Over the past 12 months, I’ve been working with biomechanics researcher Dr Nick Busuttil to better understand one simple question…

Does the Functional Tennis Saber actually improve your game?

In this episode, we dive into the findings from that research and what really happens when players train with a constraint racket.

We discuss how the Saber influences stroke mechanics, why players may initially feel less accurate, and how that “useful struggle” can actually help build better timing, contact awareness and more consistent strokes over time.

Nick also explains why tools like the Saber can promote adaptability in your game, act as a circuit breaker in training, and how coaches and players can use it effectively in practice and warm ups.

If you’ve ever wondered whether training aids actually work or if they’re just gimmicks, this episode will give you a clear, science backed perspective.

You can download the full research report here.

And if you have any questions after listening, feel free to reach out to me on Instagram here or you can email me here.

I hope you enjoy the episode.

Fabio

Foreign.

Welcome to the Functional Tennis Podcast.

I'm your host Fabio Molli and I bring you insights and lessons from players, coaches, parents and experts who are ingrained in the world of high level tennis. What if struggling in practice was actually the fastest way to improve your tennis?

What if using a smaller hitting surface could change the way your brain, body and time work together on court?

Today's episode explores the science behind constraint training and why tools like our functional tennis saber can act as a circuit breaker in a player's development. My guest is biomechanics researcher Dr. Nick Busetil.

Nick carried out a detailed scientific study specifically on the saber to better understand how it influences stroke mechanics, accuracy and motor learning.

It's not about gimmicks, this is about understanding why a multi purpose training tool can temporarily disrupt performance, yet ultimately promote adaptability, improve contact awareness and help players develop better movement solutions over time.

We discuss what the research actually found, why players may initially feel less accurate, and how this useful struggle can play a powerful role in building more consistent strokes and smarter warm up routines.

If you're a coach, player or parent who wants to understand the real science behind skill development tennis, this episode will give you a fresh perspective and better insight.

You can download the full research report in the show notes and as always, if you have any questions after listening, feel free to reach out to me directly on Instagram at Functional Tennis. Here is my conversation with Dr. Nick Busetil. Hi Nick, welcome to the functional Tennis podcast. How are you?

Yeah, good yourself Fabio, I really really appreciate you having me on as well.

Yeah, no, thank you for the research work you carried out in the sabre. Excited to share some of the results here today and to see what you found there the initial benefits of the saber from this initial research.

So maybe you can start off Nick by telling us a little bit about your background and the work you normal do with high level athletes.

Yeah, more than happy to do that.

So my background is in coaching science, so I've been a career researcher so far and specifically for the idea of development of biomechanics and learning design through tennis.

So a lot of my early research is about something to understand what is the best way to develop backend biomechanics and specifically also what different what are the differences between positions and then along my research journey as it evolves I was like my early research work with an honours then going through my PhD which was about coaching science and specifically understanding the efficacy of using training tools for skill development. So a big focus of that really comes down to is how do these training tools affect people's swing mechanics and biomechanics?

But then also what are the implementation strategies for the idea of skill development both in the short term and also the long term.

So my research background is a really big focus on how to try to improve the learning experience for people and again through the use of cool technology that we get exposed to in biomechanics.

Then also really trying to apply the best development strategies or learning strategies for athletes or just people who want to develop skill in a general sense from an elite level perspective.

So the work that I do is this consultancy on the professional tour that comes down to I guess on a needs basis of whether there's an injury related issue on the professional tour.

So sometimes some players will come to get some services on understanding why there's certain pain that is going on for some of the shots might be in relation to the forehand on their back end.

And then through different methods I end up looking at different ways to help analyze, give them a different idea on where some of this pain is probably coming from. And the other part of that is about effective practice design. So a large component of what the players go through is not a lot of time on the tour.

So if there's certain behavior traits that want to be developed and there may be some technical adjustments that have come along with that as well, I provide strategies and training plans on a busy or hectic schedule that it comes for professional players and try and get them to develop these particular characteristics.

So been very fortunate with some of the individuals I've been able to work with, having done work with Felix Lager Les for a small period of time and other players from data driven sports analytics as well as. So that's the gist the background. I'm definitely a multi sport mogul as well.

So I've been very fortunate to have done collaborative work in my old institution which was Latrobe University, a collaborative research projects with the Boston Red Sox and also the New York Yankees as well.

So that's a big model of the work that I've done in the elite four sector which has been a certain focus of individual consultancy, but then also to do with collaborative research projects as well.

