disposable robots from the assembly line?
welcome back, Mr.Clutch :hatoff:
the OP got a bit sensational, but the development in pro tennis you describe there is serious.
players shorter than 6 foot (like Agassi, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Borg) haven't won a Slam anymore in twelve years now!
during that time period we got three Slam winners taller than 6'3 instead.
tall players are physiologically unable to move very well and beyond 6'3 it starts looking clumsy.
but for the conditions we currently have on the ATP World Tour you really don't need much agility.
this development is indeed worrisome.
conditions shouldn't favour 6'6 players over 5'11 players. that's bad for the game. /argument
^^this angle isn't very different from the OP.
standard size used to be around 6'0, then it was ~6'1, currently it's rather 6'2 and its heading straight towards 6'3.
people are getting taller nowadays and there are also more tennis players worldwide than ever in the past (and as mentioned, coaches are focusing more on taller players).
this won't make Zverev a GOAT contender, but we might get MORE overly tall players who either win the Slams or are injury-sidelined.
and since there are only 4 Slams per year this might very well greatly affect the Thiems or Pouilles, so not just the shorter guys.
he said (or at least: meant) that they generate power easier (rather via torque than force).Impact force will depend on racquet head speed, which depends on moment arm length. However, tall players, for example, have longer arms that have more inertia. With regard to the entire body, they are heavier. They have more bone, etc. mass that doesn't contribute to the movement. But longer muscle fibers are not stronger. What affects muscle strength is cross sectional area.
This individual discrepancy works against tall players. However, their longer lever will result in equal racquet head speed with a lesser rotational velocity.
You could use golf club length as an analogy. Longer clubs hit further, but that would be a false equivalency since golf club mass is negligible compared to, for example, arm weight, which weigh 10+ lbs in men. A longer club doesn't amount to significantly more inertia. A proper analogy would be punching power, but I don't see any evidence that Lennox Lewis hit harder than Mike Tyson. Punching power isn't the reason the Klitschko's have dominated heavyweight boxing for almost the entire 2000s. But anyway...
The net effect of every variable is likely that tall players do generate slightly more power. However, my own observations are that short guys generate plenty enough. I've seen 5'10" rec players with beer guts effortlessly generate big power. Anyone can. The trick is hitting it hard and keeping it in. Watch a pro close up. They don't hit the ball as hard as they can.
Remember that hard cross court backhand Federer hit against Nadal at AO 2014 out of frustration? How often does he hit it that hard? Never.
With regard to serve, you go bigger than you do on groundstrokes, but the principal impact of height seems to be hitting angle rather than pace. A big reason Isner, etc. serve so big is they serve A LOT flatter than 6' guys do. I stand by what I said. Slower courts are enabling these unathletic bums who "serve from a tree."
thats one reason (among others he explained too) why in Bo3 tournaments Nishikori has better results than Cilic, but it changes in the Slam format.
as for the bolded part: Mr.Clutch could add that the new prototype is lighter than the predecessor model.
well, also DelPotro actually had much less weight when he won the USO.
several models will get a weight problem when they get older, not mainly because of bone mass (even though that can still increase too, in your 20s).
:scared: disposable robots from the assembly line? :scared:
but his suggested solution was to make the courts even slower (if i remember correctly).what Uncle Toni said was absolutely spot-on-the-money.
this would help Nadal,
but how is it supposed to help guys shorter than 6 foot over Zverev types?
or open question:
what would be the solution to the problem, in your opinion?
so far i for one would agree with the following:
(of course we exclude clay courts from the equation.)Slower courts are enabling these unathletic bums who "serve from a tree."
slowing down Wimbledon and the slowish hard courts are the problem.
Wimbly should be speed up again
and 70% of the HC tournaments should be changed to Cincinnati speed while the other 30% should be made clay events straightaway, imo.
^^i know that the ATP doesn't like those ideas of splitting the tour again!
court homogenisation was fully intentional after all.
so another question here:
hypothetically(!), which court conditions would be best for tennis if we had to decide for only ONE?
how about Har-Tru like courts? (is just a thought.)
i will 'mention' a couple of posters here who may be interested in the topics:
@philosophicalarf @Mountaindewslave @masterclass @Uncle Latso @Burrow @allpro @leng jai @Secondeuce @MWW @BackhandDTL @redshift36188 @jojjeshruk @Rychu @sexybeast