Player Size

[Moxie]

Still trying to reconcile Muscles ( Ken Rosewall) was taller than Rod Laver.

Laver was/is a pretty small guy.

 

[tented]

This thread reminds me of a post of mine from 2013 in the Michael Chang interview (obviously various stats have changed since then, and anyone interested can double-check my math):

“As someone who can't stand tall-man tennis (Karlovic, Isner, Anderson, Janowicz, Raonic, etc.), I like that Chang said, "I would never say a smaller player has a disadvantage in tennis. They may not be able to hit as hard or serve as big but tennis is not all about that. Being one of the smaller players on tour, there are always ways to beat the bigger players and being smaller and quicker has its advantages. I do think a smaller player does need to be able to play different styles, though, because it keeps bigger players off balance and guessing."

This brings to mind guys like David Ferrer, Fabrice Santoro, Olivier Rochus, and of course Kei Nishikori. They've had varying amounts of success, but none of them has won a Major, and only Ferrer has made it to a final. Ferrer has won only one Masters, Santoro won a single 500 Series, Rochus has two 250s, and Nishikori has two 500s and one 250. Not exactly Hall of Fame credentials.

As much as I would like to believe Chang is correct, I can't help but think this is no longer the case. Tall-man tennis is here to stay. If anything, we'll see more and more of them. Combine that with the technological advances since Chang's days, and I don't see much of a future for guys under six feet.

I also think tennis will suffer more broadly with the influx of tall guys. It will be boring for the casual viewer to watch Isner/Karlovic-type finals, where serving is key. It's not a coincidence in this post-Sampras era that rallies are in vogue, instead of serve-and-volley. Short of raising the net, and altering the effectiveness of the serve of guys 6'5" and over, things could become quite dull.

And why not raise the net? Consider the average height of men in the 18th and 19th centuries, when tennis was being standardized. The average was around 5'5" to 5'7" -- and they decided the net should be 3' in the center.

If you use 5'6" as the average, 3' was about 54% of their height. If you take 6'6" as the average, that's only 46%. For the net to be 54%, it would need to be raised approximately 6.25" -- to about 3'6".

How would Raonic and Janowicz fair with a half-foot increase in the height of the net? It would be interesting to test it.”

 

[Jelenafan]

Laver was/is a pretty small guy.

Well, yea, GOATS come in all sizes.

Messi.

 

[atttomole]

View attachment 2767 View attachment 2768
For @tented, our resident Olivier Rochus fan...with Safin and with Karlovic.

These are huge mismatches.

 

[El Dude]

@tented , on the other hand, none of the big guys have broken through to be all-time greats. Boris Becker remains the only 6'3" player who has more than three Slams.

That will likely change as NextGen is pretty tall, but the point is that it hasn't yet. The Big Three and Sampras are all 6'1" - 6'2", which is tall for a normal hominid but about average for an athlete.

My point is that the very best players mostly seem to be in the middle range: 6' to 6'3."

 

[Moxie]

@tented , on the other hand, none of the big guys have broken through to be all-time greats. Boris Becker remains the only 6'3" player who has more than three Slams.

That will likely change as NextGen is pretty tall, but the point is that it hasn't yet. The Big Three and Sampras are all 6'1" - 6'2", which is tall for a normal hominid but about average for an athlete.

My point is that the very best players mostly seem to be in the middle range: 6' to 6'3."

Just to put in a plug for my boy, Safin, he could well have been a 3-slam guy, or more, at 6'4"+, but for his head, not injuries. However, I'm not disputing what you say. Marat, when he beat Pete at the USO in '99, was seen as the future of men's tennis...i.e., that taller players would start to prevail. This is both wrong and a bit right. Safin was a great mover. Plus, he's on the smaller side of the tall trees. I fully agree that the "sweet spot" in terms of size in men's tennis seems to be in the 6'-6'3" range. The best (in that range) still have great movement, and can use it to make up for what they lack in wing-span or serve power and angle. The really big players have to have a great serve, to compensate for dragging around those big bodies, and the smaller players have to be really fast, agile, fit and crafty to compensate for what they don't have in power and range.

 

[herios]

This thread reminds me of a post of mine from 2013 in the Michael Chang interview (obviously various stats have changed since then, and anyone interested can double-check my math):

“As someone who can't stand tall-man tennis (Karlovic, Isner, Anderson, Janowicz, Raonic, etc.), I like that Chang said, "I would never say a smaller player has a disadvantage in tennis. They may not be able to hit as hard or serve as big but tennis is not all about that. Being one of the smaller players on tour, there are always ways to beat the bigger players and being smaller and quicker has its advantages. I do think a smaller player does need to be able to play different styles, though, because it keeps bigger players off balance and guessing."

