Do tall rec players have a huge advantage over average size players?

[nicklane1]

Tall pros over 6'3 to 6'6 have a huge advantage, except against the big 3.
Is that true for rec players?
I played a 6'6 dude who could pound the ball when he didn't have to move and his serve was unreturnable when it came in, even when I was 10' behind the baseline.
But when he had to move, it was obvious that he had to unplant his feet first to get them moving.
I find that even overweight but shorter opponents can gather their feet and move around better than taller guys.
I think that at the rec level, shorter guys will beat taller guys at a similar skill level. Unless the tall player is serving out of his mind.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Tall pros over 6'3 to 6'6 have a huge advantage, except against the big 3.
Is that true for rec players?
I played a 6'6 dude who could pound the ball when he didn't have to move and his serve was unreturnable when it came in, even when I was 10' behind the baseline.
But when he had to move, it was obvious that he had to unplant his feet first to get them moving.
I find that even overweight but shorter opponents can gather their feet and move around better than taller guys.
I think that at the rec level, shorter guys will beat taller guys at a similar skill level. Unless the tall player is serving out of his mind.

As you pointed out, height isn't just a potential advantage; it can also be a potential disadvantage.

The key is to figure out which outweighs the other so I don't think you can make a blanket statement.

The biggest determinant is probably not height but rather consistency, since most points end in an error.

 

[TheTennisNoob]

If you hit high balls then yes they have a considerable advantage, like you said they also serve easier, disadvantages are if you hit hard topspin or a low ball

 

[MaxTennis]

I have a friend who is 6 ft 6 and I'm 6 ft tall. We are both 5.0 players.

He has a bigger serve than me, but once I get his serve back into play, I do everything else better and can win from the ground.

 

[heninfan99]

No. At the rec level they are often gangly and slow. Once in a while a tall dood will be coordinated.

 

[movdqa]

Tall pros over 6'3 to 6'6 have a huge advantage, except against the big 3.
Is that true for rec players?
I played a 6'6 dude who could pound the ball when he didn't have to move and his serve was unreturnable when it came in, even when I was 10' behind the baseline.
But when he had to move, it was obvious that he had to unplant his feet first to get them moving.
I find that even overweight but shorter opponents can gather their feet and move around better than taller guys.
I think that at the rec level, shorter guys will beat taller guys at a similar skill level. Unless the tall player is serving out of his mind.

I played a tall guy with a big serve. If I won the first set, I would win the match. I did better when it was hotter and more humid.

I remember the first time I played him. I didn't return a serve until his third or fourth game on his serve. Height isn't a choice. But fitness is.

I remember back in the 1980s when the best height for tennis was 5'10" to 6'0. Taller players had issues with coordination. Then we moved to 6'1" to 6'3" with the big four. But even then, David Ferrer was usually top four or five in the world for many years.

Cancer risk is higher for tall people too.

 

[nicklane1]

If you hit high balls then yes they have a considerable advantage, like you said they also serve easier, disadvantages are if you hit hard topspin or a low ball

You are 5.0 because you are very skilled and a good athlete.
Is he at 5.0 because of his serve (due to his height)?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I played a tall guy with a big serve. If I won the first set, I would win the match. I did better when it was hotter and more humid.

I remember the first time I played him. I didn't return a serve until his third or fourth game on his serve. Height isn't a choice. But fitness is.

I remember back in the 1980s when the best height for tennis was 5'10" to 6'0. Taller players had issues with coordination. Then we moved to 6'1" to 6'3" with the big four. But even then, David Ferrer was usually top four or five in the world for many years.

Cancer risk is higher for tall people too.

It appears that the optimal height for many sports is growing. In volleyball, 6' 5" used to be big. Now it's so-so. And 6' 10" guys can move supremely well.

 

[movdqa]

You are 5.0 because you are very skilled and a good athlete.
Is he at 5.0 because of his serve (due to his height)?

Would Isner be in the top 100 without his serve?

 

[LeeD]

You are what you are.
Think basketball. Great to be Wilt size. But great to be Jerry West too.
Look for the silver lining.

 

[movdqa]

It appears that the optimal height for many sports is growing. In volleyball, 6' 5" used to be big. Now it's so-so. And 6' 10" guys can move supremely well.

That's training.

Shorter people do seem to do fine with table tennis and squash.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

That's training.

Shorter people do seem to do fine with table tennis and squash.

TT is not as vertically-oriented as tennis, though. So a lower center of gravity in TT is a big plus and maybe not so much of a big negative.

