No discussion of the ITF rules and standards for the tennis ball can be complete without discussing the hubbub surrounding the controversial introduction of a new ball at the French Open in 2011. That year the manufacturer of the balls used at that major was transitioned from Dunlap to Babolat. There was an immediate uproar from the players complaining that the new balls played significantly differently than the old ones.
Novak Djokovic described the balls as “very, very fast” and “really difficult to control.” Some piker named Roger Federer went on record as saying that they are “faster indeed” particularly when they are fresh, and “That will be an issue.” Sam Stosur observed that the balls were “a little bit harder.”
We now pause this essay for a rousing rendition of “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger” by Daft Punk, because reading those quotes in quick succession activated that ear worm for me.
… and we’re back.
When I first became aware of the multiple types of ball specifications, the subject of my “It Takes a Lot of Balls” essay a few days ago, I immediately wondered if the new Babolat ball might be an example of either a Type 1 or Type 3 ball being put into play, but I am convinced that was not the case.
The news outlets from that time are full of statements from Babolat, ITF, and French Open representatives indicating that the balls were manufactured and tested to the exact same specifications as the Dunlap balls used the previous year. That means that the ball was definitely a Type 2 ball.
There are several potential sources for the variation. First, the specifications do not require absolute values, but rather provide ranges of acceptable performance within various parameters. For example “Rebound” for a Type 2 ball dropped from 100 inches can range from 53 to 58 inches. The ball’s mass can range from 56 to 59.4 grams. Those are very perceptible differences.
Another potential source of variation would be in the materials used in the formulation of the core. There are no ITF standards for composition and the material is not tested, because there would not be a need to do so in the absence of any requirements.
In a 2016 New York Times article, Jeff Ratkovich, a senior business manager for Penn indicated that their balls conform to a “much tighter ‘spec-within-the-spec’” than what the rules require because players are sensitive to even small variations. I am speculating that most of the major manufacturers use a similar practice, because I perceive that there is a high degree of consistency within each brand and model of ball.
While Babolat was adamant in 2011 that there was no issue with the ball, by 2016 that company was publicly acknowledging that updates were made based on player feedback and that the balls had been improved. Since the original Babolat ball at the center of the controversy was approved by the ITF, this naturally leads into tomorrow’s topic: How exactly does the ITF test balls anyway?
- “New French Balls Have a Je Ne Sais Quoi,”, Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2011.
- “Which Tennis Ball is in Use? It Makes a Difference“, New York Times, Stuart Miller, September 3, 2016.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