Oh, that's great Nick. So you've done a lot and from a scientific point of view where you're coming from. And I know you're, you're a tennis coach as well, aren't you?

Yes. Yeah, yeah. So my, my early journey was as a tennis coach. So through the Tennis Australia coaching system.

I do am now to the point where I'm doing some form of coach education as well. Also coming to do special specialist workshops too for the idea of Level 1 and Level 2 development in the plays and that system.

I've been fortunate to be part of some really cool coaching teams too.

Been in the high school or the school system a lot more when it comes to coaching side of things. But then having along the way as being a coach as well, a big thing that was really important to me is trying to be that pracademic.

So as I was going through my studies as well, doing a bunch of coaching as we do in Australia as well.

But I've always wanted to be that blend on trying to bring the evidence or the science of tennis to what happens in the practical world of coaching, which can be very dynamic, very chaotic and very fast moving as well. So trying to bring the science up to speed with what's going on in practice.

And are you physio as well?

No, no. So I'm not a physio that side of things, but I definitely get asked that question a lot because of the background in it's on Google.

You're a physio.

I don't know where that came from.

It could be another nick, but I saw a company, I was surprised too. I didn't know that, but I'll show you the search later. Maybe I went to deep on the searches, but no.

So from your scientific point of view and your research and you being, you know, working as a coach also and doing coach education, why is it important to research training aids rather than just rely on a coach's opinion?

Yeah, that's actually a really brilliant question and that was probably one of the first questions I had when I did my PhD as well.

Because essentially there's a bunch of products, a lot of commercial products and the sabering as well that is available on the actual coaching circle or coaching and all these training aids, all these training tools will claim or they will say this is how it helps you best. So saber specifically it's how we improve the sweet spot.

There's other tools that are out there as well which are claimed to improve the forehand speed or help to improve the gripping technique and develop all those different areas. But when I first went down this route of training aids and skill acquisition development, there essentially there's no research on any tool.

And if you want to go into other like club sports, thinking golf, thinking field hockey, before any of the work that I started, there was only three papers that actually covered this. That was up until the early, sorry, the late 70s.

So there's, there was a big mismatch between what's commercially available for products and to what's the actual evidence on using these tools.

And another big thing related to that as well just comes down to the difference between validation of technology and validation of training tools versus the efficacy of training tools and technology. So there's really a big difference when it comes to that.

And validation is understanding if it works and then the efficacy is how it works, when does it work best.

So there's a need to have that real mixture of opinion or a qualitative lived experience of using these training tools and what other coaches got to take that information. That is data in itself, just a different type of data, then pairing that up with actually looking at how these tools work in pressured environments.

So really trying to understand does a technique by using this tool hold up in the same scenario if you were to add a slightly different context?

So hitting a forehand down the line versus cross court, some training tools might be more effective just for hitting down the line and actually impede on cross court. So really trying to understand the efficacy of using these training tools is really, really important because there's the context that.

There's the context that matters and where it will work the best as well.

Okay, interesting. And before. I know we actually spoke a few years ago. We know we've probably been doing this about a year now, I reckon.

Is it just about a year we started?

So, yeah, so this particular research paper you wrote took like just under a year, let's say. But we did speak a few years before that. You knew about the saber before you started to work and before we got to the results.

What were your expectations with the sabre as a training tool to help enchance your sweet spot striking?

Yeah. So the first question I had of it was how what is actually training the sweet spot?

And I think there's a really important two main question approach to this.

So when I first saw it, when I first got my hands on it and felt it, my first idea was how similar is using this training tool to someone's natural technique?

Because if we're trying to improve someone's sweet spot, I would want to feel confident as a player and as a coach as well, knowing that this doesn't actually change my technique. Because if it's changing technique on the match day or if it's changing technique too drastically, I'm going to feel, I guess, less confident.

I'm going to feel like I'm not going to be ready to play as the example. So that was one of the first key questions that I've thought about how it can improve the sweet spot training.

Because then the second question to that as well is to help how do we develop sweet spot training? And part of that is actually your visual searching or your gaze behavior. So the sweet spot is related to contact.

So if we have similar technique to someone's usual preferred racket use to then being able to improve someone's visual or gaze behavior towards contact or at contact, that should actually be improving someone's sweet spot in the theory.

