Mens Tennis Forums banner

41 - 60 of 73 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
What I'm saying is your probability of making it as an established tour player in the top 50 is considerably higher if you are 6'3+ with a big serve & a weapon off the ground. Simple as that.

Smaller you are, the better timing you have to have. The more talented you need to be. This does mean that physicality is playing a huge role in tennis now and primary reason for that is the way the strings have evolved over the years & the racquet frame. The strings made fundamental changes in the early to mid 2000s and even slightly during the mid 1990s, but players were grew up playing with the old strings. So we didn't get these manufactured, conditioned clutch robots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Ok so what are we discussing here? That a certain style of play will have advantage over others in the future?

Or that tall players have advantage in tennis over short ones?

Because if it's the second you didn't have to create a thread for that, everyone knows that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #43 (Edited)
Yes. You, as a gambler, is like going black 5 times in roulette and saying that from now on will only be black.

Are you saying to me that if there was a 18 old kid which was as good as was Murray or Djokovic when they were 18 years old he wouldn't stand a chance to, let's say in 5 or 6 years, fight for the big titles? In a time where a defensive baseliner just won the grass slam by destroying a guy from your list in straight sets?
Andy Murray is 6 feet 3 inches tall. He is able to play an effective counter punching game (As well as attacking when he has the chance) not only because he is incredibly talented, but because he has the physical stature. You cannot drop behind the baseline if you are below 6'1. As a small player trying to counter punch is difficult. You have no reach, no wingspan. That's why small guys are forced into playing this aggressive style of tennis. Where they are on the baseline, taking the ball ridiculously early. Ferrer used to be a counterpuncher and then adjusted his game. He played in an era where it would work for him, but then as the transition took place and guys with big, clutch games entered into the fray, he had to adjust. He also adjusted in order to make himself successful on hard court.

So if that kid had Murray's physical stature and talent, of course he could make it as a multiple grandslam champion, or a top 10 player.

PS: Please don't act like Murray doesn't play aggressive tennis when he does. Go and watch Raonic's post match Wimbledon final interview. He very clearly indicated that Murray did a great job of staying on-top of him in the rally when he had the front-foot and opportunity to attack, continuously moving him around and depriving him from striking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
I never said Murray can't play agressive, I'm just saying he's not one of those prototype guys (big serve+big game) you are mentioning and he just won a slam on grass of all surfaces so it's pathetic to assume that the future of ATP only belong to those guys.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #45 (Edited)
Ok so what are we discussing here? That a certain style of play will have advantage over others in the future?

Or that tall players have advantage in tennis over short ones?

Because if it's the second you didn't have to create a thread for that, everyone knows that.
Being tall lends itself to this filthy to look at mechanical, one dimensional, attacking brand of tennis. One which when done right, is impossible to contend with unless you're Djokovic or Murray. Nadal isn't good enough to cope with the weapons of the tall modern day ball basher because his return of serve is a joke.

What I'm saying is this is what the future holds. Atm we're not really fussed because Djokovic and Murray are the two best returners the game has ever seen and can neutralise the serving and groundstroke power of the Raonic's, Anderson's, Kyrgios', Berdych's and Zverev's of this world. But wait till they disappear.

Can you name any top 30 players who can contain the serving robots with big groundies? I can't. Unless you're playing on clay where the surface slows down flat shots, how can anyone deal with it? No one has the return.

Here's how it is:

Raonic, Isner & Karlovic: We all know their game is to primarily serve massive and swing at second serves. Karlovic will rush to the net after chip charging occasionally I suppose, especially on quicker surfaces. They have 6 opportunities to hit with this strategy on return, as long as they take care of their business of holding serve. Now in tiebreaks they are favourite as well. But these guys don't move well.

Zverev, Krygios, Fritz, Rublev: They're also CONSISTENTLY good servers, may be not as formidable as the above mentioned, but still very good. These guys move well. So you almost a good moving Raonic, a good moving Isner. Try and look at the big picture of what I'm talking about here.

Murray and Djokovic are two of the greatest returners ever. Without them, how do you contain the clutch-bots who also, NOW, move well? Zverev's serve is sick! and he moves great! How do you contain him and counter what he brings to the court? You've got Kokkinakis who is another one that moves relatively well. Kyrgios. Serve robots who move well.

The strings lend themselves to these guys, because the serve starts the point. Coaches have conditioned tall guys with big servers to move like great athletes and this is where the game has gone. We will see a heap of well drilled mechanical players who don't glide across the court, but are instead very heavy footed. They don't mind swinging at every ball they see, because they know they can hold serve easily if they are focused and intense. Same when in the rally on their serve.

Coric doesn't represent the baseliners/counterpunchers well, he's not that gifted. I admit that, but who else is out there? Give me names. Give me names over 25 who are out there? Goffin, Nishikori? Who else? Murray and Djokovic are exceptions and also tall.

I honestly don't understand how you can not get the point I'm making here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
I can't give you names cause there aren't any. All the good kids play power game. It's all cyclical.

