Is Fedalovic the last players?

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
..that we will se dominate the game at their height and play the game like they did?

Let's be honest here. I think players at their height will die out at the top of the game. We are moving into Zverev and Khachanov height standard. Players like these will find a way (already doing it, look at Zverev how he is moving for his height) to move and play like Fedalovic from the baseline while at the same time serve bombs like Isner and Karlovic.

These player won't have a chance if this becomes the case, and as frightening as it is we are moving to, as @ABCD said, in the direction where players will serve like Karlovic and play like Djokovic from the baseline.

In the future, we will be pretty unimpressed with what Fedalovic were doing with the racket and how they were playing, as sadly as that is. But there will be a point where it comes to that.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
..that we will se dominate the game at their height and play the game like they did?

Let's be honest here. I think players at their height will die out at the top of the game. We are moving into Zverev and Khachanov height standard. Players like these will find a way (already doing it, look at Zverev how he is moving for his height) to move and play like Fedalovic from the baseline while at the same time serve bombs like Isner and Karlovic.

These player won't have a chance if this becomes the case, and as frightening as it is we are moving to, as @ABCD said, in the direction where players will serve like Karlovic and play like Djokovic from the baseline.

In the future, we will be pretty unimpressed with what Fedalovic were doing with the racket and how they were playing, as sadly as that is. But there will be a point where it comes to that.
Disagree. I think we're moving into an era, where 6'6 at the top of the game is becoming much more common (and Zverev could well be the next dominant player) (so on that part, I agree).
But so far, we've had 2 slam winners at that height or above in the entire history of tennis iirc (Delpo + Cilic).

I don't think the players in the 6'1-6'3-range are getting the short stick any time soon. Why? Because as good as Zverev and Khachanov move, nobody will accuse them of Big 4 movement.
And because Roddick (6'2), Sampras and Fed (both 6'1) have more than shown than you don't need to be 6'5 or above to be an elite server.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Disagree. I think we're moving into an era, where 6'6 at the top of the game is becoming much more common (and Zverev could well be the next dominant player) (so on that part, I agree).
But so far, we've had 2 slam winners at that height or above in the entire history of tennis iirc (Delpo + Cilic).

I don't think the players in the 6'1-6'3-range are getting the short stick any time soon. Why? Because as good as Zverev and Khachanov move, nobody will accuse them of Big 4 movement.
And because Roddick (6'2), Sampras and Fed (both 6'1) have more than shown than you don't need to be 6'5 or above to be an elite server.

Maybe that will change in the future.

Lets see but I think we are in for a change. We should appriciate Fedalovic and enjoy their games as much as we can cause we might not see that again
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Maybe that will change in the future.

Lets see but I think we are in for a change. We should appriciate Fedalovic and enjoy their games as much as we can cause we might not see that again
Oh, that will def. change in the future. Zverev + Khach, both 6'6, look fairly likely to join the list.

Agree on appreciating Fedolovic. All I'm saying is basically let's not call it the age of the giants just yet.
As long as you're tall enough to have a great serve (as Fed and Sampras evidently both are), the advantages with added height are miniscule at best.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
YECs was a bit of a wake up call. Djokovic and Federer looked helpless against Zverev, especially Djokovic. It was sad to see. It was like he gave up towards the end.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Alex Zverev is a star in the making. Watch him win double digit slams and his play will make it seem that the current era play in slow motion
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Oh, that will def. change in the future. Zverev + Khach, both 6'6, look fairly likely to join the list.

Agree on appreciating Fedolovic. All I'm saying is basically let's not call it the age of the giants just yet.
As long as you're tall enough to have a great serve (as Fed and Sampras evidently both are), the advantages with added height are miniscule at best.

Hmm, yea guess so but I doubt it will be miniscule at best. It's not just about the serve, but all round too. Will the smaller guys have an advantage from the baseline to counter it? That is the question too. You've seen through all these years how the tall guys have the advantage from the serve, but the smaller guys countered that by outplaying them from the baseline. Now when you see guys like Zverev and how they are moving and hitting the ball, that gap could decrease. So in the end the smaller guys really have no advantage anywhere. That's where I'm afraid we are heading.