So those are the two main questions that I've had about it, and they're the two of the one half of those questions is what we did for this research, which was about how similar is it to person's individual technique. And the second part will be to come about understanding does it improve someone's focus or eye focus or gaze behavior focus at that contact moment?

Yeah, that's exciting.

Like I know we've the first part's been quite successful and now the second part we're even more successful once we work on the gaze behavior and maybe explain in very short terms what is gaze behavior? Because I didn't know when you first told me me and it's quite obvious what it is, but maybe tell us in simple terms what it is.

Yeah, so gaze behavior is in relation to the visual searching strategy. So where is someone looking in their environment before or during their performing like a task?

So for example, not that much research has been done on tennis specifically, but there's other rowing sports that the research has been done for. But essentially when you are throwing or sending an object away.

So like darts throwing as an example, the experts are able to localize or concentrate their eye gaze and really focus on a particular point for an extended period of time compared to novice or less skilled dart throwers, where they're more scattered.

So essentially if you are trying to coach someone to see or to anticipate better, what you want to be doing is actually coaching them to focus on Specific points in time or specific targets at a more concentration in relation to the novice that we want to be less scattered. So you essentially having a clear. There's clarity in where someone is looking to be able to then perform a movement as well.

And there's varying research for different domains though in basketball free throws as an example too.

So people who track earlier on, not saying necessarily track, but focus their gaze earlier on compared to focusing it later on, are generally better by focusing on earlier on. So that's in terms of putting away the free throw itself. So focusing on where the player is releasing the ball from.

Because our eyes really struggle to actually track trajectories.

So how fast objects move and I mean free throw in, if you want to compare that to the tennis forehand, it's a lot more faster the ball's coming in to when receiving a forehand as well. So we actually struggle to track these objects that are moving quite fast.

So we need to actually learn where to focus our attention or where to focus our eye searching in the environment. And that's something I'm excited to try to explore a bit further with the saber as well.

More that in 12 months. Yeah. Okay. So you set up like a couple of times a trained environment for the saber to get your reading research.

I know like everybody had like all these sensors on them using fancy cameras to track. It looked like it was an indoor. You had like a lab. Let's say even you can't build a real tennis court in a lab.

But you did use those plastic tilings which are used a lot in more promotional stuff. Is that the reason why you use that sort of a court?

Yeah. So a big thing that I've always tried to do with my research is try to create that. That training that match environment as close as possible.

So a lot of early tennis biomechanics research may have just been stuck in these traditional labs that is get them come get them to come in. You get them to swing or hit them all in movements. But it's into a net or it's in a small space.

So I'm at the university I'm at now being Victoria University and lecturing there as well for biomechanics and learning design.

Really trying to make that emphasis on setting the environment right so that people's biomechanics can as we're using that cool technology for motion analysis and motion tracking and we're able to actually create those similar environments as you would experience in a tennis court.

So again, we have labs that are quite large Enough to build the whole tennis court from scratch from baseline to baseline as well, and a specific serving lab as well just so that we can create an authentic environment because a big thing again from the whole, I guess essence of being able to understand something and how, where it is effective or how the efficacy of the training tools work. We want to make sure we're removing any. Simulated parts of the tennis performance environment.

So that's something I've been taking a lot of pride in so far is trying to really create authentic environments for research to be creative in. And in a lab space again, it's cool we get to control the environmental conditions a little bit more compared to going and doing it out on the court.

But again there's nothing taking that away from doing the research outside as well or in indoor courts too. So I think that's a big part of what I've done in the other research that I've done within tennis and baseball as well.

We're very cool to have these awesome facilities and labs to work.

Yeah, definitely makes a big difference.

And okay, so the actual research paper that you published, we're going to have a link in the show notes or I'm going online, I'll email to our, to our newsletter subscribers in there.

So to be able to check that out and but I'm going to ask you some questions regarding that and hopefully you tell us the answer to that, some results. You saw how coaches and players can use it as a warm up, who it benefits the most. And we're going to talk a bit more more about that.

But just from the get go, what were the biggest mechanical difference you observed when players used the saber compared to their normal racket?

Yeah, so, so in that report. So the research component of the research report, essentially this, the biggest difference that came from was actually the shoulder mechanics.

So the, the essence of this report was to make it a simple digested component of the principles of good research, but then also trying to provide just the right information on the purpose of the tool and where it's work and where it can be effective as well. So the, the biggest differences that were found, or I was observed at least is within the, the acceleration phase of the hitting.

