Is football and basketball really the reason why american tennis suffers?

[JustBob]

do you have reading comprehension difficulty? What was unclear about the "watch" part? It was a TV program on Vs/NBCSN. Baseballprospectus has posted the data on a number of occasions in their hitting mechanics pieces, but BP is a subscriber/pay site hence the copy and paste. I couldn't care less if you don't agree with the data, my opinion, or anything else. If you can add, I don't know, anything that isn't some vague narrative, lmk. Take it to PM, too much non-tennis on this thread anyway.

Degree of Difficulty: Sport Rankings (Using the same metrics)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills#

1. Boxing
7. Tennis
9. Baseball
10. Soccer

While baseball is clearly the hardest in terms of hand-eye coordination, that's just one out of ten metrics.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Edit: it seems that you beat me to it by a couple of minutes.

Well?


(I hear crickets...)

Not that I necessarily agree with LM's position but here is a link for those #s

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

 

[SoCalJay]

I subscribed to the belief that the best athletes in the US don't play tennis at least at the junior level. But now I feel that the Powers That Be in tennis don't know jack about recognizing potential. And the USTA does not appear to care. They are in the poaching player business. It's cheaper and the Fat Cats up the food chain at the USTA don't have to worry about losing their seven figure gigs. They are like a lobby house for the tennis industry. The USTA is all about selling products, not player development. They are more concerned about selling gear than address the fact that tennis is a global game played by some of the best athletes outside the U.S.

If the USTA was truly interested in developing the next great tennis player, they would try to widen the pool of players by driving the cost down. Plus they need to stop hyping players after one good win. It's the kiss of death.

I agree about the USTA but I think that is just an additional issue that exists alongside the much larger "best athletes" problem. To the USTA's credit, I actually think that the "10 and under" program is brilliant and hope that it results in a larger pool of kids who will choose tennis over other sports. However, I can't help but assume that there will be mismanagement on the part of the USTA once kids are actually identified as "prospects". Maybe I'm just a cynic.

 

[SoCalJay]

I think AI would have made a great tennis player. Probably the quickest guy on tour. His 5'11"-6'0" wiry frame is perfect for the sport, not to mention no lob would get over his head. I think he'd be exactly like Marcelo Rios.

Good post, I totally agree. I think that could actually be said about a large number of NBA guards over the years because the skillset and size are right there in the sweet spot for a prototypical tennis player.

 

[LaneMyer]

Degree of Difficulty: Sport Rankings (Using the same metrics)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills#

1. Boxing
7. Tennis
9. Baseball
10. Soccer

While baseball is clearly the hardest in terms of hand-eye coordination, that's just one out of ten metrics.

uh, did you click the link to people voting on this? An 8 random person sample size attempting to use SS's metrics and of those 8 people there are a couple physicians, one ex-player, and 3 ESPN writers/anchors which would be the equivalent to asking me what my opinion is for this piece as I'm pretty sure SC anchor Chris McKendry probably never stepped in a boxing ring or laced up a pair of Bauers on the ice. I'll probably have to stick with the data taken from the smarter people who actually engineered the metric. There's a reason ESPN went out and hired the Sports Science guys when Vs closed shop. Unfortunately now they only produce short 2 minute segments to fill space during highlight packages instead of full detailed programs like those a few years ago.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=degree/bios

 

[JustBob]

uh, did you click the link to people voting on this? An 8 random person sample size attempting to use SS's metrics and of those 8 people there are a couple physicians, one ex-player, and 3 ESPN writers/anchors which would be the equivalent to asking me what my opinion is for this piece as I'm pretty sure SC anchor Chris McKendry probably never stepped in a boxing ring or laced up a pair of Bauers on the ice. I'll probably have to stick with the data taken from the smarter people who actually engineered the metric. There's a reason ESPN went out and hired the Sports Science guys when Vs closed shop. Unfortunately now they only produce short 2 minute segments to fill space during highlight packages instead of full detailed programs like those a few years ago.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=degree/bios

Sure I looked at it. Sports scientists and academicians certainly seem qualified. A baseball player certainly woudn't be biased against baseball and one would think sports journalists who mainly cover US pro sports woudn't be either. Only McKendry is questionable in that regard.

