[Roxitova]

It is not only my opinion. We admired returns of serve of Agassi but now players are forced to block the ball moving over 220km/h. There is almost no time for executing full stroke. No wander that successful tennis players are higher and higher. They can serve with greater speed and can reach fast balls.

(OK in feet and inches sorry I don't think metric for height) Big 3 are all 6'1" to 6'3". Shap is just 6', Tsitsi 6'4" THiem and Rublev aren't that tall, Sinner is 6'2", Swartz is a towering 5'6" RBA isn't tall, Actually other than Med and Zverev who are 6;6", there really aren't that many very tall men at the top, and none at the very top.

Surfaces were slowed down to prevent serving clinics like Ivanisevic and Steich (sp) a horrible era for tennis.
This is actually a golden era for tennis.

Your thread makes zero sense.

 

[Gregory Diamond]

I don't think anything needs to be changed. Players adapt to new conditions and it is what it is. Certainly don't need to be tinkering wither serve box or net height for no reason, or adding height or weight classes. Very weak mentality. Tennis is a perfect game as it is. Sure tall players have some advantages, but many disadvantages that shorter players can take advantage of, so for me it evens out.



Roddick was limited and had weaknesses, like all "bots" today



Court used to be hourglass shaped

View attachment 363102

Men`s tennis died in US and you want to wait for the death of tennis in the world. In US hard courts are main surface so we couldnt be surprised that tall players with good serve and volley achieved the best results in junior age. Young players with good forehand and backhand were eliminated in young age. I cant remember even one US player who during last 15 years reached top 5. I only remember big guys serving 220 km/h and nothing more. They played primitive tennis. Do you really want more boring finals like that between Hurkacz and Sinner ?

 

[Johnny Groove]

Men`s tennis died in US and you want to wait for the death of tennis in the world. In US hard courts are main surface so we couldnt be surprised that tall players with good serve and volley achieved the best results in junior age. Young players with good forehand and backhand were eliminated in young age. I cant remember even one US player who during last 15 years reached top 5. I only remember big guys serving 220 km/h and nothing more. They played primitive tennis. Do you really want more boring finals like that between Hurkacz and Sinner ?

Hurkacz and Sinner are not American

I don't think it was a boring final at all

USA sucks in tennis for many reasons, I have spoken at length about why and will do a video on it probably next week

 

[Gregory Diamond]

(OK in feet and inches sorry I don't think metric for height) Big 3 are all 6'1" to 6'3". Shap is just 6', Tsitsi 6'4" THiem and Rublev aren't that tall, Sinner is 6'2", Swartz is a towering 5'6" RBA isn't tall, Actually other than Med and Zverev who are 6;6", there really aren't that many very tall men at the top, and none at the very top.

Surfaces were slowed down to prevent serving clinics like Ivanisevic and Steich (sp) a horrible era for tennis.
This is actually a golden era for tennis.

Your thread makes zero sense.

Rublev 1.88 m. Very tall. Better rackets, better strings, better balls and we have result almost the same as it was 30 years ago with horrible matches between Sampras and Ivanisevic or Rafter. Accidental breaks of serves decide about result of the match. Tournament in Miami is the best example. Hurkacz have won but
it would have been enough for him to lose one or two rallies to lose two matches
Mens tennis changed to russian roulette. There is nothing interesting in tennis played by Hurkacz. Just average player. How is it possible that he has won ? Low level of his opponents. It was enough to wait for errors.

 

[grkhetan]

I enjoy watching tennis -- I think its very fun to watch -- but yes I didn't enjoy the Ivanisevic Wimbledon finals..

I do believe tennis needs to change to give people of lesser height equal opportunities.

For example, players like Nishikori, Schwartzman, Ferrer, Michal Chang, etc who are in the 5-9, 5-10 height range have average serves and that has cost them a lot as players. They reached top 10 based on their talent but always had to work harder on winning their service points compared to players higher than 6 feet, and hence reaching #1 was almost out of question.

(Did we ever have a 5-10 or shorter #1 player?)

Removing the 2nd serve from tennis would be a welcome change, and I am all for it. I believe this will reduce the edge that taller players have on the serve.

Why to allow a 2nd attempt at serve, when we don't allow it for any other shot in tennis? Perhaps serves were more easier to return with wooden rackets and hence the 2nd serve rule was invented to prevent putting the server at a disadvantage. Now with today's rackets, it has become a weapon instead -- we don't need the rule anymore.

 

[Gregory Diamond]

I enjoy watching tennis -- I think its very fun to watch -- but yes I didn't enjoy the Ivanisevic Wimbledon finals..

