Why do people say that a player is "too short" to win slams?

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

Ferrer and Davy can't do much with just talent alone. Had they played in the 60s when height wasn't an issue, who knows how much they would have accomplished.

Including Davydenko doesn't really make sense because his groundstrokes are punishing and his serve had some pop too, it was just inconsistent. It was never lack of power that limited him, it was his mental breakdowns. And he's 5'10, same as Hewitt, Agassi (Agassi was maybe 5'11), and Chang who was shorter yet won a major and competed in 4 slam finals.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Including Davydenko doesn't really make sense because his groundstrokes are punishing and his serve had some pop too, it was just inconsistent. It was never lack of power that limited him, it was his mental breakdowns. And he's 5'10, same as Hewitt, Agassi (Agassi was maybe 5'11), and Chang who was shorter yet won a major and competed in 4 slam finals.

Davydenko himself admitted that he wasn't strong enough to win a slam.

His serve having pop? Please, he goes for 70% FS in most of the time, because he knows he can't hurt his opponent with his serve anyway, so why give them a second serve to punish.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Why does height matter? I mean if it was power it would be different. Power is an attribute that is necessary in tennis. But height isn't the same as power and isn't necessarily even correlated. Size would be more important. I mean I am pretty sure that Serena can squat or bench more than Sharapova and I think we can say the same about Ferrer and Djokovic.

I guess it does make sense in terms of serving, but considering that Federer is the only one in the top game with a great serve, it isn't all that vital.

If only you wrote fewer posts, and spent more time thinking, the answer would be obvious. Seriously, have you played tennis at all?

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Polaris

If only you wrote fewer posts, and spent more time thinking, the answer would be obvious. Seriously, have you played tennis at all?

No I didn't.

If you actually read through this thread instead of leaping into it like a frog, you would realize that this question has already been answered and that you are likely oblivious of what I truly meant by that question.

Why don't you do me a favour and get out of my sight?

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Well, you could argue his movement would be much, MUCH better, and possibly his groundstrokes too, if he was shorter. His net game too. I think it all ties back to movement though, it would make the rest of his game better. In reality Isner's groundstrokes aren't THAT bad -- but he lumbers around the court horribly, which is why he has little success on his return games. When he gets a hold of one, he can rip it, and his 1-2 punch (big serve followed by forehand) is effective, because he doesn't have to move as much and has time to hit the forehand. His putaway forehand is actually pretty darn good. He can still break you if you don't move him around. Unfortunately for him, tennis isn't a stationary sport.

His backhand is.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by dangalak

No I didn't.

I see. That explains it. I actually thought you were joking in that post because of the smiley face. Yeah, I don't jump onto threads without reading them first.

Why don't you do me a favour and get out of my sight?

Trust me, I want to leave you alone. That's exactly why I have responded to only a couple of your 540-odd posts.

Really, if you are unable to play tennis, at least watch it carefully. That should be enough. That, and a little basic physics.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by dangalak

His backhand is.

True, his backhand is his weaker wing but it wouldn't be nearly as bad if he wasn't such a bad mover/had better footwork. Wouldn't be as easily exposed and he could live and die with the forehand. I think you're being a little nitpicky here, hehe.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Davydenko himself admitted that he wasn't strong enough to win a slam.

His serve having pop? Please, he goes for 70% FS in most of the time, because he knows he can't hurt his opponent with his serve anyway, so why give them a second serve to punish.

Now you're just being really, really nitpicky. Yes, Davydenko can put pace on the serve. In his match versus Murray at Wimby (yes, where he got massacred), he was averaging 119 MPH on the first serve and 96 on the second serve. His first serve speeds are usually around 115-118, similar to Federers. There's more to a serve than pace. I'm saying it's not necessarily Davydenkos height that prevents him from being an elite player. He doesn't patsy the ball back, or hit with little power. He has other limitations (mainly mental) that hold him back.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Now you're just being really, really nitpicky. Yes, Davydenko can put pace on the serve. In his match versus Murray at Wimby (yes, where he got massacred), he was averaging 119 MPH on the first serve and 96 on the second serve. His first serve speeds are usually around 115-118, similar to Federers. There's more to a serve than pace. I'm saying it's not necessarily Davydenkos height that prevents him from being an elite player. He doesn't patsy the ball back, or hit with little power. He has other limitations (mainly mental) that hold him back.

The problem is that he has to hit flat to cause damage. Causes more errors.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by dangalak

The problem is that he has to hit flat to cause damage. Causes more errors.

It's a factor but I think it's more his mind rather than his body. He's a guy who always seemed to have been resigned to his fate as "just below the top" tennis player. His admission that he doesn't think he's strong enough to win a slam is weak-minded for such an extraordinarily talented tennis player. He openly degrades himself, not just on that occasion. Not the mind of a champion. And not a particularly hard worker either.

Anyways, why do you keep doing this? You could agree with 95% of a post, disagree with 5%, and post a paragraph on why you disagree with that one little thing, often pretty brazenly. I mean sure we all do that at times, but you're taking it to a new level. Not judging, just wondering what you get out of it.

[rofl_copter3]

Originally Posted by dangalak

The problem is that he has to hit flat to cause damage. Causes more errors.

He stands on top of the baseline and takes every ball extremely early. This style of play requires a lot of practice to maintain the timing and superb hand eye coordination...

He has had Nadal's number so many times but against Fed he will be up a set and a break and fall to pieces which has become his mo in big matches ie what holds him back was not skill or height but purely mental...

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by rofl_copter3

You don't understand in tennis power is created by racquet head speed, longer FLEXIBLE arms can accelerate faster and create more speed than short muscle bound arms. It's all physics...

Height correlates largely to limb length therefore height=power

Now shorter players can generate a lot of power with their feet set but its much harder for them when they can't get their whole body behind the shot

Best post in this thread. That's not to say there aren't shorter players with hard groundstrokes (like Davy, Agassi), but it's no doubt a factor. I don't think it's as huge of one as some people make it out to be though.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

It's a factor but I think it's more his mind rather than his body. He's a guy who always seemed to have been resigned to his fate as "just below the top" tennis player. His admission that he doesn't think he's strong enough to win a slam is weak-minded for such an extraordinarily talented tennis player. He openly degrades himself, not just on that occasion. Not the mind of a champion. And not a particularly hard worker either.

Anyways, why do you keep doing this? You could agree with 95% of a post, disagree with 5%, and post a paragraph on why you disagree with that one little thing, often pretty brazenly. I mean sure we all do that at times, but you're taking it to a new level. Not judging, just wondering what you get out of it.

Didn't know that this is called "brazen" here.

Why would I mention what I agree with? If I didn't agree with it, I probably would let you know.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Didn't know that this is called "brazen" here.

Why would I mention what I agree with? If I didn't agree with it, I probably would let you know.

Seems nitpicky and a waste of time. But, just one persons opinion.

[Wuppy]

Originally Posted by dangalak

If Isner was Federer's height, he probably wouldn't have his godawful movement and his terrible baseline game.

Highly unlikely. He'd still be crap.

Look at NBA basketball players. They're his height and have incredible movement abilities. They're amazing athletes, and I'm not even a basketball fan. Isner is not an amazing athlete.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Wuppy

Highly unlikely. He'd still be crap.

Look at NBA basketball players. They're his height and have incredible movement abilities. They're amazing athletes, and I'm not even a basketball fan. Isner is not an amazing athlete.

They play basketball, not tennis. They would look slow and lumbering too on a tennis court.

[LeeD]

Well, he does know basketball.
JohnLucus, one of the quickest point guards in the NBA back when, was always working with HenryHines to refine his movement for pro tennis. John could change direction like Isiah or Kevin the Mayor of Sacramento, but was clumsy moving when he began his second tennis career. He'd gotten used to running and moving for basketball, where the court is much bigger, and pure speed is a necessity.
Not so in tennis. You only cover your half of the court, and not nearly the whole half.
He worked on moving 3', 5', 7', and 9', and back, in HITTING POSITION. He watched JimmyConnors run around bent over with 2 hands on the racket, and he worked hard and endlessly.
I think he ended up top 75 in Men's pro, but was always working on his movement.

[jerriy]

Originally Posted by leecc0

I'm 5'5 and serve better than most people that are taller than me...including flat serves.

Height is less relevant at local scrub/amateur level.

[winstonplum]

Look, dudes, the four best players in the world are all literally identical heights, with Murray being maybe a 1/2 tall than the rest. It's laughable, this mumbo jumbo about Nadal being 6'0". I've stood next to Nadal, a foot away, multiple times at IW and he's just as tall as I am and I'm 6' 1" 1/2 on the dot. It's quite weird to actually see Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in person, close up. They don't come off as particularly tall on the television screen, but seeing them close up, I'm like, Damn, they're kind of tall just like me (not that I'm a giant or anything, but given that the average American male is 5' 9", we're all definitely on the tall side. I'd say Murray is 6' 2"--6' 2"1/4.

The discussion of heights can end right there. At the elite level of the game, there's something about being about that height that maximizes ball-striking effectiveness. In a game of millimeters, striking a short ball (inside the baseline) with you forehand four inches higher than a player that is 5' 8"-5' 9" is going to add up to a huge difference. And serving, well, that just self-explanatory why height would help.