Furthermore, the very smart people who engineered PFF metrics to evaluate football players are often, well..., wrong.

So with that, I'm done.

 

[GoaLaSSo]

I'll admit I'm a bit biased, but I can't see how baseball could beat boxing in that criteria.

The only thing I could think baseball would have a higher score in is hand-eye coordination.

The scoring grossly overestimates endurance for baseball. Also, I'm not sure what they mean when they talk about nerve. That seems like a very subjective criteria. Nobody is actively afraid they are gonna get hit with the ball outside of the pitcher and the batter. The pitcher is the one that really has to worry about it. It obviously sucks to get beaned, but baseball is largely a non-contact sport. I would rather occasionally face a speeding ball that continually get run over or beaten up by rugby/football or boxers.

 

[objectivity]

I can see why someone would compare an athlete in 2013 to one from 1914. Did one soccer player both outpace the entire league in goals as well as play goal which would be the soccer equivalent since Ruth was both the greatest hitter and an elite pitcher.

i know, i am just making a point that there could be mental models that explain the skepticism. and frankly, miguel cabrera looks nowhere close to cristiano ronaldo, does he?

 

[GoaLaSSo]

i know, i am just making a point that there could be mental models that explain the skepticism. and frankly, miguel cabrera looks nowhere close to cristiano ronaldo, does he?

If you look at the whole field across soccer and baseball, you will find overweight baseball players at the highest level of the game. This is not because they are lazy, but because endurance is not one of the pillars of their sport. There are no successful overweight soccer players at the highest level. It is just not possible to keep up with the physical demands of soccer and have extra baggage.

 

[LaneMyer]

i know, i am just making a point that there could be mental models that explain the skepticism. and frankly, miguel cabrera looks nowhere close to cristiano ronaldo, does he?

no just as Ronaldo wouldn't have the power/strength nor the hand-eye to generate even league average hitting ability at the college level. Anyway I appreciate you taking random individual examples of big burly guys and trying to compare them to smallish thin soccer players while conveniently omitting guys like Rickey Henderson

whom at that size and speed could probably play just about any sport he chose to focus on, or current star Mike Trout who runs 6'1 230 and also one of the fastest guys you'll ever see in any sport that isn't track and field.

 

[djosbun]

what i don't quite understand is why white american suburban kids prefer to play baseball, rather than tennis? surely tennis is more action packed and fun?

In my area, kids can attend baseball camps where the cost isn't high at all. If my son wants to attend a tennis camp, he must be a member of a facility. The monthly family fee is $120.

$120 PER MONTH......plus the cost of whatever clinics he wants to do

Baseball has no monthly fee.

That is why more boys play baseball than tennis.

 

[SCSI]

OK, many ideas/thoughts... Can anyone tell me why the new generation of American women haven't done that great of late despite the fact that we don't have professional football for them? Do we lose top female "tennis" talents to soccer, basketball, field hockey, etc. also?

Sloane Stephens is the only one that shows real promise to be a top-10 or top-5 player. How do we explain this fact?

 

[SoCalJay]

OK, many ideas/thoughts... Can anyone tell me why the new generation of American women haven't done that great of late despite the fact that we don't have professional football for them? Do we lose top female "tennis" talents to soccer, basketball, field hockey, etc. also?

Sloane Stephens is the only one that shows real promise to be a top-10 or top-5 player. How do we explain this fact?

I think the US women are coming along quite well as we have a bunch of promising ladies working their way up the rankings. We have six women 23 years old or younger in the top 100 and that's not counting McHale (21 y/o, former top 30) who has been in a slump but knocked off Goerges yesterday, Vickery who just advanced to the USO second round (reigning 18's national champ in the US), or 17 y/o Duval who knocked off Sam Stosur in their first round USO match. I think tennis in the US receives a FAR higher proportion of overall athletic talent on the women's side than the men's because it ranks very well as far as the pay goes for women's pro sports overall (unlike men's sports).

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^^ How about Victoria Duval, the charming 17 yo that beat Sam Stosur in the opening round? She might have a promising future in the top 10 or 20.