 

[movdqa]

TT is not as vertically-oriented as tennis, though. So a lower center of gravity in TT is a big plus and maybe not so much of a big negative.

The advantage would be reach. The disadvatage would be moving more weight.

I'm not sure why height is a disadvantage in squash unless it's an edge in agility for shorter people.

 

[toth]

Tall pros over 6'3 to 6'6 have a huge advantage, except against the big 3.
Is that true for rec players?
I played a 6'6 dude who could pound the ball when he didn't have to move and his serve was unreturnable when it came in, even when I was 10' behind the baseline.
But when he had to move, it was obvious that he had to unplant his feet first to get them moving.
I find that even overweight but shorter opponents can gather their feet and move around better than taller guys.
I think that at the rec level, shorter guys will beat taller guys at a similar skill level. Unless the tall player is serving out of his mind.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras all are about 185-188 cm.
I do think, it is the optimal tennis player hight.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras all are about 185-188 cm.
I do think, it is the optimal tennis player hight.

Look up past top players: is the trend towards taller players over time?

 

[LeeD]

Sure, guys like Medvedev didn't play tennis in the past. Maybe they played basketball, maybe they got hurt early in life.
Bet since recent times,like 30 years ago, somebody decided sports was important, and screened 5 year old kids, to check for physical and mental "advantages".
Such as height and athletic ability.

 

[Injured Again]

Tall pros over 6'3 to 6'6 have a huge advantage, except against the big 3.
Is that true for rec players?
I played a 6'6 dude who could pound the ball when he didn't have to move and his serve was unreturnable when it came in, even when I was 10' behind the baseline.
But when he had to move, it was obvious that he had to unplant his feet first to get them moving.
I find that even overweight but shorter opponents can gather their feet and move around better than taller guys.
I think that at the rec level, shorter guys will beat taller guys at a similar skill level. Unless the tall player is serving out of his mind.

I think taller players do have an advantage through about the mid-4.0 level. Up to that point, opponents don't have consistent skills to take advantage of deficits in moving, foot speed, bending, and recovery. Above that level, most players have the ability to consistently hit closer to the lines, to be able to handle the harder balls that taller players can hit, and to play with nuance like drop shots and lobs.

 

[nicklane1]

I think taller players do have an advantage through about the mid-4.0 level. Up to that point, opponents don't have consistent skills to take advantage of deficits in moving, foot speed, bending, and recovery. Above that level, most players have the ability to consistently hit closer to the lines, to be able to handle the harder balls that taller players can hit, and to play with nuance like drop shots and lobs.

In addtion, their longer levers give them more power and reach. On flip side, they have to develop better footwork to adjust and sometimes get their bodies out of the way of the ball. Deep into a 3rd set, it might be harder for them to dig out low balls at their feet, which is like doing power squats.

 

[tonylg]

Low balls virtually don't exist any more. What used to be the achilles heel of the tall player is basically gone.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Low balls virtually don't exist any more. What used to be the achilles heel of the tall player is basically gone.

If I hit the ball low and short, won't that force a tall person to get down more? If he has excellent footwork and anticipation he can avoid the low ball but otherwise, he's going to have to deal with it [I'm thinking about rec level].

 

[tonylg]

If I hit the ball low and short, won't that force a tall person to get down more? If he has excellent footwork and anticipation he can avoid the low ball but otherwise, he's going to have to deal with it [I'm thinking about rec level].

In general, everything is higher these days. Not only because of more topspin, but courts just bounce higher.

So yes, you can hit short .. but it's still going to bounce higher relative to faster, lower bouncing courts.

Gone are the days when a good deep slice approach forced a pass from 6" off the ground.

 

[movdqa]

In general, everything is higher these days. Not only because of more topspin, but courts just bounce higher.

So yes, you can hit short .. but it's still going to bounce higher relative to faster, lower bouncing courts.

Gone are the days when a good deep slice approach forced a pass from 6" off the ground.

There are lots of public courts where the ball stays low on a slice.

But those are typically from lack of maintenance more than design.

 

[socallefty]

I think taller players do have an advantage through about the mid-4.0 level. Up to that point, opponents don't have consistent skills to take advantage of deficits in moving, foot speed, bending, and recovery. Above that level, most players have the ability to consistently hit closer to the lines, to be able to handle the harder balls that taller players can hit, and to play with nuance like drop shots and lobs.

Is that a theoretical observation or your actual real-life experience? For me, I seem to recall the exact opposite in singles.