So going from someone's furthest point of the racket behind their body to contact with the ball. So the shoulder mechanics in that phase is what was at the biggest difference.

And those are an approximate 4 to 3, 3 to 4 degrees difference in someone's internal rotation from using the saber. So the saber had slightly less internal rotation in that movement compared to someone using their own preferred racket.

And again, these are the, I guess, preliminary findings of the bigger scale of the research to come with the sabre.

But essentially what we're seeing, there's a lot of similarity in how someone is moving their body, specifically with the upper arm joints, because that's what was, I guess tracked and analyzed. But then we did see some differences in the racket face.

So essentially the saber in the cross court direction resulted in more of an angle within the court compared to someone using their preferred racket. So they had to be more angled in the horizontal direction, the point tipping more towards into the court.

I was trying to explain that there from a visual and also that the sabre was a straighter racket rather than tilted downwards when at contact as well.

So those are the biggest differences, again, expected differences as well, because the sabre racket's slightly shorter than most people's standard rackets. So the length of the racket, it doesn't need to tilt as much for it to work. So that's an expected difference.

But then the interesting one was that the racket tipping in the cross court directions at least was more pointing towards inside the court compared to the self preferred rackets.

So those are the biggest differences, and that is ultimately a nice result in the end is that this saber tool has actually been able to keep a relatively high accuracy for using the tool itself in terms of the pressure testing or the actual requirements for accuracy in the data collection. But then also that there's only minimal biomechanics differences as well.

So again, preliminary findings that was a part of this simplified report from research paper. And those research papers will definitely be coming throughout the year as well.

So looking forward to writing those up and getting those to public as well. But yeah, there was effectively not much differences in the upper body biomechanics except for the racket contact points.

So did the sabre force players to become more precise when contacting the ball?

That's partly like a philosophical question, but then also a technical question too. So from a technique perspective, I would say that the saber is able to improve through some components of the precision as well.

So the actual direction of hitting is making you hit earlier in the court, so you're likely to get more angle in cross court balls hitting down the line. Again, that seemed to have resulted in good outcomes as well in relation to that.

But then becoming more precise really comes down to the, I guess the pressure of the shots as well. So I think one of the things that was observed, so it hasn't exactly been analyzed just yet.

One thing that I was observed during the whole collection process was the movements or the adaptability of movement was a bit more rigid at the start of the swinging or start of the trial.

So the participants had up to about 20 trials to achieve 10 successful shots in the first three shots compared to the last three shots of that group of 20 swings.

Essentially what we're seeing is that there was more rigid movement at the start, but then towards the end, they were actually adapting their movement and getting the effective outcomes of accuracy as well.

So that hasn't exactly been analyzed just yet, but that's one of the observations I took from the data collection itself, is that players initially, especially ones that didn't have any experience with using the tool before as well, were a little more rigid towards what they were already using. But then you could see the adaptability going on towards the end of the trial or condition that they were performing it great.

And do you think that these players that were playing with this, with the sweet, with the saber, with the smaller hitting size, I'm gonna say sweet spot, but the small 37 square inch inside, do you think that changes the way the body and the brain perceives everything?

It definitely makes a difference.

So I guess the one, the one thing that you can probably save from all that is the, again, the smaller racket face means less strings, and there's less strings, there's probably going to be a faster contact time as well. So the amount of time that the ball's on the string is reduced.

Again, we didn't actually measure that one, but that's something I would expect as a part of that. And because of that, there's organically going to be that adaptation of movement.

They're going to explore how they're going to achieve to get the output of hitting it across court or hitting it down the line. So the way the technique would adapt or change will actually depend on the, I guess, the condition that they were hitting.

So hitting cross court or hitting down the line. And then all these shots were coached or instructed to hit them as if they were finishing shots as well.

So the idea is we wanted to keep people to play with this aggressive nature of the shot. So we're getting all the, I guess, spy mechanics at a faster speed.

And that wasn't impeded on using their normal racket or even their smaller racket as well.

So looking at the report when you finished it, what's your number one takeaway from a player using the saber?

Number one, and this is feedback from participants as well. Is this tool probably better off used as a baseline tool rather than a mini tennis tool? Because of trying to the feedback as well.

And as a part of what we did, what we found from the results of the analysis as well was that because the technique playing at speed was similar and that we're able to find that there was minimal differences in the racket contact biomechanics, that's going to be where it's most effective, where they're able to find their feel at faster speed.