Some years ago, where 3 of the top 4 were Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, it looked like the future of tennis only belonged to athletic guys with great defense and an unbreakable stamina.

Maybe in 6 years the top 4 will be just guys with big games because there is no grinder that is good enough to compete with them. Doesn't mean that one style has to do better than the other. One has power, the other has consistency and stamina.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,217 Posts
Thiem, Goffin (did you watch him against Raonic in Wimbledon ?), Nishikori, Wawrinka, Ferrer, the big-4 ... among youngsters why choose Fritz and not Coric or Chung ? why Delbonis and not Dimitrov or Klizan ?

Querrey emerged more quickly but he's had a worse carreer than Fognini.

This narrative is as old as tennis and since then great champions have always been 1.85m-1.88m.

And the most talented tall man, Del Po, has been plagued by injuries, partly because of his height.
I know the OP is not just talking about height here. However, largely for descriptive purposes, here is a list of the height of every major winner since 1990:

Lendl 187 cm
Sampras 185cm
A Gomez 193 cm
S Edberg 188cm
B Becker 190cm
J Courier 185cm
M Stich 193cm
A Agassi 180cm
S Bruguera 187cm
T Muster 180cm
Y Kafelnikov 190cm
R Krajicek 196cm
G Kuerten 190cm
P Rafter 185cm
P Korda 190cm
C Moya 190cm
M Safin 193cm
G Ivanisevic 193cm
L Hewitt 180cm
T Johansson 180cm
A Costa 180cm
J C Ferrero 183cm
R Federer 185cm
A Roddick 188cm
G Gaudio 175cm
R Nadal 185cm
N Djokovic 188cm
J M Del Potro 198cm
A Murray 191cm
S Wawrinka 183cm
M Cilic 198cm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
As for the size, as I said before, I think everyone knows that in tennis, being 1,9m tall is better than being 1,65m tall :)

But being too tall can be bad too. 1,85/1,9m is probably the ideal size for a tennis player.
Zverev for example is too tall and he doesn't have that big game he should have. If he keeps getting envolved in those long rallies and battles as he gets into, it will be a miracle of life that he has a clean career with no serious injuries
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,123 Posts
Smaller you are, the better timing you have to have. The more talented you need to be.
yes as it's vastly agreed on MTF, Ferrer is extremely talented, that's why he managed to have such a great carreer despite his short size :D

(yes I'm sarcastic : I know that Ferrer is only considered as a good mover by most people here ;) )

As for the size, as I said before, I think everyone knows that in tennis, being 1,9m tall is better than being 1,65m tall :)
that yes, but is it better to be 1.95m than 1.85m as some people like "Clutch" seem to think ? With that I disagree.

Movement is so important in modern game. And you can serve great being 1.85m as Federer and Sampras proved.

Having serve and movement still seems to be the best combination and for that I still think nothing has been proved that it's better to be more than 1.90m than less.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
yes as it's vastly agreed on MTF, Ferrer is extremely talented, that's why he managed to have such a great carreer despite his short size :D

(yes I'm sarcastic : I know that Ferrer is only considered as a good mover by most people here ;) )



that yes, but is it better to be 1.95m than 1.85m as some people like "Clutch" say ? With that I disagree.

Movement is so important in modern game. And you can serve great beaing 1.85m as Federer and Sampras proved.
I think the bold says it all. You're a sheep and a conventional thinker. Try and open your mind up a little. Ferrer takes the ball extremely early with his forehand & dictates play. Yes, he's one of the hardest workers on tour and that's a huge part down to his success also. So it still stands. Small players either need to be extremely talented in order to make it on tour, or they need to be immense hard workers who ALSO have toughness mentally.

PS: 'Most people here'. This is MTF mate. Primarily a fan boy forum. People here think Murray is a pusher, Djokovic never plays attacking tennis and Federer is a fraud that played in a weak era. If you are seriously taking the opinion of most on here with anything more than a grain of salt, then you my man are a muppet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
I can't give you names cause there aren't any. All the good kids play power game. It's all cyclical.

Some years ago, where 3 of the top 4 were Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, it looked like the future of tennis only belonged to athletic guys with great defense and an unbreakable stamina.

Maybe in 6 years the top 4 will be just guys with big games because there is no grinder that is good enough to compete with them. Doesn't mean that one style has to do better than the other. One has power, the other has consistency and stamina.
I accept this point, but then this goes back to what I was saying mate. Please try and understand what goes on behind the scenes in the youth academies etc. Coaches have been conditioning tall big servers to become better athletes & technically clean & powerful from the baseline. So now we have clutch-bots who can move well. It's crazy.

May be things will change in 4-6 years time, but the academy coaches know where the game has gone and will condition big servers to become better athletes and move laterally from side to side competently enough to make them effective in return games also.