There does appear to be a lot of girls in this area in soccer, volleyball, basketball, softball, tennis, etc. However, it appears that many females stop playing sports competitively after high school. They tend to focus on college, careers or raising families. Even the last 2 years of high school, many female athletes lose focus on sports and put their focus elsewhere.

 

[objectivity]

no just as Ronaldo wouldn't have the power/strength nor the hand-eye to generate even league average hitting ability at the college level. Anyway I appreciate you taking random individual examples of big burly guys and trying to compare them to smallish thin soccer players while conveniently omitting guys like Rickey Henderson

whom at that size and speed could probably play just about any sport he chose to focus on, or current star Mike Trout who runs 6'1 230 and also one of the fastest guys you'll ever see in any sport that isn't track and field.

of course ronaldo doesn't have miguel's hand-eye coordination. just as miguel almost certainly does not have cristiano's leg-eye coordination.

the whole point of this discussion is not to dismiss the difficulty of baseball. we are merely suggesting that perhaps you have almost too casually dismissed the sheer difficulty and skill level of professional soccer.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Being an excellent athlete is one of many prerequisites of becoming a great tennis player.

That young Allen Iverson would need world class coaching for many years at the right time. Who is going to teaching him all the strokes and how to move efficiently on the court? These things don't come naturally no matter how good an athlete you have. His family and other close ones would have had to make tremendous sacrifice to support him for years and make a number of correct strategic decisions.

He would also need tremendous mental capacity to train and compete hard without the benefit of having his buddies around. He would also need to be smart and make the right tactical and strategic decisions on and off the court. Just look at Nadal. When you do see him make a mental mistake or even make a bad shot selection?

In addition, as mentioned, tennis requires many different skills. It is like having to possess the skills to play all the different positions in baseball (5-tool-player) and then some.

A long story short, it is a fallacy to think that a great athlete will necessarily make a great tennis player.

it's also a fallacy to think a great athelete like ai doesn't have these skills doesn't have all these things:

1.-his family has made many sacrifices-every heard of back to back road games. at least nadal has his uncle and entourage.
2-ai-has had coaching but was also self taught. it's easy to be a metronome having your uncle bark orders at you it's quite another thing to practice constantly to develop your skills in pickup games as well as with a team.
3-basketball takes just as many skills as tennis if not more. learning different strokes isn't that much different from learning different dribbles or different shots in b-ball.
4-the metronomic game and the low risk game nadal plays does take discipline but compare that to ai who has to make adjustments on the fly in a dynamic game with more moving parts than tennis.

 

[JustBob]

3-basketball takes just as many skills as tennis if not more. learning different strokes isn't that much different from learning different dribbles or different shots in b-ball.

Not really. Producing "shots" with an "extension" (or additional segment, be it a bat, a racket, etc...) is inherently more difficult than doing it with your hand.

That said, comparing individual sports to team sports is kinda silly.

 

[SCSI]

I think the US women are coming along quite well as we have a bunch of promising ladies working their way up the rankings. We have six women 23 years old or younger in the top 100 and that's not counting McHale (21 y/o, former top 30) who has been in a slump but knocked off Goerges yesterday, Vickery who just advanced to the USO second round (reigning 18's national champ in the US), or 17 y/o Duval who knocked off Sam Stosur in their first round USO match. I think tennis in the US receives a FAR higher proportion of overall athletic talent on the women's side than the men's because it ranks very well as far as the pay goes for women's pro sports overall (unlike men's sports).

The US women are in slightly better shape than men, but other than Stephens, noone seems to be good enough to be one of the top players. I have seen first hand that there are many Duval-class up and coming players, but none are outstanding players. I would give you that I see many athletic and/or mentally tough American female junior and college players, but frankly most of them have old school technique, and it severely limits their potential.

 

[SCSI]

it's also a fallacy to think a great athelete like ai doesn't have these skills doesn't have all these things:

1.-his family has made many sacrifices-every heard of back to back road games. at least nadal has his uncle and entourage.
2-ai-has had coaching but was also self taught. it's easy to be a metronome having your uncle bark orders at you it's quite another thing to practice constantly to develop your skills in pickup games as well as with a team.
3-basketball takes just as many skills as tennis if not more. learning different strokes isn't that much different from learning different dribbles or different shots in b-ball.
4-the metronomic game and the low risk game nadal plays does take discipline but compare that to ai who has to make adjustments on the fly in a dynamic game with more moving parts than tennis.

