In New York, at the US Open 2025, Jack Draper didn’t even make it through the second round. After a summer plagued by pain in his left arm, the world No. 5 announced that his season is over:
“I felt as if my arm was switching off. Unfortunately the injury to my arm is something I need to rest, which means I’ll be out for the rest of 2025.”
The biggest young hope in the UK, winner this year at Indian Wells in March by defeating Holger Rune in the final. We’re therefore talking about someone who was making the right career moves at the right pace — not a peripheral player. What has happened to him is not just bad luck, but a short-circuit between the way a player is built today and the way the game is played today. It is the snapshot of a trend: that of a sport which has pushed the human body beyond its tolerance limit.
From 2002 to 2025, based on reconstructed series from raw ATP and WTA data, the incidence of withdrawals due to injury has risen by 25 per cent among men and 50 per cent among women. At the start of the period the average rate was around 1.2 withdrawals every thousand games on the men’s tour and 1.0 on the women’s; today the rate stands at 1.56 in the men’s circuit and 1.36 in the women’s. In practice you leave the court through injury more often than was acceptable twenty years ago, and this is visible even to the naked eye if you watch a full season. This is not a statistical anomaly but a clear inflection point: a curve whose gradient changed in the early 2000s and has been rising ever since. It is the moment when technology and the structure of the game changed together. Because from that moment on it is no longer the player breaking down on his own, but the system bringing him to the limit more often.
Until the 1990s most professionals used natural-gut or multifilament strings — elastic materials capable of absorbing part of the impact. Then polyester strings arrived: rigid, low-elasticity and with reduced friction coefficient. The ball enters, the vertical strings slide and snap back into place, generating an average increase in spin of between 20 and 50 per cent compared with previous materials. The technical motion is amplified, swing speeds increase, control remains. The body doesn’t. A 2014 study measured that after a simulated match with high-rigidity strings, the players’ average grip-strength falls by 22 per cent. A muscle that tires more quickly protects tendons and joints less: the arm becomes a direct transmission of mechanical shocks.
To this material revolution must be added that of the frames. Graphite and carbon-fibre models consistently exceed rigidity indices (RA) of 68-72, compared with 58-62 for frames in the 1980s. Less flex, more power, but also more vibrations transmitted. The synergy between string and racquet produces a faster, more violent tennis, a game in which impact is no longer absorbed but returned, and where every shot is a micro-trauma. In practice the impact is absorbed less and transmitted more.
In 2001 the International Federation introduced the “Type 3” ball, six per cent larger, to slow down play on fast surfaces. The effect was paradoxical: higher bounces increased the actual length of rallies by up to 35 per cent on hard-court and grass. At the same time the surfaces changed identity. Carpet disappeared by 2008, taking with it the only truly fast and ‘empty’ court type. Hard-court became the norm. Today about 58 per cent of playing minutes in the main tournaments are spent on hard surfaces, 30 per cent on clay, 10 per cent on grass. More than half of the withdrawals recorded in the past twenty years occur on hard courts, which present an injury risk more than 60 per cent higher than grass. Compared with red-clay, tournament data show that hard-court generates around 45 per cent more interventions or retirements — that is, clay is about 45 per cent less risky than hard in terms of impact — but this protection diminishes when rally-length and calendar density increase. On red-clay the risk remains lower compared to hard-court if you look at single-impact and joint-strain, but when the average rally length goes up, and when the calendar keeps you on court for ten months of the year, then even clay ceases to be a ‘protective’ surface and becomes an ‘accumulation’ surface. It is the combination of usage frequency and traumatic-material capacity that multiplies the effect: hard-court returns the impact instead of dispersing it and subjects the body to continuous wear, and when you do that for ten months a year, it is no longer wear — it is accumulation.