- At 3.5 and 4.0, the players who are fast and mobile win a lot of matches whether they are pushers or have better strokes. They play against many unfit people and their speed is a differentiating weapon. Many short players with a low center of gravity are faster and move better for their level even if they have not been coached on proper footwork.
- At 4.5 and 5.0, most players are fit, have been coached on footwork and rarely is a tall player a terrible mover if they have a 4.5+ computer rating. On the other hand, at these levels serves are bigger weapons and set up the point pattern from the start of a point. Tall players at these levels tend to have big serves and hold serve easily making them tough to beat. They also handle topspin better as they can have a higher contact point compared to short players without having to move back and give up court position.

YMMV.

 

[tonylg]

There are lots of public courts where the ball stays low on a slice.

But those are typically from lack of maintenance more than design.

Yep, there's a place with old, weathered painted concrete courts near me that play fast and low for that reason. Rewards tennis that just doesn't work on vitually every new court at the large centres.

So although slow courts advantage players who rely on running everything down (usually the vertically challenged) and lesson the natural serve advantage of taller players, pretty much everything bounces up into their strike zone and balls that are head high for runts are only shoulder high.

 

[movdqa]

Yep, there's a place with old, weathered painted concrete courts near me that play fast and low for that reason. Rewards tennis that just doesn't work on vitually every new court at the large centres.

So although slow courts advantage players who rely on running everything down (usually the vertically challenged) and lesson the natural serve advantage of taller players, pretty much everything bounces up into their strike zone and balls that are head high for runts are only shoulder high.

Most of the public courts in my area have not been well-maintained so they tend to be faster. They can wear the nap down on the balls quickly also making for a faster game. That can help the serve and volley player though on their serve as the ball moves through the air a bit faster. The indoor courts we use, though, are well-maintained and taller players have the advantages mentioned here. The game is all about topspin and they're a little taller so high balls are easier.

 

[mental midget]

all else being equal, height does give them an automatic serve advantage, assuming as a beginner everybody's movement and groundstrokes suck. but as players get better honestly it's similar to what you see at all levels of the game...height helps but only if you can move. optimal height is still 6-6'3 tops. always will be imo.

 

[mental midget]

all else being equal, height does give them an automatic serve advantage, assuming as a beginner everybody's movement and groundstrokes suck. but as players get better honestly it's similar to what you see at all levels of the game...height helps but only if you can move. optimal height is still 6-6'3 tops. always will be imo.

just to amend the above--there are outliers like isner, opelka, dr ivo whose serves are so effective they make up for relatively poor movement. but there is a ceiling for guys like that.

 

[GuyClinch]

Do fast players have an advantage over slow fat ones? LMAO.

FWIW - i'd wager that standing reach is more important then height. Obviously taller people have more reach on average. But there are some six foot guys with more reach then 6'3" guys etc.

 

[Injured Again]

Is that a theoretical observation or your actual real-life experience? For me, I seem to recall the exact opposite in singles.

- At 3.5 and 4.0, the players who are fast and mobile win a lot of matches whether they are pushers or have better strokes. They play against many unfit people and their speed is a differentiating weapon. Many short players with a low center of gravity are faster and move better for their level even if they have not been coached on proper footwork.
- At 4.5 and 5.0, most players are fit, have been coached on footwork and rarely is a tall player a terrible mover if they have a 4.5+ computer rating. On the other hand, at these levels serves are bigger weapons and set up the point pattern from the start of a point. Tall players at these levels tend to have big serves and hold serve easily making them tough to beat. They also handle topspin better as they can have a higher contact point compared to short players without having to move back and give up court position.

YMMV.

This is from real life observation. I've run a weekly singles group for 3.5 to 4.5 players for over tge past decade with as many as twelve courts going each week. I've just seen that taller players advance faster up through the ranks because at 3.5 to low 4.0, the slower paced but higher bouncing shots cause less problems and the ability of taller players to put more pace on the ball causes their opponents to hit to the center of the court than normal, so a lack of movement isn't a detriment. Even with a hammer grip, a guy who is 6'3" can put an overwhelming amount of speed in a serve against a 3.5, and do it consistently enough to win and advance. In many cases, a tall player will have a significantly weak backhand that they can hide, especially against retriever type players who tend to float back most shots.

Some of these players do hit a ceiling at the high 4.0/4.5 level. Because they've dominated the center of the court, they start having problems when their opponents become able to take that center away from them. Their struggle is that they didn't have to learn the movement skills that normally are developed at the 3.5 to 4.0 level so they have become one dimensional. They are good players against others of their rating but struggle against higher rated players, in the same way that someone with a near 5.0 forehand and 3.5 backhand is a good player against a 4.0 but will probably lose against most 4.5's (and I know a couple of players like this).