Noone is doubting that AI is a superb athlete and a great basketball player. However, tennis requires world class coaching/training/competition at the right time. It also requires different sets of skills vs. many other sports including basketball not to mention enormous amount of resources and support.

What you are insisting is almost like saying AI would have made a Cy Young caliber pitcher in baseball. He would probably have had a better chance at it than me probably, but many extraordinary things would have to go right for that to happen. We are talking apples to oranges here.

 

[SoCalJay]

The US women are in slightly better shape than men, but other than Stephens, noone seems to be good enough to be one of the top players. I have seen first hand that there are many Duval-class up and coming players, but none are outstanding players. I would give you that I see many athletic and/or mentally tough American female junior and college players, but frankly most of them have old school technique, and it severely limits their potential.

I think Keys and Burdette are also tremendously talented and have weapons but only time will tell how far they will ascend. I'm certainly not forecasting a future in the top 10 for either one at this point. It would be nice to have someone like Mary Joe Fernandez running the player development at the USTA on the women's side because I'd hate to see all of the up and coming talent wasted.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Not really. Producing "shots" with an "extension" (or additional segment, be it a bat, a racket, etc...) is inherently more difficult than doing it with your hand.

That said, comparing individual sports to team sports is kinda silly.

point1- your biased opinion...not fact.
point2- not silly if you have the common sense to realize we are talking about skills, so it doesn't matter.

 

[toddrobert38]

BTW theres no such thing as difficulty of sport, only of competition.

The opponent is the challenge, not the sport.

Anything done professionally is extremely difficult to be the best at. Just a shame so few great tennis players can earn a living. The money stays at the tip of the iceberg. Again, leaving wealthy/sponsored players to take up all the low level spots. A very unfair playing field, but it doesn't make them champions.

 

[JustBob]

point1- your biased opinion...not fact.
point2- not silly if you have the common sense to realize we are talking about skills, so it doesn't matter.

1. That's not my "biased opinion" it's Sports Biomechanics 101.

2. There are factors affecting your "skills" in team sports which do not exist in individual sports. So yes, in the context of an actual match/game/event, it does matter...

 

[insideguy]

Honestly and I dont want to offend any europeans or americans but this is all just stupid. Like another poster said it goes in cycles. Where are the great germans? Whats wrong with them? Where are the great swedes? Whats wrong with them? Where are the great aussies? What happened to the Begians? Why cant France produce a slam champion? Whats wrong with them? All of these countries were tennis powers now they arent. Do you think Spain is always going to be a tennis power? Please. American tennis is fine and on the womens side its getting better and better every day. Three women in the top 20. And Sloan looks to be a future star. How did she and Jamie Hampton beat this horrible system in the USA?

It so weird how all of you sit here and pontificate on this stuff. China has a billion people and no good men. India has a billion people and no good players at all. Japan has one decent guy. Great Britian has one great player. Thats all you need. Its never going to go back to the good old days before the Iron Curtain came down and europe was still trying to rebuild from the war. Its not.

 

[topher]

Tennis isn't very accessible for most people where I live. Want to play football, soccer, baseball or basketball? Join a public rec league for little or no cost. Play tennis? Pay expensive membership fees to a local country club and hire an instructor? Easy choice for most parents.

however I'm not sure about that. soccer in europe is probably as popular as football and basketball combined in the USA.

Who knows if this is true? Don't forget baseball, hockey, etc.

the tennis stars are all 5"10-6"3 160-190 lbs white suburban kids which is way to small to play NBA or NFL while that is ideal height and weight for soccer.

Actually that height range is fine for lots of NFL positions and there are a lot of college basketball players in that range. You've got to keep in mind that a lot of kids are still going to be preoccupied with these sports even if it is nearly hopeless for them to go pro in it. They've still wasted their potential on it and lost a chance to try tennis, even if they never sniffed the NBA/NFL.

so why are some of the most dominant soccer countries like spain and france developing more tennis players than the US despite losing way more potential talent to soccer than the americans losing to football and basketball?