So using it as a mini tennis tool might, might work for some, but I'd say as a majority you're probably better off using it as a baseline just straight into swinging fast with it. Don't try to find the fuel of it because the smaller racket size, the less strings, the faster contacts just doesn't allow it as much.

So that would be the biggest takeaway I would say is if you already got one of these tools and you're a coach as well, start using it at the baseline, use it with things feeding, use it within any context you can find that needs that speed because that's going to be where it's one of its most powerful tool. Powerful works.

Okay, interesting.

And you mentioned to it to report that look, there can be a little bit of a performance drop when you initially start using a tool, but there are long term benefits.

Yeah.

Did I pick that up right?

Yes. Yeah. So with the long term benefits it kind of goes onto that side of not necessarily away from biomechanics, but effective learning design.

So effective. The best way to develop skill, to transfer the skill. This tool can really serve a way to help with place remote adaptability.

And what that means is having a repetitive technique is important.

And we know that we either have certain key biomechanical characteristics that will improve essentially where someone can able to play at fast speed, be strong, not be knocked over. That's a fundamental component of being, I guess, a top tennis player. But one part that coaches love to try to promote is being adaptable.

But being adaptable is actually what we are doing as coaches and what we're trying to get out of being a player to be adaptable. I think it's a bit of a mismatch with the training design.

It's a bit of a mismatch with the understanding what it is to be adaptable and how to do that.

So using this tool that we know that has similar upper body biomechanics as a result, and this is also in different hitting directions across the forehand and backhand as well knowing, having confidence and having that similarity. It'll be important to start implementing this tool as a circuit breaker.

And that circuit breaker helps to promote the adaptability of someone's movement.

So if you're trying to achieve a certain depth of the court, they have to find a way explore with different movement options to achieve a deeper forehand cross court as an example and same thing for different shop types. So I think the power of the tool is in the training design and the use of it in itself.

And that's where this longer term thinking a part of development.

If it's embedded into people's training daily, weekly training schedules and it's not necessarily a large block of time, but it's enough to do a circuit breaker to try to promote or encourage adaptability of outcomes. Adaptability and movement is something that this tool can provide a really good powerful option for.

Yeah, it's a word I've never used with the saber like promotes adaptability and maybe it's quite obvious actually, but it's great that you say it. So now I have a new sexy marketing term I can use to saver promotes adaptability. That makes a lot of sense.

So ultimately, how do you what would you describe to sabre as a technical tool, a perception tool or a coordination tool?

I would say it sits on a scale or a fence between a technical tool and a perception tool. So it will depend on the player that is using it as well.

So I would say at a higher level, and the devil's in the details of how you talk it through with players too, but at a higher level, at a higher playing level, I would say this tool works really well as a gaze behavior or a gaze focused development tool.

So you're really trying to improve someone's attention at contact to try and improve someone's ability to as the ball's coming in and not necessarily track it but really concentrate their focus on their shot execution when they need to at least. And then from the earlier side, the developing player juniors that side of things.

I think it goes on that side idea of a technical tool with the focus of adaptability as well. So we know that it has a.

We don't know but the strong inklings is that there would be a faster contact time compared to a standard racket as well or again smaller string size string string amount and then a surface size surface area too. So part of that faster it's going to encourage this play at speed.

And we know in the professional game now with how hard Alcaraz and Sinner are setting the standard with playing at speed as well and being able to swing at speed and having that confidence in fuel early on is really a huge part of development now.

So it's going to encourage that idea of biomechanics, not just from the look sense, but also a tempo and a rhythm sense and at the same time giving you the opportunity to be adaptable at speeds, too.

Okay. And a lot of coaches I speak to, including me, myself, not a coach now, but obviously I've used the saber for countless hours.

I see it a lot as one of the. One of the tool words is a footwork tool. Like it, you know, if you're not moving your feet, nothing else is going to work.

So for me, deep down, I think it's root as a footwork tool. And obviously you got to be thinking you got to move the feed and whatnot. But you haven't mentioned footwork yet.

I know you've mentioned biomechanics. Does footwork fit in all, all of this?

Yeah, that's actually probably a tough question. Like, I. I would say I'm very big on some of these ways to develop players.

We sometimes don't need to necessarily coach footwork or you don't need to necessarily coach the part of trying to improve for the players so we can indirectly develop areas. And I would say footwork will probably fall under the category of this.

So if we're telling someone to focus on this area better if it helps to then promote improved postural biomechanics as they're able to be in a more tilted position more often.