This brings to mind guys like David Ferrer, Fabrice Santoro, Olivier Rochus, and of course Kei Nishikori. They've had varying amounts of success, but none of them has won a Major, and only Ferrer has made it to a final. Ferrer has won only one Masters, Santoro won a single 500 Series, Rochus has two 250s, and Nishikori has two 500s and one 250. Not exactly Hall of Fame credentials.

As much as I would like to believe Chang is correct, I can't help but think this is no longer the case. Tall-man tennis is here to stay. If anything, we'll see more and more of them. Combine that with the technological advances since Chang's days, and I don't see much of a future for guys under six feet.

I also think tennis will suffer more broadly with the influx of tall guys. It will be boring for the casual viewer to watch Isner/Karlovic-type finals, where serving is key. It's not a coincidence in this post-Sampras era that rallies are in vogue, instead of serve-and-volley. Short of raising the net, and altering the effectiveness of the serve of guys 6'5" and over, things could become quite dull.

And why not raise the net? Consider the average height of men in the 18th and 19th centuries, when tennis was being standardized. The average was around 5'5" to 5'7" -- and they decided the net should be 3' in the center.

If you use 5'6" as the average, 3' was about 54% of their height. If you take 6'6" as the average, that's only 46%. For the net to be 54%, it would need to be raised approximately 6.25" -- to about 3'6".

How would Raonic and Janowicz fair with a half-foot increase in the height of the net? It would be interesting to test it.”

@tented not sure where did you compiled the stats from for Nishikori, but I can tell you he has a lot more titles won than you have accredited him for.

 

[AnonymousFan]

@tented not sure where did you compiled the stats from for Nishikori, but I can tell you he has a lot more titles won than you have accredited him for.

He’s quoting his own post from 2013

 

[El Dude]

Just to put in a plug for my boy, Safin, he could well have been a 3-slam guy, or more, at 6'4"+, but for his head, not injuries. However, I'm not disputing what you say. Marat, when he beat Pete at the USO in '99, was seen as the future of men's tennis...i.e., that taller players would start to prevail. This is both wrong and a bit right. Safin was a great mover. Plus, he's on the smaller side of the tall trees. I fully agree that the "sweet spot" in terms of size in men's tennis seems to be in the 6'-6'3" range. The best (in that range) still have great movement, and can use it to make up for what they lack in wing-span or serve power and angle. The really big players have to have a great serve, to compensate for dragging around those big bodies, and the smaller players have to be really fast, agile, fit and crafty to compensate for what they don't have in power and range.

Yeah, Safin is definitely in the underachiever category.

Not to go off topic too much, but I was just thinking about how Roger's generation--really starting with Safin, then Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, etc--took the crown from the prior greats in a way that we're not seeing today. Sampras wasn't quite peak anymore by 99/00, but he was still elite, and Agassi was having a second peak. The generation between the two was pretty good but with no true all-time greats. But Roger's gen seized the crown from the existing elite, both Sampras-Agassi, and the middle generation who were in their prime in the late 90s to early 00s.

Similarly with Rafa-Novak-Andy. Roger was really the only one who could hang with them, at least long-term. Some of Roger's gen just collapsed on their own, but some were dominated by the new gen.

The point being, we haven't seen that kind of "generational overthrow" over a decade.

Obviously LostGen didn't do squat--the should have been taking over six or seven years ago--and I suspect we'll never see a Slam champ out of those players born 1989-92...Thiem is the last hope, I think, born in '93. NextGen (b. 1994-98) is starting to challenge as they reach their prime, finishing the year age 21-25. What 2019 is to NextGen, 2004 was for Roger's Gen (b. 1979-83), so obviously they're quite behind that pace. But certainly they look better than LostGen.

Hopelly NextNextGen will show even more promise; Shapovalov, Auger-Aliassime, de Minaur, Kecmanovic, Fokina, Sinner, Molleker, etc were all born 1999-2001. As a five-year cohort (1999-2004), they're 2004 for Rafa's Gen, and 1999 for Roger's Gen...so they should start making noise in the next year or two to be on that kind of pace.

But I'm slipping into generation talk...

 

[Jelenafan]

Talk about the size of various players in the Murray thread inspired me to do a bit of research. The short version is probably not news to anyone: players are getting bigger, although we still haven't seen a truly large all-time great. Boris Becker is the tallest 6+ Slam winner, at 6'3" -- the same height as Andy Murray.