Which brings me to another point: I think playing soccer as a kid is much more compatible with tennis. It really helps your footwork, I think, whereas what in the world do baseball/basketball/football do for you? Just look at today's top players, they all seem to have good soccer/footwork skills and in the game that's relying increasingly more on movement/defense than on ballstriking that's becoming an increasingly larger factor.

 

[insideguy]

Again its all crap. If soccer had anything to do with tennis and vice versa, Brazil and Germany and England Argentina would be four of the greatest tennis nations earth. England has one good player on the mens side. One decent player on the ladies side. Argentina has one great player. Germany has no one on the mens side. Brazil has no one period. The great tennis players all are able to overcome any obstacle put in their path and they must want to play the game. PERIOD.

 

[topher]

Again its all crap. If soccer had anything to do with tennis and vice versa, Brazil and Germany and England Argentina would be four of the greatest tennis nations earth. England has one good player on the mens side. One decent player on the ladies side. Argentina has one great player. Germany has no one on the mens side. Brazil has no one period. The great tennis players all are able to overcome any obstacle put in their path and they must want to play the game. PERIOD.

It's not necessarily a direct correlation, but it can't hurt. Do you deny that soccer breeds good footwork skills or that footwork is immensely important in today's tennis game? Practicing tennis is obviously the best way to get good at tennis, but it's got to be kind of nice that your side sport (soccer) isn't a total time waste in terms of tennis skills (like baseball, basketball).

The greats of today all have great footwork and loved/love to play soccer. Could be coincidence, could not. Not enough data to tell imo.

 

[toddrobert38]

The great tennis players all are able to overcome any obstacle put in their path and they must want to play the game. PERIOD.

I agree that it goes in cycles, but that is a ridiculous comment. I am sure that more than one gifted potential tennis player has been derailed by injury or finances or other circumstances. The only point worth making is that the US has a system that favors the wealthy and may limit the pool.

As for baseball/basketball/football - when I think back to high school, I recently had picked up tennis because I had instant success against all those guys. They didn't have the combination of skills needed to be high level tennis players right out of the gate, I did, so I became a tennis player and they didn't. Bottom line is TENNIS PLAYERS PLAY TENNIS. We don't lose them to other sports. Just look at John Lucas.

Just because you're great at baseball doesn't mean you could've been great at tennis. Great athletes of course, but don't give them more credit than they are due... none of them were ever beating Johnny Mac.

 

[dman72]

Where I live, Lacrosse has moved up past Baseball and maybe even basketball as a popular recreational sport for young kids. Tennis is way, way down on the list.

I still manage to see some jockey looking kids who get out and play with their buds on a local court on a Saturday during the summer because they saw a bit of Wimbledon or the US open on TV and they seem to love it..it just doesn't translate as well as it used to. What's funny is that the game was harder to play when it was at it's peak of popularity in the US...wooden racquets and such.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Where I live, Lacrosse has moved up past Baseball and maybe even basketball as a popular recreational sport for young kids. Tennis is way, way down on the list.

I still manage to see some jockey looking kids who get out and play with their buds on a local court on a Saturday during the summer because they saw a bit of Wimbledon or the US open on TV and they seem to love it..it just doesn't translate as well as it used to. What's funny is that the game was harder to play when it was at it's peak of popularity in the US...wooden racquets and such.

Lacrosse has moved up because it was a way for kids in affluent areas to get into (or even get scholarships to) the better east coast universities, without having the huge nationwide competition that comes with being a recruited football player, basketball player, etc.

I guarantee that if schools didn't recruit so heavily among foreign players and increased the roster sizes, and there were slots or scholarships up for grabs at places like Yale, Penn, Duke, Virgina, Cornell, etc., you'd see an uptick in tennis participation in the east coast in the next 10-20 years.

 

[insideguy]

I agree that it goes in cycles, but that is a ridiculous comment. I am sure that more than one gifted potential tennis player has been derailed by injury or finances or other circumstances. The only point worth making is that the US has a system that favors the wealthy and may limit the pool.

As for baseball/basketball/football - when I think back to high school, I recently had picked up tennis because I had instant success against all those guys. They didn't have the combination of skills needed to be high level tennis players right out of the gate, I did, so I became a tennis player and they didn't. Bottom line is TENNIS PLAYERS PLAY TENNIS. We don't lose them to other sports. Just look at John Lucas.