I do think that players who adopt this style of play have a greater chance of making it as an ATP tour professional. That's my point. The smaller you are the more you need to want it, the more you need to work hard, the more you need to have exceptional timing, the more you need to get over the fact, this giant at the other end just wiped out your 3 fucking break-points, because he cleaned the lines with aces. Or you just got a racquet onto his cobra spitting second serve and that left him with the easy one two punch.

It's basic logic okay. Smaller guys have to tick more boxes and therefore, we're going to see more of these mechanical, big serving, big backhand, players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,123 Posts
I think the bold says it all. You're a sheep and a conventional thinker. Try and open your mind up a little. Ferrer takes the ball extremely early with his forehand & dictates play. Yes, he's one of the hardest workers on tour and that's a huge part down to his success also. So it still stands. Small players either need to be extremely talented in order to make it on tour, or they need to be immense hard workers who ALSO have toughness mentally.

PS: 'Most people here'. This is MTF mate. Primarily a fan boy forum. People here think Murray is a pusher, Djokovic never plays attacking tennis and Federer is a fraud that played in a weak era. If you are seriously taking the opinion of most on here with anything more than a grain of salt, then you my man are a muppet.
Fyi I've never agreed with most MTFers about Ferrer :wink2:

I personally think that Ferrer is a great tennis player, and not only a hardworker ... but I also think thats his size tremendously helps his movement, as is the case for Goffin as well.

But as usual with you, you conveniently answer to a peripherical point and not to the main one :wink2:

To be good at tennis, it's better to have both the serve and the movement. And for that the ideal size still seems to be 1.85m-1.90m in my view, not more. And you can be very good at 1.80m or less. Although limited. But players who are more than 1.95m are also often limited in my view.

The idea that there will be a time when tall players move as well as small ones or that power will be so important that they will triumph, I've heard that for decades. And still haven't seen this era. And I don't think it's the case now when movement seems so important in modern game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
To be good at tennis, it's better to have both the serve and the movement. And for that the ideal size still seems to be 1.85m-1.90m in my view, not more. And you can be very good at 1.80m or less. Although limited. But players who are more than 1.95m are also often limited in my view.

The idea that there will be a time when tall players move as well as small ones or that power will be so important that they will triumph, I've heard that for decades. And still haven't seen this era. And I don't think it's the case now when movement seems so important in modern game.
That's my point also, if you see some posts below you see I say exactly the same, even the ideal size coincides.
And of course a 2m tall player will never be an excellent mover. Of course we see a tower like Zverev moving like he does, one can't be unimpressed but he will never be as good as Djokovic or even Ferrer in that department.

And If academies work those towers to move well, well that works for both ways, you can work a Grinder to serve better and be more agressive. And that alone explains Djokovic dominance. A natural defender who over the years improved his serve and his agression to a point where when in form he can serve and attack as good or even better than those guys with big game.

Now for some reason there has been lack of good defensive baseliner kids appearing. Maybe that new Nadal academy can bring some of those :kiss:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,123 Posts
That's my point also, if you see some posts below you see I say exactly the same, even the ideal size coincides.
And of course a 2m tall player will never be an excellent mover. Of course we see a tower like Zverev moving like he does, one can't be unimpressed but he will never be as good as Djokovic or even Ferrer in that department.

And If academies work those towers to move well, well that works for both ways, you can work a Grinder to serve better and be more agressive. And that alone explains Djokovic dominance. A natural defender who over the years improved his serve and his agression to a point where when in form he can serve and attack as good or even better than those guys with big game.

Now for some reason there has been lack of good defensive baseliner kids appearing. Maybe that new Nadal academy can bring some of those :kiss:
Yes, we agree, except that I'm not that sure that there are so few good small players. Maybe smaller guys need more time to develop as well (see Goffin, or Fognini vs Querrey, and see what happens to big guys like Janowicz ? they are more often injured).

Maybe their potential needs more time to develop (I also think of Davydenko), while big guys emerge quicker like Querrey but then reach their limits.

Zverev is a good mover and defender, as was Del Po, but is very very far from Djokovic or Ferrer or even Coric as a mover. He has limits, and we'll see what happens.

And yes, a small guy can improve his serve too : I think in Wimbledon Goffin made more aces than Raonic for two sets. Ferrer improved his serve with time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,621 Posts
I don't see this as a huge problem or as a huge coincidence.

But I like your analysis in the sense of good and thoughtful sentences. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,617 Posts
I don't think Rublev fits in exactly the same category as those others. He is not as tall and his game is not robotic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
I don't think Rublev fits in exactly the same category as those others. He is not as tall and his game is not robotic.
What's naturally fluid about his game? It's nice to watch when he creams a forehand, but it's still somewhat mechanical. Alex Zverev is the most mechanical, but he's very effective. Very.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,392 Posts
The modern analyst of ATP players is smart, open-minded and sadly hit the nail on the head.

Congrats for another bull's-eye thread, CoaW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,392 Posts
As opposed to the past where players were short, unorthodox, and had all-court game.
That's what court speed changes and equipment developments bring with themselves. Hard to stop time, it seems.
 
41 - 60 of 73 Posts
Top