Again, we didn't collect any specific information for this research, but I'll be very confident in saying that using a tool like this would encourage at least the adaptation of movement. So someone to have improved footwork, someone to be in a slightly more open stance compared to a close stance from using it.

But then again, if you're tying someone to rally with it versus someone to finish a shot with it, that'll also change the footwork and the preparation towards it as well. So again, indirectly, I would say yes, it can improve the footwork.

And it's probably a question to the listeners and to the coaches out there is, have you found, if you've used this tool, that you've seen that the footwork has organically changed compared to actually trying to coach the movement?

And again, because of the likely shorter contact times from using the saber, you're going to have to move it or you're going to have to move more efficiently to get into positions to make it happen. So yeah, so I would say definitely in the indirect way. I'd be pretty confident saying there'll be development in that area.

But again, that's probably one thing. Maybe we need, we need to look at it as another research study. Hey, more work.

Yeah. Well, look at 45, I'm playing the best tennis I've played in years. So it's, it's, it's doing wonders for me.

But so, okay, so I'm, I'm a coach or I'm a parent because parents ask a lot of questions how to use the saber. Historically, we've told people to just, you know, just do the exact same you're doing, but just use the saber.

Because that alone, you know, gets people thinking, focusing, you don't add in too many things. And plus coaches don't like being told what to do.

Every coach is their own way of working and they hate me coming along and telling you got to do it this way, this way. But you know, parents need more advice and it's my goal is in the future to offer more advice.

But so I'm a coach or a parent, I come to you, Nick, it's like, how do you use disable, like what do we do? Like where do we start? So now we know in most cases, look, just start from the baseline, don't start in the box. So that's step one.

But what else would you recommend to players, coaches, parents on how to use a saber as a warm up tool?

Yeah, no, that's good.

So the, the biggest way I would say if I was a parent, and if you're looking to maybe buy one of these tools as well, I would ask the question of one, what type of player is your son? Is your daughter? Are they a player that likes to play at speed? Are they a player that likes to feel the ball?

Because that's a really important question. Because like I said, this tool is really going to be helpful in that early development stage to learn if to play at faster speeds.

Because again, faster contacts, faster swing speeds, we need to be able to control the ball in that way.

So being able to use it in that sense, if you're trying as a coach or parents, as you want to understand how this tool can work, that's a good part of using it as a warm up.

So if it's shadow swings, it's definitely one component that can be really important and that doesn't necessarily take away from the work that is going on on the coaching court with the coaches. But then two as well is ask the Question to your son, to your daughter, how do you think it works best for them? What do they feel?

I think that's really important, putting the power into the hands of the player themselves from a coaching lens. And I think I said that a little bit earlier, but I would start just bringing it, put it as like your little sidekick in the basket.

Just have it something as a handy so you can use it as a come in and come out to.

So if it's going into trying to work with your forehand press and you want to improve racket head speed, or if you want to improve the angle of the contact as well, knowing that we have a slightly shorter racket that ends up being a little bit more pointing into the court with cross court balls, then use that in that sense to try to promote more angle into the outcome of the ball as well and then bring it right back to their preferred racket. So that is, I would say under that cloud of adaptability is it really gives the chance for players to get out of this autopilot.

And I think that's something I think a lot of parents and coaches can probably resonate with. I mean, I know I've definitely had that on the court and still do as well. It's where players get into this autopilot mindset.

But getting it in there just provides that little bit of challenge point and then it gives the players the opportunity to actually think it through, activate the way they see a little bit different.

The environment actually just changes subtly enough for them to snap out of that autopilot nature and then to bring it into the, I guess the present moment. And then that's another powerful way with the idea of Delphile and the journey to.

And then again, like I said, as the higher the level goes, I'm assuming less parents are involved in some senses. But again, playing at that speed is where you want to be using it as a warm up tool.

So again, if you're in this, do your mini tennis with your own racket, find your fuel with your own racket and the baseline as well, but then put the saber on for two to three minutes, have an aggressive rally with it, just so you're finding that feeling of speed with it. But again, using it on the tool is probably another question in itself. Again, the players want to feel ready, they want to feel ready to go.

And if you know in training this helps you to feel more ready, then that's something you want to be adding to your warm up toolkit rather than just using it for the sake of it. Because that's probably more fun as well. So. Yeah, yeah.

I think from the pros I've seen use and they've all used different use cases. I think obviously see a lot of double skies using for doubles.