Just because you're great at baseball doesn't mean you could've been great at tennis. Great athletes of course, but don't give them more credit than they are due... none of them were ever beating Johnny Mac.

Look its isnt like tennis in ANY country has a great track record of producing stars from the lower income bracket. It happens. But mostly from the eastern european nations. These guys coming from Spain and France aint sons and daughters of fast food workers. I find it annoying that everyone comes on here and complains about USA tennis. We had a time where we produced alot of champions. So did Germany. So did Sweden. So did Australia. Hell so did England years ago. The world is getting bigger. The pool of talent larger. There was also a time where no one could beat us in Baseball. Thats not the case anymore. We still dominate in basketball but one day that probably wont be the case either. There was a time where we couldnt lose in the 100 meter dash. Now thats not the case. I welcome the diversity. There will be another great player from the USA its just a matter of time

 

[JustBob]

One more time, US tennis is in a mediocre state not because of baseball/basketball/football, not because it's a cycle and sometimes you'll have good players and sometimes you won't. It's because the US's elite player development system sucks compared to countries like France and Spain for example.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

1. That's not my "biased opinion" it's Sports Biomechanics 101.

2. There are factors affecting your "skills" in team sports which do not exist in individual sports. So yes, in the context of an actual match/game/event, it does matter...

point1- yes it is your biased opinion because you make the assumption that since it's different, that racquet based sports are somehow more diffucult when in reality because of the extension you can reach more balls and hit harder than with your barehand.
point2- of course it does, but mr strawman my point was it's harder in a team sport because you have to deal with more moveable parts.

 

[JustBob]

point1- yes it is your biased opinion because you make the assumption that since it's different, that racquet based sports are somehow more diffucult when in reality because of the extension you can reach more balls and hit harder than with your barehand.

One more time, it's not "my biased opinion" and it's not an "assumption", it's Sports Biomechanics 101. Now if you're clueless about that and you choose not to believe it, that's your problem...

point2- of course it does, but mr strawman my point was it's harder in a team sport because you have to deal with more moveable parts.

Great, you call it a strawman, and then you proceed to agree with a point you never made, and which was the one I was making. Brilliant!

 

[TERRASTAR18]

One more time, US tennis is in a mediocre state not because of baseball/basketball/football, not because it's a cycle and sometimes you'll have good players and sometimes you won't. It's because the US's elite player development system sucks compared to countries like France and Spain for example.

that's nonsense. tennis draws from a smaller talent pool in the us than in other countries. like in alot of areas we dominated during the cold war and after wwII when europe was recovering. you could make the argumnent that after the berlin wall fell, talent was released and now we are dealing with a more open tour. just look at the tour- we had fed, novak,nadal, ferre, safin, dmitrov, sharapova, the serbians, germans, poles,bulgarians. the us can't compete with the limited field we had in the past. hell w/o serena and venus we would really struggle. heck the only players from the traditional system to win anything are the bryans and roddick. it's not cyclical. it's the reality of dominating a smaller field. today's game features every part of the world outside africa. the us needs to expand it's pool.

 

[JustBob]

A bigger pool without the adequate structures/system for elite player development will get you nowhere. Players do not develop in a vacuum. Lansdorp was right when he pointed out that the academy system was a failure and that the quality of coaching in the US was mediocre.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

One more time, it's not "my biased opinion" and it's not an "assumption", it's Sports Biomechanics 101. Now if you're clueless about that and you choose not to believe it, that's your problem...



Great, you call it a strawman, and then you proceed to agree with a point you never made, and which was the one I was making. Brilliant!

are you on drugs? you come off as very ignorant-
point1- it's simplistic to say having a racquet is much harder when in my last point i proved it has benefits over a bare hand hence why fed plays with one as opposed to without.

point2- you are on drugs. i never said team sports= individual. the skills are however, like in the case of ai. he has to have the court vision, performing skills on the run, athleticism and instincts that nadal has. if anything what he does is harder because he has to do it with 11 moveable parts as opposed to 3. nice talking to you troll.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

A bigger pool without the adequate structures/system for elite player development will get you nowhere. Players do not develop in a vacuum. Lansdorp was right when he pointed out that the academy system was a failure and that the quality of coaching in the US was mediocre.

most of the great players we have came from individual coaching-nadal,serena,sampras. it's silly to blame an entity that's been around for 10 years for crappy players like roddick,querry and isner. maybe the ppl like ryan harrison just don't have talent. different sport, but for all the talk of barca's academy, the messies of the world had to have talent and barca had to go out and find them.