I do believe tennis needs to change to give people of lesser height equal opportunities.

For example, players like Nishikori, Schwartzman, Ferrer, Michal Chang, etc who are in the 5-9, 5-10 height range have average serves and that has cost them a lot as players. They reached top 10 based on their talent but always had to work harder on winning their service points compared to players higher than 6 feet, and hence reaching #1 was almost out of question.

(Did we ever have a 5-10 or shorter #1 player?)

Removing the 2nd serve from tennis would be a welcome change, and I am all for it. I believe this will reduce the edge that taller players have on the serve.

Why to allow a 2nd attempt at serve, when we don't allow it for any other shot in tennis? Perhaps serves were more easier to return with wooden rackets and hence the 2nd serve rule was invented to prevent putting the server at a disadvantage. Now with today's rackets, it has become a weapon instead -- we don't need the rule anymore.

I can only agree. Now second serve is used only to kill tennis.

 

[bbcbbc]

Most guys are not great on grass and the smart ones don’t want to go crazy on clay and risk injuries with falls. The grass and hardcourt speeds aren’t affecting talent levels. Either you’re at least very good on different surfaces or you’re mediocre on clay and grass and not a longevity player (like some overrated guys in 2000-2003 when it supposedly was superfast on hardcourt and grass).

 

[Johnny Groove]

I enjoy watching tennis -- I think its very fun to watch -- but yes I didn't enjoy the Ivanisevic Wimbledon finals..

I do believe tennis needs to change to give people of lesser height equal opportunities.

For example, players like Nishikori, Schwartzman, Ferrer, Michal Chang, etc who are in the 5-9, 5-10 height range have average serves and that has cost them a lot as players. They reached top 10 based on their talent but always had to work harder on winning their service points compared to players higher than 6 feet, and hence reaching #1 was almost out of question.

(Did we ever have a 5-10 or shorter #1 player?)

Removing the 2nd serve from tennis would be a welcome change, and I am all for it. I believe this will reduce the edge that taller players have on the serve.

Why to allow a 2nd attempt at serve, when we don't allow it for any other shot in tennis? Perhaps serves were more easier to return with wooden rackets and hence the 2nd serve rule was invented to prevent putting the server at a disadvantage. Now with today's rackets, it has become a weapon instead -- we don't need the rule anymore.

10000% disagree

Removing 2nd serve will only result in even more advantage for taller players

There have been many short #1 players, Rios for example, and Wilander, Borg, McEnroe, all under 6 foot tall, Connors was 5'10''

I always have to disagree with any of these rules changes, I think the game already distributes advantages and disadvantages evenly as it is with regard to tall vs short players

Real problem is too many players who grow tall young get good results young and thus more federation support young, and it is a vicious cycle

 

[NextGenKing]

I dont think it is the same. Then we had only one Roddick serving 220 km/h. Now we have 20 Roddicks. What is equally important these Roddics are at least 1.95 m high.

There has not and never will be a server like Roddick. Better? Maybe....like him, no? He wasnt only a bot...his fh especially passing shot forehand was amazing. His serve was so special. Like a bomb

 

[Gregory Diamond]

10000% disagree

Removing 2nd serve will only result in even more advantage for taller players

There have been many short #1 players, Rios for example, and Wilander, Borg, McEnroe, all under 6 foot tall, Connors was 5'10''

I always have to disagree with any of these rules changes, I think the game already distributes advantages and disadvantages evenly as it is with regard to tall vs short players

Real problem is too many players who grow tall young get good results young and thus more federation support young, and it is a vicious cycle

I have to repeat. Hurkacz 1.96, Zverev 1.98, Khachanov 1.98, Tsitsipas 1.93, Sinner 1.88. We should add Medvedev 1.98 and Rublev 1.88. These are almost all the best players who can replace Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. They are giants. How can you say that tall players dont have in men`s tennis a great advantage ?

 

[Johnny Groove]

I have to repeat. Hurkacz 1.96, Zverev 1.98, Khachanov 1.98, Tsitsipas 1.93, Sinner 1.88. We should add Medvedev 1.98 and Rublev 1.88. These are almost all the best players who can replace Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. They are giants. How can you say that tall players dont have in men`s tennis a great advantage ?

All those players have weaknesses and holes in their game. Sure the serve is advantage but everyone is allowed to serve. And if you have a good serve, chances are your return is not as good

Tennis is more than serve

 

[Break point Dom.]

Tennis will survive but just have to accept that transitional period where we won't have blockbuster matches in business end of slams for a while until multi slam champions emerge.