We've seen other players who use it for just get to feel, just to look for that contact feel they're looking for. Some coaches just give their players for fun, just have a bit of fun, enjoy it.

But I think looking at it now, understanding using the word circuit breaker, I definitely think a lot of them use it for circuit breaker just to change things up in the middle of a session, throw this in, feel something different, you know, get them thinking more. So I definitely think I've never thought about like that. But looking back at it now, it's definitely used as a circuit breaker tool.

In the middle of a session, throw it in, change things up, what do you feel? Back to normal racket, you know, and they're, they're better understanding. I see it a bit like, I'm not sure why I'm thinking about this.

Like a good race driver has, you know, they feel everything to their bum where, you know, there's a lot of feel comes through and changing things can. I'm not sure if this makes any sense now but you know, changing things and help them overall understand, feel better.

Yeah, no, and I think, I think, I guess that's great to have that revelation for yourself as well. And if circuit breakers are nice, nice way to put it all together.

But yeah, at the essence, like how people will use this tool will be dependent on what the person needs. Do they need to use it as a, as a fun gimmick that helps them to be ready? Do they need to use it to feel like they can swing faster?

Do they need to use it that helps with their footwork pattern? Again, I think the context changes, the tool doesn't change. But that's I guess the purpose of it. Right.

You want to make sure you're trying to understand how it works best in that individual context, which is really, really important for development. And I guess development doesn't stop at just the junior level.

It's still occurring on the, on the professional level for many different, many different reasons.

No, it's like the Swiss army of tennis training tools.

Yeah, you could say that it's definitely one part of it that's.

And time wise, I know you mentioned there, like, you know, use for a few, like use it for a few minutes as part of your warmup. You go aggressive, try and find that feel or sub it in during. During your training session. But a question we get asked a lot.

It's one of the first questions. First question is how do you string it or does it come with string? Is one yes it does. How do you string it?

It's strong in most bracket machines that's easy and they're not don't relate to play. But then the third question is how long should we use it for?

Yeah. Yeah. So again it probably just depends on the specific way or the specific area you're trying to develop with it.

Is it something to just to find a fuel to bring the. To bring the I guess awareness back into the training. If you feel like being into autopilot then a couple minutes will be fine.

If you want to then expand it out to 15 to 20 minutes in different drills as well. Just again idea of promoting that adaptability. Again that's something that I would encourage to try to do.

I've personally played sets and tiebreaks with it as well because again for a bit of fun I wanted to make sure I could one beat a student that I had someone to prove the points as well. And maybe it's a way for say coaches on the tour you can bring their players levels down a little bit so you can try to compete against them too.

So it's really just coming down to that like the length of willingness and then also just be aware or note that essentially by the 20th swing there's going to be virtually no changes in the technique. So the initial expects expected to have some minor differences. But as you keep swinging with it you are finding you feel your body is adapting to it.

You then again almost forced to make sure you're attuning making sure you're really focusing your gaze and attention at the right parts in both light and making that difference.

Again if it's a circuit breaker or if it's specifically to get more angle on a cross court ball or if it's to try to encourage racket head speed in finishing shots. Again there will be. It's a place for it and I guess this that that context is what I guess adapts on again the amount of time you need to use it all.

Yeah, we have. Well I know of players and coaches who use it in their league matches. Their opponents aren't happy but they just have a bit of fun.

They try and win a match with it which is pretty crazy but. And also it's used a lot by coaching academies. 14 Year old and 12 year old are playing.

They'll give the 14 year old the saber so they can evenly match the amount of challenges. The 14 year old and then the 12 year old thinks I should be able to beat this guy with this. So it's a great tool just for that.

And that's more of a mental aspect of it where you know you're better than somebody. Now the tool restrains you and you're trying to, you have to change your game a little bit.

You know, you think more tactically then how can you I beat somebody when I can't do, you know, because it, some of the shots are a bit serving a bit harder. You know, it takes a lot of practice. Slicing can be quite hard and then you should get your confidence up.

So if you're playing like, I don't know, champions tie break, it can take a while to get used to it. But just thinking about the results here, when I looked at the results I saw a lot of green in accuracy.

But I, I think there was a slight reduction, maybe more in the earlier balls with, with strike with saber, which makes sense. But is that expected when people use like a training tool?

Yeah, absolutely. So there's a pretty fair expectation is the second you try to put in a circuit breaker, the body is going to go what the hell is going on?