Here are all players with at least 3 Slam titles in the Open Era, or 2+ and #1 (I added a few others that didn't quite fit that criteria, but people might want to see where they fit):

6'11": Karlovic (230 lbs)
6'10": Isner (238)
6'6": Del Potro (214), Cilic (196), Berdych (200)
6'4": Safin (195), Soderling (192)
6'3": Becker (187), Murray (180), Kuerten (182), Dimitrov (179)
6'2": Djokovic (170), Edberg (170), Lendl (175), Roddick (195), P Gonzales (180), Tsonga (205)
6'1": Federer (187), Sampras (170), Nadal (187), Ashe (160), Rafter (190), Courier (183), Thiem (174)
6'0": Wilander (170), Newcombe (180), Wawrinka (180), Ferrero (160)
5'11": McEnroe (165), Agassi (177), Borg (160), Vilas (165), Nalbandian (175)
5'10": Connors (155), Hewitt (170), Davydenko (154), Nishikori (161)
5'9": Rosewall (150), Ferrer (161)
5'8": Laver (150)
5'7": Schwartzman (141)

(I had to add Diego and Karlovic/Isner to give the range)

It is interesting to note that all four of the 14+ Slam winners are in a relatively tight range of 6'1" - 6'2" and 170 - 187 lbs. Maybe a small sample size, though.

For comparison, here are the sizes of the best of Next Gen, also listed by height:

6'11": Opelka (225)
6'6": Zverev (198), Medvedev (182), Khachanov (192), Bublik (170)
6'5": Berrettini (209), Hurkacz (179), Popyrin (172)
6'4": Tsitsipas (187), Auger-Aliassime (194), Fritz (190), Kyrgios (187)
6'2": Rublev (154), Coric (187), Tiafoe (190), Humbert (160), Sinner (165), Djere (181)
6'1": Shapovalov (165), Garin (187)
6'0": De Minaur (152), Kecmanovic (165), M Ymer (165), Fokina (176), Ruud (170), Munar (168)
5'9": Moutet (150)

Those are most of the Next Genners and a few "Next-Next Gen" in the top 100. Notice that, as a group, they're pretty tall; Moutet is the only one below 6'.

Make of all that what you will.

No pun intended, but I don’t necessarily assume that the Next Gen will shootup as far as multiple slam winners beyond 6’-4.” I can’t see someone 6-5 and higher winning more than 3 Majors, if that.

 

[Ricardo]

Yeah, Safin is definitely in the underachiever category.

Not to go off topic too much, but I was just thinking about how Roger's generation--really starting with Safin, then Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, etc--took the crown from the prior greats in a way that we're not seeing today. Sampras wasn't quite peak anymore by 99/00, but he was still elite, and Agassi was having a second peak. The generation between the two was pretty good but with no true all-time greats. But Roger's gen seized the crown from the existing elite, both Sampras-Agassi, and the middle generation who were in their prime in the late 90s to early 00s.

Similarly with Rafa-Novak-Andy. Roger was really the only one who could hang with them, at least long-term. Some of Roger's gen just collapsed on their own, but some were dominated by the new gen.

The point being, we haven't seen that kind of "generational overthrow" over a decade.

Obviously LostGen didn't do squat--the should have been taking over six or seven years ago--and I suspect we'll never see a Slam champ out of those players born 1989-92...Thiem is the last hope, I think, born in '93. NextGen (b. 1994-98) is starting to challenge as they reach their prime, finishing the year age 21-25. What 2019 is to NextGen, 2004 was for Roger's Gen (b. 1979-83), so obviously they're quite behind that pace. But certainly they look better than LostGen.

Hopelly NextNextGen will show even more promise; Shapovalov, Auger-Aliassime, de Minaur, Kecmanovic, Fokina, Sinner, Molleker, etc were all born 1999-2001. As a five-year cohort (1999-2004), they're 2004 for Rafa's Gen, and 1999 for Roger's Gen...so they should start making noise in the next year or two to be on that kind of pace.

But I'm slipping into generation talk...

Regurgitate much?

 

[mrzz]

How would Raonic and Janowicz fair with a half-foot increase in the height of the net? It would be interesting to test it

My gut reaction is that rallies will get simply too long with a higher net. Shorter players would be broken much more than the rest because the higher bounce of a serve would be one of the best opportunities of a winner.

On the other hand a shorter net would not change much for the tall players but give more opportunities to smaller players.

But, NO! Leave it right there. So many great matches taking place in the last ten years, no need for radical changes.

 

[tented]

@tented not sure where did you compiled the stats from for Nishikori, but I can tell you he has a lot more titles won than you have accredited him for.

As I stated, this was written in 2013, and I included a note that various stats have changed since then.

 

[Front242]

No pun intended, but I don’t necessarily assume that the Next Gen will shootup as far as multiple slam winners beyond 6’-4.” I can’t see someone 6-5 and higher winning more than 3 Majors, if that.