 

[JustBob]

are you on drugs? you come off as very ignorant-

As opposed to someone who chooses not to believe in Sports Science? Do you also believe the earth is flat?

You implying I'm ignorant is the epitomy of irony. We're done here.

 

[SCSI]

Having to deal with these ignorant casual tennis fans gets a little old because I have to deal with people that talk these things over at Hooters drinking beer and eating chicken wings after a league tennis match and they think they KNOW that if would-be football, basketball, hockey, etc. players picked up tennis, the US would become world power in tennis again.

Why don't you guys read up on what it took for the current top-5 men got there? You will get the answer. It requires A LOT more than just being a good athlete to be a top tennis player.

Conversely, if you are a decent athlete, you can at least become 6.0-6.5 player by being exposed to the same level of high quality coaching/training/competition, etc. that most of these pros have received in their lives. That, of course, means that you would have to start playing/training 3 to 5 hours of tennis starting 6,7, or 8 and continuing all the way into the adulthood.

This would also mean that you may have to be home schooled, or go to a special school at night (like they do in Spain). Your family may need to move to an area where you would have top quality coaching and other good players to train with. Your family would have to deal with literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost in coaching/lessons, traveling, etc.

If you have the right talent and are mentally and physically tough and durable enough to go through the training, perform (focus) well in competition, and, you and your family are lucky and resourceful enough to find top quality coaching suitable for the right stage of your development, you might make it as a touring pro, and perhaps more.

My point again here is that it takes A LOT more than just being a world class athlete to be a top pro. Yes, it helps to have a larger pool of good athletes but it is not gonna get you far if you don't have top quality coaching/competition and the resources to obtain them.

In case of American tennis, my contention all along has been that poor quality/outdated method of coaching has a lot to do with the recent decline. Just a few top draw coaches may make a big difference. Plus, as I have mentioned, don't even mention athletes that excel at other sports that have little to do with tennis. There are probably millions people that are more athletic than some of the top tennis players, but it doesn't mean much here.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

As opposed to someone who chooses not to believe in Sports Science? Do you also believe the earth is flat?

You implying I'm ignorant is the epitomy of irony. We're done here.

where did i say sports sciene was wrong. you are not sports science.

you are mad because you are another one of those tennis snobs who are angry that tennis is nothing but a elitist lily white sport and you are trying to push there atheletes beyond their limited abilities.

done? we never started. you are just an internet troll.

 

[NLBwell]

are you on drugs? you come off as very ignorant-
point1- it's simplistic to say having a racquet is much harder when in my last point i proved it has benefits over a bare hand hence why fed plays with one as opposed to without.

.

No. Bobby Riggs once bet someone that he could beat someone while just catching and throwing the ball vs. playing with a racket. He - as always on these sucker bets - won easily.
Think about it. Unless the guy hits a clean ace, it is easy to catch a tennis ball. Then you can throw it precisely where you want it to be - out of the guy's reach. (assuming you can throw and catch well)

 

[NLBwell]

It's not necessarily a direct correlation, but it can't hurt. Do you deny that soccer breeds good footwork skills or that footwork is immensely important in today's tennis game? Practicing tennis is obviously the best way to get good at tennis, but it's got to be kind of nice that your side sport (soccer) isn't a total time waste in terms of tennis skills (like baseball, basketball).

Basketball is at least as good, if not better, than soccer for tennis training. You need explosive footwork - side to side and forward movement as well as jumping. It also works some hand-eye and targeting coordination.

 

[JustBob]

where did i say sports sciene was wrong. you are not sports science.

I know this must be an astonishing revelation to you, but Sports Biomechanics (aka the "Physics of Sports") is part of sports science. And you clearly stated that you didn't believe what I said, which comes directly from it. Now, let me show you how idiotic your argument is:

Fact: Hitting a baseball is widely considered to be the most difficult skill in sports.