Maybe it's different because you tend to play outdoors on slower courts? Our indoor courts are pretty quick and accentuate strong shots, and it more quickly rewards players who focus in developing strengths rather than shoring up weakneses.

 

[socallefty]

Maybe it's different because you tend to play outdoors on slower courts? Our indoor courts are pretty quick and accentuate strong shots, and it more quickly rewards players who focus in developing strengths rather than shoring up weakneses.

Yes, the world you describe is very different from what I am used to in SoCal although I have to say that I don’t really watch 3.5s play and my own playing experience is limited to some 4.0, many 4.5 and a few 5.0 players. I think you are right that it might have a lot to do with the surface - we play on slow, gritty hard courts or Har-tru clay only outdoors. Also, the temperature is in the forties and fifties in the evenings for several months in the late Fall/Winter when the courts play even slower.

 

[Injured Again]

I feel a kindred spirit in these one dimensional players. I basically share the same basic problem in that because I could always hit the ball harder than average for my skill level, there were other parts of my game that never developed to the same level, and I'm now finding that is my biggest impediment in being a highly competitive age grouper.

This singles group started out back in probably 2006 or 2007 as a small bunch of us older 4.0 players trying to get to 4.5. I would have been in my later 40's back then, and I didn't make 4.5 until my early 50's. However, as the group continued, more and more people asked to join in and the skill range expanded down to the high 3.5 level, and up to just above the mid 4.5 level. I realized there was a big demand at our club for this kind of mixed rating singles play, and I fortunately had a great bunch of 4.5 players who were willing to come and play anyone. I started helping players who really wanted to improve, not at all about stroke technique but about the tactical side of playing at the next level. Just really helping them to think about progressing in the game in a different way. I missed very few weeks over several years and was able to help get a bunch of the players up to the next level without working on their strokes, and that was probably the coolest feeling.

 

[TagUrIt]

But when he had to move, it was obvious that he had to unplant his feet first to get them moving.
I find that even overweight but shorter opponents can gather their feet and move around better than taller guys.
I think that at the rec level, shorter guys will beat taller guys at a similar skill level.

I'm not so sure about that, I'm 6"4" and I move around just fine. I do think height can be somewhat of an advantage on serves and general wingspan, but a disadvantage of the low balls. When I get tired I have to remind myself to get down and stay down through my shots. As far as movement, no matter what the height of the player, if they have bad footwork (i.e. not split stepping) they will be late to most shots. Fitness is the most important element to all of this of course.

 

[socallefty]

At the rec level, there are only two advantages - coached players over self-taught ones, fit players against overweight ones. Otherwise, I haven’t seen taller players or shorter players dominating at any particular levels. Also, for me what I consider a tall player needs to be at least 6’3” and they are not that common in rec tennis unlike in basketball.

 

[nicklane1]

At the rec level, there are only two advantages - coached players over self-taught ones, fit players against overweight ones. Otherwise, I haven’t seen taller players or shorter players dominating at any particular levels. Also, for me what I consider a tall player needs to be at least 6’3” and they are not that common in rec tennis unlike in basketball.

Youth is an advantage too.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I'm not so sure about that, I'm 6"4" and I move around just fine. I do think height can be somewhat of an advantage on serves and general wingspan, but a disadvantage of the low balls. When I get tired I have to remind myself to get down and stay down through my shots. As far as movement, no matter what the height of the player, if they have bad footwork (i.e. not split stepping) they will be late to most shots. Fitness is the most important element to all of this of course.

However, would you move even better if you were 5' 8"?

Comparing yourself to someone else is difficult because there are so many factors to control for [the elusive "all other things being equal" condition]. Much better [although mostly hypothetical] is to compare yourself at one height vs yourself at another height [I suppose someone who went through a growth spurt while playing might be able to do this].

 

[movdqa]

However, would you move even better if you were 5' 8"?

Comparing yourself to someone else is difficult because there are so many factors to control for [the elusive "all other things being equal" condition]. Much better [although mostly hypothetical] is to compare yourself at one height vs yourself at another height [I suppose someone who went through a growth spurt while playing might be able to do this].

David Ferrer is said to have maximized his talents as he's short but he runs six miles a day when not playing in a tournament and has had a grueling fitness regimen. He did not do well against the big four but has a few wins anyways but he was number four in the world for quite some time. I don't think that most players wanted to play him as he went after every ball and would make the other player work quite hard for the win.

I'm average height but cheat with XL frames. Like Michael Chang.

 

[Rosstour]

My hitting partner is 6'3".