That's going to make some minor changes in someone's technique that's going to change the way someone feels their perception so early on.

And the same thing goes if you're trying to I guess evolve or change technique and that's something that I guess is very big in tennis and as tennis coaches is that we try to refine movement rather than actually develop skill.

So when we go to try to refine movement, we're going to see these changes in someone's technique earlier on and over time overuse it's going to come back.

And again that's where if it gets used in a feeding sense, then expect it's probably going to move a little slower because there's probably less balls being swung and hit in a feeding drill compared to going into a live hitting format as well and constantly using it and then swapping back to the individual racket too.

So it's definitely something to be expected when you try to throw something in there to maybe develop a, evolve a behavior or evolve a technique or evolve a, a tactic as well. Like you're going to expect failure and that that's where learning really happens and occurs.

But again that's where players will slowly challenge themselves, slowly find that way to adapt to what is going on to then still Try to achieve those, those outcomes or goals.

Yeah, I was thinking there, that must be the part where it promotes adaptability, where. Yeah, it sits right in there.

So if somebody, a coach, player, parent reads this report, how should they interpret these results without misunderstanding them?

Yeah, so these results I guess put in there in a simpler format.

So there hasn't been any specific significant testing that's been done, but it gives you an idea of the pattern or the descriptive information of what is going on. So from the accuracy sense, what you're saying is that the darker green is looking at where the. So I'm just mobbering up here quickly.

The darker green is where the accuracy was greater in the sabre. There was a lighter green where the accuracy was similar across the sabre.

And also the self deferred, the yellow is referring to a slightly drop, slight drop in accuracy for the testing compared to the saber. So the saber did a little bit worse than the self selected racket. And then the red is where it did, I guess marginally worse.

And what we see is only five conditions out of all the 24 participants where they actually got marginally worse in that red and then over 50% was at that green, darker green component.

So that's probably the first thing to factor in is that having confidence that as a larger majority we're going to see a similar or a slightly better result even from using the saber. So there's no real detriment to using it from an accuracy sense. There's the changes in the racket biomechanics, so the contact biomechanics itself.

So that's where the cross court direction, at least the tip was pointing forward really smallly. So when using sabre compared to the self preferred racket itself.

And again the tilt was slightly, was more illustrator in using the saber compared to using the self preferred racket. And again expected when preferred rackets are longer than the actual saber itself too. And then again from the visualization of the racket path of it.

So the upper arm movements, we're seeing a lot of similarity in the tracing and then the shape of it as well.

But just the magnitude is a little bit is Barbara, the magnitude in the shoulder rotation or the shoulder mechanics is where the biggest difference was occurring in that.

So in terms of interpreting, it's there to kind of show where it is improving or where it's, or how it's affecting the sweet spot or the contact point, which is where the sweet spot is trying to be improved.

So overall Nick, are we seeing the saber as a positive training tool based on the research you've done so far,.

Based on the research I've done so far, I would say is a positive training tool because we're seeing that the upper upper limbs of the upper body biomechanics is similar. We're seeing that the accuracy is only it's pretty similar. There's some drop in performance but as a larger majority it is similar.

And from that alone I would say it has its place. We know that it will work better. And again, this is feedback from participants as well.

It works better as a baseline tool rather than a mini tennis tool. And again from the numbers and the research, because we're ticking the box of is it similar to someone's preferred technique?

Let's say pretty much it is, which is good.

We're never going to get identical similarity but we've got a pretty good outcome in showing that the technique is similar across different hitting conditions as well.

And then two is I guess the open ended question of the idea of gaze, which is where the next data collection, next research will slowly come on understanding can we improve someone's focus of attention and how does their gaze behavior improve from using this tool itself?

Yeah, that's all very exciting. Nick, I just want to say huge thanks for putting this work together. It's great for the saber to have this sort of, it's a.

Backup's the wrong word but it's like a power backup, you know, now we can, you know, there's a bit of proof behind it that the saber is a useful training tool. So thank you for that.

And then there's more to build on which is really exciting and I'm hoping later at this stage one of you or me will be presenting these results at a few different coaching conferences around the world. So that'll be exciting to share the knowledge on, on a platform at these coaching conferences. So yeah, Nick, thank you, thank you very much.

Likewise, appreciate the time today as well. And I hope everyone who enjoys the read and is able to start using the saber in a way that's really helpful to, to you guys individually. Sam,.