Even grass is no longer a refuge. Since 2001 Wimbledon has used 100 per cent rye-grass, more compact and uniform, with a higher bounce. Play has shifted from serve-and-volley to baseline. Rallies are longer, variety has vanished, and players’ bodies are subjected to similar stresses every week of the year. In the 1980s only 2 per cent of points at Wimbledon exceeded nine strokes. In the early 2010s that share had risen to between 10 and 18 per cent. On the red-clay of Roland Garros, where aces are rarer, long sequences are even more frequent. It is this statistical “tail”, and not the average, that explains the change: 70 per cent of points still end within four strokes, but those ten or fifteen-stroke exchanges that were once exceptions are now routine. When winning requires eight strokes instead of two, the total time under strain rises, and with it the decelerations, the sudden stops, the lumbar twists, the joint vibrations. At the Slams the average match duration has risen from two hours and 21 minutes in 1999 to two hours and 54 minutes in 2023 — a 25 per cent increase in actual working-time.
Added to this physical pressure is that of the calendar. The professional season spans eleven months, the real off-season is less than six weeks and not mandatory. The Masters 1000, which once occupied seven days, now stretch out over twelve, with wider draws and extra days. Players who choose to rest lose points and ranking positions. Andy Roddick described the new format as “a body-suicide”. Jannik Sinner and Iga Świątek said “there is no margin for recovery”. Taylor Fritz spoke of “a punitive system disguised as freedom”. They all describe the same paradox: a tour which demands continuous performance but allows no biological margin to sustain it.
Jack Draper embodies this generation born in the era of polyester and concrete. Left-handed, tall, with long levers and an explosive swing, he built his game on the very mechanism which today stopped him: rigidity, power, repetition. His injury — a bone-bruising stress contusion — is not a fatality but a mechanical effect. Every acceleration generates a chain of loads: foot, knee, hip, spine, shoulder, forearm. When recovery is insufficient, the chain breaks.
In twenty-five years tennis has gained spectacle, uniformity, power. It has lost the capacity to absorb. The surfaces are harder, the strings stiffer, the balls slower, the seasons longer. Every factor points in the same direction: more load, more stress, more risk.
Reversing the curve will not be achieved with generic calls for “physical management” or targeted training alone. The scientific and biomechanical evidence is clear: the issue is not the individual athlete, but the system that wears him out. The real challenge, then, is no longer medical, but political and economic.
The inaction of tennis institutions is an anomaly in the sports landscape. When technology threatens to distort performance or safety, other federations act forcefully. FINA banned the polyurethane “super-suits” that were shattering records. World Athletics, faced with “rocket shoes”, imposed strict limits on sole height (40 mm on the road) and the number of carbon plates. The FIS regulates every detail (minimum length, side-cut radius, plate height) to prevent athletes reaching uncontrollable speeds. The UCI imposes a minimum bike weight (6.8 kg) to avoid dangerously light frames and the R&A limits the “coefficient of restitution” of clubs to control power.
In tennis, however, this critical oversight is absent.
The technical solutions are known: enforce mandatory biological breaks (the eight weeks sports physicians refer to, not the current fifteen days), reintroduce surface variety by drastically reducing hard-court (as Rafael Nadal has been demanding for a decade, referring to health), and even reconsider regulatory limits on materials (strings and frames) which have surpassed the threshold of human tolerance.
These solutions, however, remain dead letters because they clash directly with the current conflict of interest. A shorter calendar means fewer tournaments and fewer TV rights. Less hard-court means giving up the most cost-effective and standardised surface. Regulating racquets means alienating manufacturers.
Until the entire tennis ecosystem — a fragmented system where the ATP, the WTA, the ITF and the four Grand Slams cannot find common ground — addresses this conflict of interest, the bodies of the players will remain the shock-absorber upon which the system dumps the cost of its own power.
Draper’s body is a warning, one among many. Professional tennis has built a perfect storm of technology, surfaces and calendar. And like any system that ignores its own physical limits, it risks collapsing under the weight of its own power.
Follow Us