I know it's just one match, but Djoko and Zverev final at YECs for example, Zverev really upped his game from the baseline. You'd think Djokovic would outlast him from the baseline but even there It looked like he was at a disadvantage. Maybe it was due to him not feeling well but Djokovic was losing 30 shot rallies against a guy 6.6 feet.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
YECs was a bit of a wake up call. Djokovic and Federer looked helpless against Zverev, especially Djokovic. It was sad to see. It was like he gave up towards the end.

Djokovic beat Zverev earlier in the week in the RR. Both Federer and Djokovic played poorly in the SF and F. Don't read into it too much - Cecchinato beat Djokovic in a slam earlier in the year, losing to Zverev is hardly his worst loss of the yea.r
 
Djokovic beat Zverev earlier in the week in the RR. Both Federer and Djokovic played poorly in the SF and F. Don't read into it too much - Cecchinato beat Djokovic in a slam earlier in the year, losing to Zverev is hardly his worst loss of the yea.r
Strategic tank from Zverev
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Hmm, yea guess so but I doubt it will be miniscule at best. It's not just about the serve, but all round too. Will the smaller guys have an advantage from the baseline to counter it? That is the question too. You've seen through all these years how the tall guys have the advantage from the serve, but the smaller guys countered that by outplaying them from the baseline. Now when you see guys like Zverev and how they are moving and hitting the ball, that gap could decrease. So in the end the smaller guys really have no advantage anywhere. That's where I'm afraid we are heading.

I know it's just one match, but Djoko and Zverev final at YECs for example, Zverev really upped his game from the baseline. You'd think Djokovic would outlast him from the baseline but even there It looked like he was at a disadvantage. Maybe it was due to him not feeling well but Djokovic was losing 30 shot rallies against a guy 6.6 feet.
Look, the RR and the final were like mirror images. Both matches were super close up until 4-all/4-5 in the first and then one of them faded away in the 2nd in each match. Djoko has beaten Z badly twice this fall.

I guess I just don't see 6'6's being as good or better than the Big 4 in the movement department - and I include Zverev here.

All that said, this might scare you, wrote this in the middle of the WTF week and he's done nothing since to change my mind:

"you gotta like (or dislike) his return stats with so much room to improve in the hold game.

Here's the definitive case for why Zverev will make it big:
- still just 21,5 - for comparison, Fed had 2 slam QF's and one Masters win as his best results at that age iirc
- he's got Lendl in his corner. Lendl wouldn't be there, if he didn't see the potential
-> look what Lendl did to Andy's forehand
- his BH is already world class
- he moves very well for a tall guy
- he can serve as big as the biggest servers, just needs to add a bit more placement and consistency
- he's 9-5 in finals, indicating a certain amount of mental toughness under pressure
- he's been winning 28 % of his return games in 2018, 5 % up from 2017. That's a great number for a big guy.
- his hold game has been a mere 82 % in 2018 - that's very bad for a guy that tall who's as capable from the back court as he is (up to 83 % post WTF)
-> yet he still leads the tour in match wins. Clearly there's room for improvement here with a Lendl-improved forehand after the serve and a better serve
- he's 41,7 % vs. top-10 players. Now I realize that number has been attained in the career inflation era, but it's still up there with Delpo (40,8) and better than Stan (37,1). 46,3 % post WTF.
- he's a child of the transition era. More or less, there are no great players in their 20's. Opportunities will come his way

Conclusion: Like it or not, this kid is going places."

Djokovic beat Zverev earlier in the week in the RR. Both Federer and Djokovic played poorly in the SF and F. Don't read into it too much - Cecchinato beat Djokovic in a slam earlier in the year, losing to Zverev is hardly his worst loss of the yea.r
I'm with NatF here.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic beat Zverev earlier in the week in the RR. Both Federer and Djokovic played poorly in the SF and F. Don't read into it too much - Cecchinato beat Djokovic in a slam earlier in the year, losing to Zverev is hardly his worst loss of the yea.r

I want to see them play in a slam.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I want to see them play in a slam.