I love watching Dom and Stefanos play and they'll win some more or first slams in next 5 years but neither will get close to even 10 so just have to accept that's the way it is as the standard has been ridiculous high in last 15 years from the top lot.

Eventually someone capable of winning 10-15 slams will come through, they could well be playing now for all we know. Just continue in short term to support your favourite.

 

[Gregory Diamond]

All those players have weaknesses and holes in their game. Sure the serve is advantage but everyone is allowed to serve. And if you have a good serve, chances are your return is not as good

Tennis is more than serve

Tennis was more than serve but not now. Usually matches are decided by one break of serve. Sometimes tall players lose only several points in a set when they are serving. What is more important it is just boring.

 

[Gregory Diamond]

Tennis will survive but just have to accept that transitional period where we won't have blockbuster matches in business end of slams for a while until multi slam champions emerge.

I love watching Dom and Stefanos play and they'll win some more or first slams in next 5 years but neither will get close to even 10 so just have to accept that's the way it is as the standard has been ridiculous high in last 15 years from the top lot.

Eventually someone capable of winning 10-15 slams will come through, they could well be playing now for all we know. Just continue in short term to support your favourite.

In US men`s tennis died. Died because tennis on hard courts gave great advantage to tall players. Now we see the same process in world`s tennis.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Tennis was more than serve but not now. Usually matches are decided by one break of serve. Sometimes tall players lose only several points in a set when they are serving. What is more important it is just boring.

Again not true

HH had 3-1 lead in 1st set, got broken. then broken again. Then Sinner had 6-5 and was broken

Then HH had 4-0 in 2nd set with 2 breaks, then gets broken back

So that's 7 breaks in 2 sets, plenty to be done with serve and return

 

[grkhetan]

All those players have weaknesses and holes in their game. Sure the serve is advantage but everyone is allowed to serve. And if you have a good serve, chances are your return is not as good

Tennis is more than serve

john, the thing is these players are having an advantage due to being tall as they can be better at serve. They may have holes in their games, but they would have them even if they were a few inches shorter.

Essentially, with everything else equal, the taller players have an advantage due to serve.

 

[Howard]

I agree and humbly suggest that tennis would benefit greatly by making rackets out of a revolutionary new material… like wood.

 

[Gregory Diamond]

I agree and humbly suggest that tennis would benefit greatly by making rackets out of a revolutionary new material… like wood.

If we go so far then maybe they all should be forced to use only two handed forehand as I do. I use it and dont complain. Maybe matches would be more interesting.

 

[grkhetan]

10000% disagree

Removing 2nd serve will only result in even more advantage for taller players

There have been many short #1 players, Rios for example, and Wilander, Borg, McEnroe, all under 6 foot tall, Connors was 5'10''

I always have to disagree with any of these rules changes, I think the game already distributes advantages and disadvantages evenly as it is with regard to tall vs short players

Real problem is too many players who grow tall young get good results young and thus more federation support young, and it is a vicious cycle

John, average male height is 5’9”. The examples you gave are all 5’11”, except:

- Rios was 5’9” but didn’t have a strong serve IIRC. He never won a grand slam.

- Connors - 5’10” was from an older era with slower racquets.

Essentially if you look at stats of all top 20 players over the last 25 years, you will see most of them at 6 foot or higher.

Why not allow an average or slightly above average height tennis players to have equal chances of achieving high ranking as tall players?

a simple rule change like removing 2nd serve can help with this.

 

[Johnny Groove]

john, the thing is these players are having an advantage due to being tall as they can be better at serve. They may have holes in their games, but they would have them even if they were a few inches shorter.

Essentially, with everything else equal, the taller players have an advantage due to serve.

But everything else is not equal, never equal

I am 5'9'' and I don't feel as a disadvantage vs a big server. I just have to return better and serve well myself

Anything else is bullshit and weak minded excuse making

John, average male height is 5’9”. The examples you gave are all 5’11”, except:

- Rios was 5’9” but didn’t have a strong serve IIRC. He never won a grand slam.

- Connors - 5’10” was from an older era with slower racquets.

Essentially if you look at stats of all top 20 players over the last 25 years, you will see most of them at 6 foot or higher.

Why not allow an average or slightly above average height tennis players to have equal chances of achieving high ranking as tall players?

a simple rule change like removing 2nd serve can help with this.

5'9, 5'10, 5'11, same shit

I don't feel like shorter players have less of a chance, I disagree with your premise to begin with

Disallowing 2nd serve does nothing, we don't need to change any rules, guys just need to use what they have. Ferrer and Nishikori at their best were just as good as any of the current non-Big 3 guys