I personally do not ever encounter players who move as well as I do, with the exception of Open divisions of USTA events. But it's useless against him. Bigger reach, more power, and he actually slides better than me partly due to the size difference.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Youth is an advantage too.

"Youth is wasted on the young."

Youth can be an advantage. But it also can be a disadvantage [lack of experience/maturity/wisdom, haven't fully developed physically so they haven't hit a steady state yet [unlike their adult opponents], etc].

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

My hitting partner is 6'3".

I personally do not ever encounter players who move as well as I do, with the exception of Open divisions of USTA events. But it's useless against him. Bigger reach, more power, and he actually slides better than me partly due to the size difference.

What if you hit a lot of low slices?

And what if you hit at him, which forces him to move out of the way to hit? In general, I find that most people find it easier to move towards the ball that's been hit away from them rather than move away from the ball that's been hit towards them. The longer one's reach is, the bigger this discrepancy [it takes them less effort to move towards the ball and more effort to move away].

 

[movdqa]

What if you hit a lot of low slices?

And what if you hit at him, which forces him to move out of the way to hit? In general, I find that most people find it easier to move towards the ball that's been hit away from them rather than move away from the ball that's been hit towards them. The longer one's reach is, the bigger this discrepancy [it takes them less effort to move towards the ball and more effort to move away].

I was watching the Bryan Brothers play in the Olympics this morning and it's always interesting to watch these guys on how they deal with low balls. They stop and get down to the ball to hit it. They're also really good at handling balls hit into the body. But maybe that's why they've been the top doubles team for so long. Being tall doesn't necessarily mean that you're awkward or unable to get to low balls.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Being tall doesn't necessarily mean that you're awkward or unable to get to low balls.

It's not that they are awkward or unable but that, all other things being equal, there are pros and cons to extra height and reach. Rather than trying to answer the question "do tall players have an advantage?", I want to answer "what advantages do tall players have and how can I try to counter them and exploit their weaknesses?".

 

[Rosstour]

What if you hit a lot of low slices?

And what if you hit at him, which forces him to move out of the way to hit? In general, I find that most people find it easier to move towards the ball that's been hit away from them rather than move away from the ball that's been hit towards them. The longer one's reach is, the bigger this discrepancy [it takes them less effort to move towards the ball and more effort to move away].

The best shot to give him is a high, loopy, big topspin CC BH to his BH.

He's just at the top of the range where you can be tall without being gangly. Low balls and hitting it at him just produce a winner for him. I forgot to mention that he's easily a 5.0 player, maybe 5.5 now.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The best shot to give him is a high, loopy, big topspin CC BH to his BH.

He's just at the top of the range where you can be tall without being gangly. Low balls and hitting it at him just produce a winner for him. I forgot to mention that he's easily a 5.0 player, maybe 5.5 now.

His ability to hit winners, impressive as it is, is not where I was heading. My point was that I was hoping he'd have a more difficult time with a low slice hit at him than a TS shot that sat higher and he got to move a bit for. It's a relative comparison only.

 

[movdqa]

It's not that they are awkward or unable but that, all other things being equal, there are pros and cons to extra height and reach. Rather than trying to answer the question "do tall players have an advantage?", I want to answer "what advantages do tall players have and how can I try to counter them and exploit their weaknesses?".

Well, fitness, tactics and strategy. The usual stuff that requires work.

A new racquet? Not so much.

 

[Rosstour]

His ability to hit winners, impressive as it is, is not where I was heading. My point was that I was hoping he'd have a more difficult time with a low slice hit at him than a TS shot that sat higher and he got to move a bit for. It's a relative comparison only.

Sometimes, but it's not as effective as I'd hope for.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Sometimes, but it's not as effective as I'd hope for.

Then you just need to hit a nastier slice that skids off of the BL!

 

[Rosstour]

Then you just need to hit a nastier slice that skids off of the BL!

Deeper is bad. For some reason he is able to generate monster unit turn when returning a shot like that.

Slices can work against this guy, but only short and to the FH.

 

[TagUrIt]

However, would you move even better if you were 5' 8"?

I’ll (hopefully) never know the answer to that.
Seriously though, I think there are pros and cons when it come to height variance in tennis. We see constant examples of it in both the ATP and the WTA.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I think 6’ to 6’2” Is probably Goldilocks height for tennis. Enough to give you leverage advantage on the serve and coverage at the net, but not too much to affect mobility and coordination.

You can succeed outside those parameters but usually your game is lacking in something and excelling in something else to make up for it. Tall guys become great servers. Short guys become great defenders.

 

[sureshs]

Yes