I've got to believe they'll meet in a slam next year - unless one of them is injured. Surely 2019 will be when Zverev starts to back up his BO3 success in the slams and while I don't think Djokovic is really that close to his level in say 2015 him not being a major factor in slams next year would be pretty strange at this point.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
I don't think the players in the 6'1-6'3-range are getting the short stick any time soon.
You mean players in the 6'-6' 2" range, which is the ideal height range for tennis players. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras are the four players with more Grand Slams of all time. All of them are in the 6'-6' 2" range.

No single 6' 3" tennis player has ever been dominant, which suggests that 6' 3" is too tall to be fast and agile on slower surfaces like Roland Garros. On the other hand, many players who are a bit over 6' (but under 6' 1") have been dominant, this is the case of Sampras and Nadal. Sampras was not a full 6' 1", he was a bit shorter than Federer as you can see at Wimbledon 2001 or many Google images. The same applies to Nadal, who is also a bit over 6', but slightly shorter than 6' 1" Federer.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
You mean players in the 6'-6' 2" range, which is the ideal height range for tennis players. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras are the four players with more Grand Slams of all time. All of them are in the 6'-6' 2" range.

No single 6' 3" tennis player has ever been dominant, which suggests that 6' 3" is too tall to be fast and agile on slower surfaces like Roland Garros. On the other hand, many players who are a bit over 6' (but under 6' 1") have been dominant, this is the case of Sampras and Nadal. Sampras was not a full 6' 1", he was a bit shorter than Federer as you can see at Wimbledon 2001 or many Google images. The same applies to Nadal, who is also a bit over 6', but slightly shorter than 6' 1" Federer.
I'm happy to say 6'1-6'2, but both Fed, Rafa and Pete are officially 6'1, so I'll go with that (or 1,85 in cm) - not 6'0. Djoko and Pancho Gonzales are both 6'2 and 'Big Bill' was around that as well.

What you're forgetting (and what I was forgetting until @Sysyphus pointed out, I was incorrect) is that 6'3 and above are over represented on tour as compared to how rare they are among the general population.
So while we are yet to see a truly dominant player over 6'2, that needs to be compared to the respective talent pools player's have been drawn from. And if 95 or more % of the male population is below 6'3 (which appear to be true even for a rich country like the US, where less than 0,2 % are 6'6 or above), that's obviously a significant factor in how many ATG's you would expect in that height group - as well as other sports attracting the most athletically gifted tall people (basketball).
 
Last edited:

Sum Buddy Ells

Hall of Fame
..that we will se dominate the game at their height and play the game like they did?

a57a8c9ed67ac6ed21f6eb32b5df9cd3


NO!
 

Luka888

Professional
The funny thing is that somehow 'Fedalovic' still manage to win when it really matters. Add Nadal and Murray, when they recover to 'that' and this what it is ... 'youngster' failed to impress me so far.

The height is irrelevant here. The brain is.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
I'm happy to say 6'1-6'2, but both Fed, Rafa and Pete are officially 6'1, so I'll go with that (or 1,85 in cm) - not 6'0. Djoko and Pancho Gonzales are both 6'2 and 'Big Bill' was around that as well.

What you're forgetting (and what I was forgetting until @Sysyphus pointed out, I was incorrect) is that 6'3 and above are over represented on tour as compared to how rare they are among the general population.
So while we are yet to see a truly dominant player over 6'2, that needs to be compared to the respective talent pools player's have been drawn from. And if 95 or more % of the male population is below 6'3, that's obviously a significant factor in how many ATG's you would expect in that height group - as well as other sports attracting the most athletically gifted tall people (basketball).
No. Based on empirical evidence (not theoretical arguments incompatible with empirical evidence), 6'-6' 2" (1.83-1.88) is the ideal height for modern tennis. The four players with more Grand Slams of all time, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras measure somewhere between 6'-6' 2" (1.83-1.88). That is empirical evidence, not a priori arguments.

You make 3 mistakes: 1) You ignore that no single player listed as 6' 3" has ever won 10 Grand Slams ore more 2) You confuse "official" height with real height and 3) You put a false dichotomy between 6' and 6' 1", like no player can measure 6' 0.5" (1.84).

Mistake 1:
No single played listed as 6' 3" has ever won over 10 Grand Slams. You can't just ignore that fact, no matter how many rethorical arguments you made. The assertion that "6' 3" is the ideal height for tennis" is incompatible with empirical evidence.

Mistake 2:
"Official" height is not a synonym with real height. Some players can be incorrectly measured. This is a real problem which not only affects tennis. For instance, in basketball J. J. Barea is officially listed as 6':
http://www.nba.com/players/j.j./barea/200826

Basketball fans already know there is no way he is 6':


Even Barea himself admited in an interview that he is 5' 10", despite being officially listed as 6' (minute 2:11):


Mistake 3:
Now that we have understood that "official" height is not a synoynym with real height, let's come back to Sampras and Nadal. I don't know why do you assume that if they are not 6' 1" (1.85), they must be 6' (1.83). They can be 6' 0.5" (1.84). They are obviously slighthly shorter than Federer, so they can be anywhere between 6' (1.83) and 6. 0.5" (1.84).

Celebheights.com is a page dedicated to estimage/guess players real height. Nadal is guessed to be somewhere between 6' and 6'. 0.5":
https://www.celebheights.com/s/Rafael-Nadal-47955.html

6' listed footballer Sergio Ramos looks exactly the same height as Nadal:

C_sg4QiWsAAv6GR.jpg


e07e8984-c145-47a0-a495-f5d01777d408_749_499.jpg

89546kd013_hit_for_haiti.jpg
 
Last edited:

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
No. Based on empirical evidence (not theoretical arguments incompatible with empirical evidence), 6'-6' 2" (1.84-1.88) is the ideal height for modern tennis. The four players with more Grand Slams of all time, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras measure somewhere between 6'-6' 2" (1.83-1.88). That is empirical evidence, not a priori arguments.

You make 3 mistakes: 1) You ignore that no single player listed as 6' 3" has ever won Roland Garros and 2) You confuse "official" height with real height, 3) You put a false dichotomy between 6' and 6' 1", like no player can measure 6' 0.5" (1.84).

Mistake 1:
No single played listed as 6' 3" has ever won Roland Garros. You can't just ignore that fact, no matter how many rethorical arguments you made. The assertion that "6' 3" is the ideal height for tennis" is incompatible with empirical evidence.

Mistake 2:
"Official" height is not a synonym with real height. Some players can be incorrectly measured. This is a real problem which not only affects tennis. For instance, in basketball J. J. Barea is officially listed as 6':
http://www.nba.com/players/j.j./barea/200826

Basketball fans already know there is no way he is 6':


Even Barea himself admited in an interview that he is 5' 10", despite being officially listed as 6' (minute 2:11):


Mistake 3:
Now that we have understood that "official" height is not a synoynym with real height, let's come back to Sampras and Nadal. I don't know why do you assume that if they are not 6' 1" (1.85), they must be 6' (1.83). They can be 6' 0.5" (1.84). They are obviously slighthly shorter than Federer, so they can be anywhere between 1.83 and 1.84.
Celebheights.com is a page dedicated to estimage/guess players real height. Nadal is guessed to be somewhere between 6' and 6'. 0.5":
https://www.celebheights.com/s/Rafael-Nadal-47955.html

6' listed footballer Sergio Ramos looks exactly the same height as Nadal:
You make an epic mistake "No single played listed as 6' 3" has ever won Roland Garros.", but then again you haven't watched tennis prior to 2017 or so. This guy is 6'3 and won FO 3 times, have you heard of him? Nick name Guga. https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/gustavo-kuerten/k293/overview
There's also Kafelnikov btw.... I should stop right there, but I'll go on.

As for official vs. real height, I'm not confusing them. I'm just saying there is no such thing as 'real height' gathering by a few photos online, where the players are wearing different shoes, some are standing more upright than others etc. So for that reason, I go by official height.

As for 6'0 vs. 6'1, it's the, pardon my French, stupid inch system, where you can't be precise. I'm well aware that there are centimeters in between. Anecdotal evidence: I've stood within a few feet of both Roger and Rafa several times. I'm 1.86, Fed seems to be the same. Rafa could be a tad lower, but it's very minor. 1.84-85. Not down at 1.83 for sure.

In previous eras, less than 6 feet was quite common for the all time greats (Laver, Rosewall, Borg, McEnroe and Connors are 1.80 (5'11) or below). From Lendl onwards 1.84-1.88 have been the standard for the best players with Becker and Guga (both 1,91) and Agassi being outliers.

Finally, you completely missed the main point: If the vast majority of males are between 5'6 and 6'2 (which seems to be the case in most of the leading tennis nations), expecting 6'3+ to rule the tennis world is to not understand statistics. Have a look here, just 4 out of every 100 US men are 6'3 or above. It's simply a much smaller pool to draw from: https://investing.calsci.com/statistics.html
For more on this, see @Sysyphus excellent arguments in this thread: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-a-perfect-height-for-a-tennis-player.631432/

For the heights of the best players in the past 30 or so years, see my post here.
 
Last edited:

papertank

Hall of Fame
I doubt it. For how fast the 6’6 guys are getting, the 6’0 guys are getting even faster. Have you seen De Minaur move?
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
You make an epic mistake "No single played listed as 6' 3" has ever won Roland Garros.", but then again you haven't watched tennis prior to 2017 or so. This guy is 6'3 and won FO 3 times, have you heard of him? Nick name Guga. https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/gustavo-kuerten/k293/overview
There's also Kafelnikov btw.... I should stop right there, but I'll go on.

As for official vs. real height, I'm not confusing them. I'm just saying there is no such thing as 'real height' gathering by a few photos online, where the players are wearing different shoes, some are standing more upright than others etc. So for that reason, I go by official height.

As for 6'0 vs. 6'1, it's the, pardon my French, stupid inch system, where you can't be precise. I'm well aware that there are centimeters in between. Anecdotal evidence: I've stood within a few feet of both Roger and Rafa several times. I'm 1.86, Fed seems to be the same. Rafa could be a tad lower, but it's very minor. 1.84-85. Not down at 1.83 for sure.

In previous eras, less than 6 feet was quite common for the all time greats (Laver, Rosewall, Borg, McEnroe and Connors are 1.80 (5'11) or below). From Lendl onwards 1.84-1.88 have been the standard for the best players with Becker and Guga (both 1,91) and Agassi being outliers.

Finally, you completely missed the main point: If the vast majority of males are between 5'6 and 6'2 (which seems to be the case in most of the leading tennis nations), expecting 6'3+ to rule the tennis world is to not understand statistics. Have a look here, just 4 out of every 100 US men are 6'3 or above. It's simply a much smaller pool to draw from: https://investing.calsci.com/statistics.html
For more on this, see @Sysyphus excellent arguments in this thread: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-a-perfect-height-for-a-tennis-player.631432/

For the heights of the best players in the past 30 or so years, see my post here.
Irrelevant for my point, thus weak mistake. No single player whose height is 6' 3" has ever won 10 Grand Slams or more. Only players whose height is between 6' and 6' 2" (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras) have won 10 GS or more in modern tennis with modern racquets (the 1990s onwards).

Unless you can provide an example of a 6' 3" player with 10 Grand Slams or more in modern tennis (the 1990s onwards), you can't claim that 6' 3" is part of the ideal height for modern tennis players.

Based on empirical evidence, 6'-6' 2" is the ideal height for modern tennis (the height range of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras).
 
Last edited:

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Irrelevant for my point, thus weak mistake. No single player whose height is 6' 3" has ever won 10 Grand Slams or more. Only players whose height is between 6' and 6' 2" (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras) have won 10 GS or more in modern tennis with modern racquets (the 1990s onwards).

Unless you can provide any single example of a 6' 3" player with 10 Grand Slams or more in modern tennis (the 1990s onwards), you can't claim that 6' 3" is part of the ideal height for modern tennis players.

Based on empirical evidence, 6'-6' 2" is the ideal height for modern tennis (the height range of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras).
hahaha! That's rich. I give you two FO winners with 4 slams between them after you've claimed it never happened and you just raise the bar to.... 10! slams.

I'm happy to say that so far, 6'1-6'2 (or 1.84-188) seems to be the ideal height for the modern game But you've still failed to address the basic points about height stats...
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
I'm happy to say that so far, 6'1-6'2 (or 1.84-188) seems to be the ideal height for the modern game
6' 1" is not 1.84. 6' 1" can't be the minimum of ideal height since Nadal (and Sampras) would be excluded. Nadal is not 6' 1". So 6'-6-2" is the ideal height for modern tennis. It is difficult to know exactly how tall Nadal is, but from pictures he looks somewhere between 6' and 6' 0.5" (1.83-1.84).
 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
YECs was a bit of a wake up call. Djokovic and Federer looked helpless against Zverev, especially Djokovic. It was sad to see. It was like he gave up towards the end.
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions to individual matches. Djokovic destroyed Zverev a few months ago, he just wasn't feeling it in that last match. Federer is a freaking grandpa ffs, he can lose to anyone. Zverev isn't good because he's tall, but it's just that the upcoming top player happens to be a tall guy now. I think people are becoming taller in general so it's no surprise that we're seeing this shift. But I don't think things will go so far that we'll only see the Isner/Raonic type of players dominating. The 1.85-1.90m range is tall enough for a big serve and still allows superior movement. So unless they change the dimensions of the court and the net, I think that will keep on being the optimal height for tennis.
 

oldmanfan

Legend
..that we will se dominate the game at their height and play the game like they did?

Let's be honest here. I think players at their height will die out at the top of the game. We are moving into Zverev and Khachanov height standard. Players like these will find a way (already doing it, look at Zverev how he is moving for his height) to move and play like Fedalovic from the baseline while at the same time serve bombs like Isner and Karlovic.

These player won't have a chance if this becomes the case, and as frightening as it is we are moving to, as @ABCD said, in the direction where players will serve like Karlovic and play like Djokovic from the baseline.

In the future, we will be pretty unimpressed with what Fedalovic were doing with the racket and how they were playing, as sadly as that is. But there will be a point where it comes to that.

Too much recency bias. Although it's good to see Bercy-Khachanov and WTF-Zverev, but those were against near-past-prime/tired Djokovic. Those versions will both be eaten alive by peak-Fedalovic. Z/Khachanov 'may' dominate, but the moment a similar to peak-Fedalovic player shows up, it's curtains.

I'm not sure there can even be a better player than peak-Fedalovic, unless Z can develop a Fed-fearhand, improve his serve more, and move like peak-Fedalovic. That Z may edge peak-Fedalovic. But it's too tall a task to develop that triple; a Fed-fearhand, peak-Fedalovic movements, and above-Sampras/Fed serves.
 

Midaso240

Legend
No,I don't think so. Tennis is sort of a weird inverse of the boxing saying "a good big man will always beat a good little man". In tennis,a good player who is 6'2",can move well and neutralize the power of power players will always come on out on top in the long run in a battle with a 6'6" guy...
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
6' 1" is not 1.84. 6' 1" can't be the minimum of ideal height since Nadal (and Sampras) would be excluded. Nadal is not 6' 1". So 6'-6-2" is the ideal height for modern tennis. It is difficult to know exactly how tall Nadal is, but from pictures he looks somewhere between 6' and 6' 0.5" (1.83-1.84).
Rafa is def. not 1,83, but I give up. Not worth continuing this
 

Midaso240

Legend
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions to individual matches. Djokovic destroyed Zverev a few months ago, he just wasn't feeling it in that last match. Federer is a freaking grandpa ffs, he can lose to anyone. Zverev isn't good because he's tall, but it's just that the upcoming top player happens to be a tall guy now. I think people are becoming taller in general so it's no surprise that we're seeing this shift. But I don't think things will go so far that we'll only see the Isner/Raonic type of players dominating. The 1.85-1.90m range is tall enough for a big serve and still allows superior movement. So unless they change the dimensions of the court and the net, I think that will keep on being the optimal height for tennis.
Exactly,Djokovic won 6-2,6-1 and 6-4,6-1 against Zverev in the days and weeks earlier and suddenly those matches were wiped from anyone's memory. Those matches are the reality if Djokovic is up for it. He has bigger fish to fry than Zverev,you know guys who are actually making slam semis and finals...
 

oldmanfan

Legend
Exactly,Djokovic won 6-2,6-1 and 6-4,6-1 against Zverev in the days and weeks earlier and suddenly those matches were wiped from anyone's memory. Those matches are the reality if Djokovic is up for it. He has bigger fish to fry than Zverev,you know guys who are actually making slam semis and finals...

Yup. Safin(6'4") was better than both current Z/Khach and look what Fed did to him (10-2).
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
No evidence that I can see for this. Zverev really isn't playing better than anyone in history. He played well, but neither Federer and Djokovic were particularly impressive in the matches they lost.

Sampras served about as good as anyone ever and he was 6"1, so being tall doesn't even grant you the best serve ever (bar ridiculously tall players like Karlovic). And besides that I can't see any real advantage being taller is going to have except augment the serve. And there's still the issue of movement. I've not seen Zverev move better than, say, Del Potro did at his peak. Until we see tall players moving like Fedalovic, movement will always be considered trade-off.

Recency bias is always an issue. The 3 best players last year were Fedalovic, regardless of the WTF outcome. Let's see Zverev and the others dominating slams (or even winning a single one) before we declare this the end of the 6"0-6"3 era
 

Username_

Hall of Fame
This thread is an insult to Nadal Djokovic and Federer

Zverev beat a washed up fed and a lazy tanking Djokovic who felt sorry for this pathetic next gen star which is why he gave him the WTF title
 

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
When Fedalovic is gone, the ATP will become the WTA. Zverev will become Simona Halep. Fumble and stumble to a slam or two, become a #1 with no one really knowing how or why. You'll have a group of 10 or 20 players moving up and down the rankings. Here today, gone tomorrow. No rivalries. No one really knows why this phenomenon is happening. Maybe it's the proliferation of dark matter in the water supply? In the end, what separates an all time great, from everyone else, is their superior mental strength. Too much handed to these next generation mugs.
 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
I agree OP. But what I also think is this.

Players at 6'6" will "start-dominating" more and more, and "start-winning" more. Having said that, I think on the flip side, they will not have a longer career like the Big 4. The human body is amazingly flexible and adaptable to natural evolution, yes. But that takes times. So, on the one side where we start getting taller players winning, the body will take some time to develop both height and stamina at the same time. So, the Zverev, Shapo and others will win good, especially at their peaks and prime. But I think we're due for another wave of generation where 29 once again becomes the end of tennis years. We'll once again have two or three generations after 2022 or so where we start seeing retirement at 30-33. And people will speak of the Big 4 longevity like crazy and crazy.

But while human body slowly develops its capability to develop stamina (or longevity) and height at the same time, that's when such taller players will start having longer careers, so probably in the year 2030 or later, say 3-4 tennis generations from now, we may see another turn of generation with a player at 6'6" playing a good 20-22 year, retiring past 35.

I say Zverev is done by 33. And likewise his compatriots and 2-3 more generations. Which means Zed is not winning 14 slams, simply because his body will run out of steam. Whoever from Big 4 ends up with whatever records they have, safe to say it will stand for about 20 years.

After 20 years, when the big ones also become "common" in the literal sense, we can expect another big change in the sport, most probably something like raising the net height and who knows, may be even increasing the dimensions of the court.
 
Top