhaps the most viable options in a calendar with little room for maneuver.