Now using your logic:

TERRASTAR18: Well not really because with a bat you can reach balls further away and hit them harder than with your hand!

Do you even realize what an idiotic argument that is?

you are mad because you are another one of those tennis snobs who are angry that tennis is nothing but a elitist lily white sport and you are trying to push there atheletes beyond their limited abilities.

The only thing I'm getting mad about is being suckered into an exercise in futility with a clueless nitwit.

done? we never started. you are just an internet troll.

Ignorant and now troll? Congratulations, you're now two for two in the epitomy of irony category...

 

[TERRASTAR18]

I know this must be an astonishing revelation to you, but Sports Biomechanics (aka the "Physics of Sports") is part of sports science. And you clearly stated that you didn't believe what I said, which comes directly from it. Now, let me show you how idiotic your argument is:

Fact: Hitting a baseball is widely considered to be the most difficult skill in sports.

Now using your logic:

TERRASTAR18: Well not really because with a bat you can reach balls further away and hit them harder than with your hand!







Do you even realize what an idiotic argument that is?



The only thing I'm getting mad about is being suckered into an exercise in futility with a clueless nitwit.



Ignorant and now troll? Congratulations, you're now two for two in the epitomy of irony category...

i'm not talking to you anymore ignoramus, it's a waste of time.


i'll leave you with this- could you hit a 90 mph baseball without a bat like say with your bare hand? or would you break your hand?

and you should find it ironic that you call someone a nitwit because you are arguing about holding a bat as the most difficult part when in reality, it's the 90 mph+ baseball coming at you and 0.4 seconds to react. which is similar to the reaction time a qb has in the pocket to release the ball before ray lewis sacks him. which was going to my point of skills being transferable regardless of if it's an individual or team sport.

but i'm done. you are a fool.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

No. Bobby Riggs once bet someone that he could beat someone while just catching and throwing the ball vs. playing with a racket. He - as always on these sucker bets - won easily.
Think about it. Unless the guy hits a clean ace, it is easy to catch a tennis ball. Then you can throw it precisely where you want it to be - out of the guy's reach. (assuming you can throw and catch well)

but to counter than point, if you play john isner and he hits a serve out wide. is it easier to reach with a bare hand or racquet? the racquet of course. my point is there are benefits and drawbacks to a racquet.

 

[JustBob]

i'm not talking to you anymore ignoramus, it's a waste of time.


i'll leave you with this- could you hit a 90 mph baseball without a bat like say with your bare hand? or would you break your hand?

Since nobody will ever play baseball without a bat or play tennis without a racket, it's not only completely irrelevant but it completely misses the point.

and you should find it ironic that you call someone a nitwit because you are arguing about holding a bat as the most difficult part when in reality, it's the 90 mph+ baseball coming at you and 0.4 seconds to react.

but i'm done. you are a fool.

I never argued such a thing, you made that up... It's rather obvious that the "skill of hitting a baseball" refers to swinging the bat at the upcoming baseball...

One more time:

Sports Biomechanics 101: The longer the segment (arm/hand vs arm + racket or bat or golf club or...) the more negatively it impacts hand-eye coordination therefore making skills using longer segments invariably more difficult then those using simply the arm/hand.

Do you get it now or will you still come up with nonsensical arguments to argue that science is wrong?

And your point of skills being transferable regardless of if it's an individual or team sport is nonsense. Hitting a tennis ball and throwing a basketball at a basket are completely different skills, and have nothing in common. But since you fail to understand the very simple concept above, I won't bother with explaining that one...

Ignoramus? Fool? Congratulations again, you're now 4 for 4 in the epitomy of irony department...

 

[toddrobert38]

wow guys really...

I would say its about as difficult to return Sampras' serve if its on as it is to hit Roger Clemens when he's on.

Does that help?

 

[TERRASTAR18]

wow guys really...

I would say its about as difficult to return Sampras' serve if its on as it is to hit Roger Clemens when he's on.

Does that help?

the issue is he's a trolling idiot who wastes ppl's time.

 

[RF_fan]

Another thing is many kids in Europe and S. America grow up playing soccer which helps develop speed and footwork. Clay courts could be another reason.