Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   ATP top 100 stats: Effects of age, height, 1hbh, etc. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=467034)

BevelDevil 06-17-2013 03:00 AM

ATP top 100 stats: Effects of age, height, 1hbh, etc.
 
I compiled some basic player profile data on the Top 100 from the ATP website and did some number crunching for fun. The data is from last week's (June 10, 2013) Top 100 list, so it's already somewhat out of date.

There are some facts that we all know, but hopefully there's also some interesting tidbits and angles.

http://beveldevil.blogspot.com/2013/...tatistics.html

If you find the tables confusing/scary/boring, just read the accompanying text, which is hopefully better.


Some highlights:

- 25% of the Top 100 are 30 years or older.

- Younger players turned pro sooner.

- Younger players are taller.

- The 1hbh didn't seem to delay turning pro.

- The Top 50 is taller than the top 51-100, but not younger.

- The Top 50 turned pro at a younger age.

- Ranking, in general, is not affected by: 1hbh vs. 2hbh, age or left-handedness. It is affected by physique.

Russeljones 06-17-2013 03:13 AM

Commendable effort. I must say I wasn''t the brightest in maths class but I think I get the gist of it. Very interesting.

PSNELKE 06-17-2013 03:29 AM

Effect of height is mad obvious for Isner.
That guy is a goddman loser, still being tall as a tree his serve will save his butt on most occasions.

mightyrick 06-17-2013 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSNELKE (Post 7512283)
Effect of height is mad obvious for Isner.
That guy is a goddman loser, still being tall as a tree his serve will save his butt on most occasions.

Agree. Welcome to the modern game.

When Isner is considered a successful tennis player... it's gotten ridiculous. All you need to do is have a serve in the high 130s or low 140s... and be able to hit a forehand... and you're Top-20. It's unreal.

TennisCJC 06-17-2013 05:56 AM

Yes, but Federer and Nadal are both 6' 1" tall and they have dominated ATP for last 10 years.

I do think there is definitely something to the taller theory though. I can remember in the wood racket and early graphite racket days with gut strings that shorter players could move tall guys around and make them hit lots of low balls. Tall guys could hit big serves even with wood/gut and early graphite/gut but they could not hit the thundering topspin groundstrokes that stay in the court that modern graphite/co-poly allows them to hit. Get rid of co-poly and restrict racket size and width and I think you would see the tall guys struggle a lot.

Lukhas 06-17-2013 06:19 AM

Isner's height doesn't explain everything. Del Potro moves way better than him, and Janowicz moves even better and is much more solid in groundies. EDIT: Son of volleyball players it seems, ex volleyball player IIRC. Lacks a more "tame" temper though. Sometimes you'd forget the Polish guy is that tall. Isner can only blame himself for his movement and groundstrokes.

citybert 06-17-2013 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TennisCJC (Post 7512420)
Yes, but Federer and Nadal are both 6' 1" tall and they have dominated ATP for last 10 years.

I do think there is definitely something to the taller theory though. I can remember in the wood racket and early graphite racket days with gut strings that shorter players could move tall guys around and make them hit lots of low balls. Tall guys could hit big serves even with wood/gut and early graphite/gut but they could not hit the thundering topspin groundstrokes that stay in the court that modern graphite/co-poly allows them to hit. Get rid of co-poly and restrict racket size and width and I think you would see the tall guys struggle a lot.

Those are great points on height. Also its plain physics, taller guys will be bigger and also have longer limbs and can generate more tourque on their backswings for more natural power than shorter players, who need to exert more energy for powerful shots. Its also the same in golf. Obviously too tall is bad for movement and explosiveness and slices.

Nadal is definitely not 6 1 though in real life he seems much closer to 6 2, 6 3

BevelDevil 06-17-2013 02:57 PM

It seems that Isner and Raonic would have done better in the 90s era than today, where they have to be able to win a decent number of baseline rallies.

The regression analysis in Section 9 shows that weight is also important in determining performance, and that being taller without having the right weight can be detrimental. This suggests a type of optimal physique, a combination of weight and height that works well together. It makes me wonder if the optimal physique has changed over the years.

If I have some time I'll see if I can find the optimal weight given a certain height, then compare those predictions with actual top pros.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse