How many ATP number ones were not in the top ten best movers?

[sandy mayer]

Most ATP number 1s have been great movers, and were top ten movers in the world (at least) at the time they were number 1. But I think there have been exceptions. I'm not convinced Becker or Agassi were ever in the top ten movers in any year they were on the tour. Becker compensated with his serve, power off the ground, and all round game. Agassi compensated with his huge power off the ground, his return, and taking the ball on the rise. Can you think of any number ones who weren't quick? I don't get the impression Newcombe was very quick but then again I haven't watched him much.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Pretty much every commentator I saw in 1988 called Agassi one of the fastest players on tour. But what do they know I guess.

 

[socallefty]

I always thought Agassi was a great mover and am surprised by your comment. It’s hard to be a great baseline player unless you move exceptionally well.

 

[sandy mayer]

I always thought Agassi was a great mover and am surprised by your comment. It’s hard to be a great baseline player unless you move exceptionally well.

I'm not saying Agassi was slow, just that he wasn't particularly fast. Sampras in his autobiography says this about Agassi:
"The overreaching theme in my eyes, was that if I could make it a test of athleticism and movement, things would break my way. I had the fast-twitch-muscle advantage. By contrast Andre had amazing hand eye co-ordination; he was unrivalled as a ball striker. The idea has always been the same: avoid being the puppet on the end of Andre's string".
Agassi had the ability to make his opponent move alot more than him. This made him a great baseliner, not his movement.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Becker.

 

[Drob]

Most ATP number 1s have been great movers, and were top ten movers in the world (at least) at the time they were number 1. But I think there have been exceptions. I'm not convinced Becker or Agassi were ever in the top ten movers in any year they were on the tour. Becker compensated with his serve, power off the ground, and all round game. Agassi compensated with his huge power off the ground, his return, and taking the ball on the rise. Can you think of any number ones who weren't quick? I don't get the impression Newcombe was very quick but then again I haven't watched him much.

Do you mean just ATP or since 1920?

Do you mean only year-end No. 1, or any player who reached No. 1 on the ATP computer?

 

[tonylg]

I'm not saying Agassi was slow, just that he wasn't particularly fast. Sampras in his autobiography says this about Agassi:
"The overreaching theme in my eyes, was that if I could make it a test of athleticism and movement, things would break my way. I had the fast-twitch-muscle advantage. By contrast Andre had amazing hand eye co-ordination; he was unrivalled as a ball striker. The idea has always been the same: avoid being the puppet on the end of Andre's string".
Agassi had the ability to make his opponent move alot more than him. This made him a great baseliner, not his movement.

Two different types of movement:

1. Explosive athleticism to fly up and sideways for the dunk smash midway through your net approach, while maintaining perfect balance.

2. Moving side to side along the baseline, over and over and over.

That's why Sampras specifically referred to this "fast twitch" muscle advantage.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Pretty much every commentator I saw in 1988 called Agassi one of the fastest players on tour. But what do they know I guess.

In 1988, Andre was 18. I'm sure he was pretty fast at that point.

Andre was often noted as having good movement, but I don't think was a "fast" (post teenage years) in the way the Borg or Pete was fast. His good movement came from excellent anticipation and footwork combined with being in excellent shape physically (when he got serious about training with Reyes) and having good, but not exceptional footspeed.

Looking at this:

List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't see any players I would categorize as slow or not quick. That definitely tells you something. Even Becker was a solid mover, though no Murray or Hewitt or Connors. Here's my initial impressions:

Note - The Big 3 have had such long careers, I'm just going to go with what they were around their "peak" years, roughly. Obviously, older Fed is not the mover than 2004 Fed was.

ATG Top Level Movement and speed:

Borg, Connors, Sampras, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray

Excellent Movement:

Wilander, Edberg, Kuerten, young Fed

Very Good:

Safin, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Moya, Rafter,

Decent Movement:

Becker, Courier, Roddick,

Don't Know: Nastase, Newcombe, Vilas (I'm giving him his #1)
Don't Remember: Kafelnikov, Rios (probably pretty good), Ferrero

This is involves all of 2-5 minutes of thinking, so I could be wrong here. Rough draft.

 

[jrepac]

Agassi's movement has always been questioned, it seems. I always felt that laterally, he was reasonably good. Not so much going forward. His ball striking and timing likely compensated a bit here. I always put Borg and Connors at the top of my list along with Djoko. Nadal is pretty quick too, tho I might have him a tad below tied w/Fed. I think Mac is under-rated...deceptively quick.

Lendl a mixed bag too. Early on, not so much speed was evident(of course he was losing to guys like Borg and Connors), but in his prime he was quite good side to side.

Becker never seemed 'fast' to me...but he could really crack the ball when he got there.

 

[bluetrain4]

"Movement" is multi faceted. There's pure athletic movement - encompassing explosiveness and speed - things that can be measured. There's great footwork, which isn't movement in itself, but bolsters movement - especially movement when changing directions. And there's good/great anticipation, which can make great movement even greater, or help negate less than superior movement.

I had a good friend who was in tip shape - a real fitness freak. He had very good athletic movement - very fast in a straight line, could cover a lot of court when he got going. But, he had extremely mediocre footwork and bad anticipation.

 

[skaj]

Davenport for the WTA . Probably not even top 100.

 

[skaj]

In 1988, Andre was 18. I'm sure he was pretty fast at that point.

Andre was often noted as having good movement, but I don't think was a "fast" (post teenage years) in the way the Borg or Pete was fast. His good movement came from excellent anticipation and footwork combined with being in excellent shape physically (when he got serious about training with Reyes) and having good, but not exceptional footspeed.

Looking at this:

List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't see any players I would categorize as slow or not quick. That definitely tells you something. Even Becker was a solid mover, though no Murray or Hewitt or Connors. Here's my initial impressions:

Note - The Big 3 have had such long careers, I'm just going to go with what they were around their "peak" years, roughly. Obviously, older Fed is not the mover than 2004 Fed was.

ATG Top Level Movement and speed:

Borg, Connors, Sampras, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray

Excellent Movement:

Wilander, Edberg, Kuerten, young Fed

Very Good:

Safin, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Moya, Rafter,

Decent Movement:

Becker, Courier, Roddick,

Don't Know: Nastase, Newcombe, Vilas (I'm giving him his #1)
Don't Remember: Kafelnikov, Rios (probably pretty good), Ferrero

This is involves all of 2-5 minutes of thinking, so I could be wrong here. Rough draft.

Rios was one of the best movers ever. Ferrero was an excellent mover also. Kafelnikov not bad, but nothing special.
Nastase was very good, from what I've seen.

p.s. Connors had the best footwork ever, but not tremendous speed. I would move him to the excellent movement category and Federer to the top level movement and speed, although he did not have a top level speed either.

 

[sandy mayer]

Do you mean just ATP or since 1920?

Do you mean only year-end No. 1, or any player who reached No. 1 on the ATP computer?

I meant ATP number 1, but you can talk about number ones pre ATP rankings if you want! That would be interesting.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Rios was one of the best movers ever. Ferrero was an excellent mover also. Kafelnikov not bad, but nothing special.
Nastase was very good, from what I've seen.

p.s. Connors had the best footwork ever, but not tremendous speed. I would move him to the excellent movement category and Federer to the top level movement and speed, although he did not have a top level speed either.

I'll agree with all that. My Rios and Kafelnikov memories aren't very precise, so I wasn't sure. I really only remember Ferrero from a couple matches, so that's equally fuzzy. But, that's what I would/should have gone with.

I'll also agree with the Connors and Fed points, I debated that (though not long, as I said).

 

[jrepac]

I'll agree with all that. My Rios and Kafelnikov memories aren't very precise, so I wasn't sure. I really only remember Ferrero from a couple matches, so that's equally fuzzy. But, that's what I would/should have gone with.

I'll also agree with the Connors and Fed points, I debated that (though not long, as I said).

I don't know about that...Connors was pretty fast in his prime....yet Borg was faster.

 

[Drob]

I meant ATP number 1, but you can talk about number ones pre ATP rankings if you want! That would be interesting.

It is a good question any way you slice it. Not easy to be No. 1 w/o being one of the best movers.

Here are a few possible exceptions.


ATP Computer Year-End Number Ones:

Andy Roddick

Ivan Lendl. He moved extremely well but not like some of his competitors. I can't remember back that far, so I could only identify nine players on the top-100 for year-end 1985 and year-end 1987 who I know moved better. But I can't remember how well Perez-Roland, Jaite, Jarryd, Nystrom and scores of others moved. So, I suspect that Ivan was not a "top-10 mover," but also not so far from it.

Gustavo Kuerten. I love Guga to death, but really doubt he was a top-10 mover in his prime, although, again, he was good enough. He kept the No. 1 for nearly one full year, so I looked at year-end 2000, at at end of August, 2001. In the first instance, I identified 10 players who moved better, and another 10 who moved equally well or better. In the second instance, I found 13 players whom I thought were probably better movers than Guga.


Players who briefly reached No. 1 on computer

John Newcombe - others will surely disagree, but I watch his matches and I don't think he is a top-echelon mover

Thomas Muster - necessarily not one of the great movers, unfortunately.

Yevgeny Kafelnikov - not sure, but my impression from seeing one match in the last few years, plus memory, is that he was not a top-10 mover, but this impression could be wrong.

Marat Safin - not a top-10 mover, but an extraordinary mover for his size at the time.


Past Number Ones

Jack Crawford, definitive world No. 1 for 1933. Most probably not a top-10 mover, or close.

Newcombe (majority-view No. 1 for 1971) - see above

Stan Smith (majority-view No. 1 for 1972 - erroneously IMO), nowhere close to top-10 mover

Jack Kramer (probable world No. 1 1946-47, definitive No. 1 1948-51, arguable No. 1 1953). "Too heavy on his feet," Justin Heldman said. Big Jake was not a Top-10 mover. He avoided Roland Garros because he knew he would not do well on the clay. He made up for this with his "percentage tennis" and "zoning" schemes, and with great serve-volley, excellent, unorthodox forehand, and the best second serve in history.

There were some amateur number-ones in the 1950s who were not top-10 movers, but they were not world number-ones. Frank Sedgman is an exception - probable world No. 1 as amateur in 1952, he was a top mover.

Be interested in other's opinions. I hope they will say I am wrong about Guga.

Nowadays I don't think anyone could be No. 1 w/o being top-10 mover.

 

[skaj]

I'll agree with all that. My Rios and Kafelnikov memories aren't very precise, so I wasn't sure. I really only remember Ferrero from a couple matches, so that's equally fuzzy. But, that's what I would/should have gone with.

I'll also agree with the Connors and Fed points, I debated that (though not long, as I said).

Rios' mobility was wonderful. Quick, footwork as good as anyone's, amazing anticipation, used the whole court very well, and was a graceful mover on the top of it all.

 

[sandy mayer]

It is a good question any way you slice it. Not easy to be No. 1 w/o being one of the best movers.

Here are a few possible exceptions.


ATP Computer Year-End Number Ones:

Andy Roddick

Ivan Lendl. He moved extremely well but not like some of his competitors. I can't remember back that far, so I could only identify nine players on the top-100 for year-end 1985 and year-end 1987 who I know moved better. But I can't remember how well Perez-Roland, Jaite, Jarryd, Nystrom and scores of others moved. So, I suspect that Ivan was not a "top-10 mover," but also not so far from it.

Gustavo Kuerten. I love Guga to death, but really doubt he was a top-10 mover in his prime, although, again, he was good enough. He kept the No. 1 for nearly one full year, so I looked at year-end 2000, at at end of August, 2001. In the first instance, I identified 10 players who moved better, and another 10 who moved equally well or better. In the second instance, I found 13 players whom I thought were probably better movers than Guga.


Players who briefly reached No. 1 on computer

John Newcombe - others will surely disagree, but I watch his matches and I don't think he is a top-echelon mover

Thomas Muster - necessarily not one of the great movers, unfortunately.

Yevgeny Kafelnikov - not sure, but my impression from seeing one match in the last few years, plus memory, is that he was not a top-10 mover, but this impression could be wrong.

Marat Safin - not a top-10 mover, but an extraordinary mover for his size at the time.


Past Number Ones

Jack Crawford, definitive world No. 1 for 1933. Most probably not a top-10 mover, or close.

Newcombe (majority-view No. 1 for 1971) - see above

Stan Smith (majority-view No. 1 for 1972 - erroneously IMO), nowhere close to top-10 mover

Jack Kramer (probable world No. 1 1946-47, definitive No. 1 1948-51, arguable No. 1 1953). "Too heavy on his feet," Justin Heldman said. Big Jake was not a Top-10 mover. He avoided Roland Garros because he knew he would not do well on the clay. He made up for this with his "percentage tennis" and "zoning" schemes, and with great serve-volley, excellent, unorthodox forehand, and the best second serve in history.

There were some amateur number-ones in the 1950s who were not top-10 movers, but they were not world number-ones. Frank Sedgman is an exception - probable world No. 1 as amateur in 1952, he was a top mover.

Be interested in other's opinions. I hope they will say I am wrong about Guga.

Nowadays I don't think anyone could be No. 1 w/o being top-10 mover.

I agree no-one could be number 1 today without being a top mover. In the past I think it was different.
I read a book written in 1973 called Tennis Strokes and Strategies with a lot of input from John Alexander. John Alexander said John Newcombe wasn't very fast but had great stamina and would play the same in the fifth set as the first set. I guess that was one of his strengths that compensated for lack of amazing foot speed.

 

[Shaolin]

Roddick, Kafelnikov, Becker all candidates

Rios "probably pretty good" lol
He was one of the best movers of all time. Most exquisite footwork I've ever seen. Was like a cat on the court. I put him right there with Fed in terms of movement/footwork.

 

[thrust]

Agassi's movement has always been questioned, it seems. I always felt that laterally, he was reasonably good. Not so much going forward. His ball striking and timing likely compensated a bit here. I always put Borg and Connors at the top of my list along with Djoko. Nadal is pretty quick too, tho I might have him a tad below tied w/Fed. I think Mac is under-rated...deceptively quick.

Lendl a mixed bag too. Early on, not so much speed was evident(of course he was losing to guys like Borg and Connors), but in his prime he was quite good side to side.

Becker never seemed 'fast' to me...but he could really crack the ball when he got there.

This week the Tennis Channel has been showing top matches between players like: Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Courier and Lendl. What I had forgotten was how good a ground game Becker had. I had thought of him as just a great serve and volleyer, which he was, but his ground game was very impressive as well. Last night they replayed the Wimbledon final with Rafter and Goran, which was a great grass court match as well as being very emotional and exciting. I was rooting for Goran at the time of the match because he had come close but had never won Wimbledon or any other slam, though Rafter is one of my all time favorite players. What watching the matches reminded me was that these were great players often underrated by avid fans of today's big 3

 

[Shaolin]

This week the Tennis Channel has been showing top matches between players like: Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Courier and Lendl. What I had forgotten was how good a ground game Becker had. I had thought of him as just a great serve and volleyer, which he was, but his ground game was very impressive as well. Last night they replayed the Wimbledon final with Rafter and Goran, which was a great grass court match as well as being very emotional and exciting. I was rooting for Goran at the time of the match because he had come close but had never won Wimbledon or any other slam, though Rafter is one of my all time favorite players. What watching the matches reminded me was that these were great players often underrated by avid fans of today's big 3

I've been loving watching some of the replays of Becker's matches especially. GREAT all court game. He could really do it all. I love how he varied his game so much too....big groundstrokes, drop shots, s&v, r&v, always keeping opponents guessing.

Too bad he's had all of these off court issues, distracts people from how great he was on court.

 

[skaj]

I've been loving watching some of the replays of Becker's matches especially. GREAT all court game. He could really do it all. I love how he varied his game so much too....big groundstrokes, drop shots, s&v, r&v, always keeping opponents guessing.

Too bad he's had all of these off court issues, distracts people from how great he was on court.

He wasn't a great retriever though, and ultimately not a great mover along the baseline. So I would call his game style offensive, both with serve and volley and from the baseline(mainly forehand, not so much backhand), but not all-court.

 

[Shaolin]

He wasn't a great retriever though, and ultimately not a great mover along the baseline. So I would call his game style offensive, both with serve and volley and from the baseline(mainly forehand, not so much backhand), but not all-court.

Def not a good retriever no. Great all court offensive though as you said.

 

[sandy mayer]

Boris Becker's coach Gunther Bosch in his book 'Boris' (published early 1987 I think) said that Boris Becker was one of the slower pros, but having double joints compensated for his lack of movement. I think having double joints enabled Boris to hit with power when stretched and out of position. He would have been out of position more often than faster pros like Lendl, Noah, Cash, Edberg etc but it didn't matter.

 

[bluetrain4]

Davenport for the WTA . Probably not even top 100.

Yeah. She (and Seles to a lesser degree) also illustrates that while good footwork is necessary for good movement, it doesn't guarantee good movement. Lindsay was up on her toes and shuffling more than I remember. She had decent footwork. Seles, of course, was constantly bouncing, shuffling, small-stepping - she had great footwork. But, they were both poor movers overall.

Unlike the men, we haven't really seen the rise of the tall/big superior movers on the women's side. Venus, but she's more of an exception.

 

[skaj]

Def not a good retriever no. Great all court offensive though as you said.

Ever since Pete came along, I thought of Becker as the poor man's Sampras.

 

[skaj]

Yeah. She (and Seles to a lesser degree) also illustrates that while good footwork is necessary for good movement, it doesn't guarantee good movement. Lindsay was up on her toes and shuffling more than I remember. She had decent footwork. Seles, of course, was constantly bouncing, shuffling, small-stepping - she had great footwork. But, they were both poor movers overall.

Unlike the men, we haven't really seen the rise of the tall/big superior movers on the women's side. Venus, but she's more of an exception.

I think that the early 90s Seles was a decent mover, at least around the baseline. Not a great mover, but definitely not in the same league as Davenport. Post-stabbing Monica is another story of course.

 

[CyBorg]

Old Sampras.

 

[bluetrain4]

I think that early 90s Seles was a decent mover, at least around the baseline. Not a great mover, but definitely not in the same league as Davenport. Post-stabbing Monica is another story of course.

I'd agree with this take. I had a post upthread about the different aspects of good movement. You're right, Seles was a decent mover (more side to side than up and back as you point out, but that's pretty common). Her footwork and anticipation were very good; her straightline speed maybe wasn't great, but overall pre-stabbing, her movement was pretty good.