Up till now I'd have agreed but Medvedev is a great mover for 6'6" and I wouldn't be surprised one bit to see him win more than 3 slams. Quite a lot more than that is a distinct possibility for him in fact, especially once the big 3 are either gone or on the way out and no longer winning all the slams. He'll be right up there with the top favourites for the AO already.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, Safin is definitely in the underachiever category.

Not to go off topic too much, but I was just thinking about how Roger's generation--really starting with Safin, then Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, etc--took the crown from the prior greats in a way that we're not seeing today. Sampras wasn't quite peak anymore by 99/00, but he was still elite, and Agassi was having a second peak. The generation between the two was pretty good but with no true all-time greats. But Roger's gen seized the crown from the existing elite, both Sampras-Agassi, and the middle generation who were in their prime in the late 90s to early 00s.

Similarly with Rafa-Novak-Andy. Roger was really the only one who could hang with them, at least long-term. Some of Roger's gen just collapsed on their own, but some were dominated by the new gen.

The point being, we haven't seen that kind of "generational overthrow" over a decade.

Obviously LostGen didn't do squat--the should have been taking over six or seven years ago--and I suspect we'll never see a Slam champ out of those players born 1989-92...Thiem is the last hope, I think, born in '93. NextGen (b. 1994-98) is starting to challenge as they reach their prime, finishing the year age 21-25. What 2019 is to NextGen, 2004 was for Roger's Gen (b. 1979-83), so obviously they're quite behind that pace. But certainly they look better than LostGen.

Hopelly NextNextGen will show even more promise; Shapovalov, Auger-Aliassime, de Minaur, Kecmanovic, Fokina, Sinner, Molleker, etc were all born 1999-2001. As a five-year cohort (1999-2004), they're 2004 for Rafa's Gen, and 1999 for Roger's Gen...so they should start making noise in the next year or two to be on that kind of pace.

But I'm slipping into generation talk...

I think the bolded above is the key: that the interim gen sort of after Sampras-Agassi, et al, didn't really have an "elite" player...rather more a collection of guys amongst whom mostly snagged one Major, if any. Rafter had 2. The best was probably Kuerten? (I'm not wholly conversant with that group.) He had 3 RG, but his career was cut short due to injury. (BTW, he is taller than I had thought.) Point being, the generation that brought Roger, then Rafa and Novak had WAY more talent than those guys, so it's not surprising that they made in-roads on their elders earlier on. The "generational overthrow" (I like the term) may be as much due to the aging of the Big 3 as much as talent in the Next- and Next Next Gen, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Moxie]

Just to put in a plug for my boy, Safin, he could well have been a 3-slam guy, or more, at 6'4"+, but for his head, not injuries. However, I'm not disputing what you say. Marat, when he beat Pete at the USO in '99, was seen as the future of men's tennis...i.e., that taller players would start to prevail. This is both wrong and a bit right. Safin was a great mover. Plus, he's on the smaller side of the tall trees. I fully agree that the "sweet spot" in terms of size in men's tennis seems to be in the 6'-6'3" range. The best (in that range) still have great movement, and can use it to make up for what they lack in wing-span or serve power and angle. The really big players have to have a great serve, to compensate for dragging around those big bodies, and the smaller players have to be really fast, agile, fit and crafty to compensate for what they don't have in power and range.

Sorry to quote myself, but the Schwartzman d. Khachanov match today in Vienna was kind of an example of the difference between what the big guys have, and lack, and what the small guys have to do, as I mentioned above. KK was way ahead in the first set, I think up 2 breaks. But Schwartzman dug in and got back on serve. Then KK had the lead in the TB, but Diego pulled it out from under him, then won the 2nd set, 6-2. While the diminutive Argentine is far shorter than David Ferrer, I think he's inherited the mantle of the guy that will commit to every ball, never give up, out-run and out-clever the really big guys. I'd say he has more of a problem with top guys in the middle-size range. Mostly they can do what he does, but better. Much like Ferrer.

 

[don_fabio]

When I watch these next gen tall players I don't get a feeling that they are that tall. It is probably because how well they move and cover the court. I don't see any major disadvantage due to their size, but maybe carrying those big bodies could potentially have an effect on their injuries in long term.

I do enjoy watching longer rallies and though these young guys are tall none of them are only serve dependant and they all play great from the baseline. I hope we will witness some epic matches watching the next gen guys as well as we have with big3.

I wonder if any short player will win a slam during the next 10 years or so. Future looks like it will be completely dominated by the tall men, but I would like to see someone like De Minaur winning a slam.

 

[kskate2]

Some players "seem" different from their actual height. Borg always seems tall to me, yet he's under 6'

I remember seeing Hewitt a few years back in Washington. He looked taller in person than he appears on TV.

 

[Moxie]

I remember seeing Hewitt a few years back in Washington. He looked taller in person than he appears on TV.

I saw him in NY...I thought the same.