Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Well, you may scoff, but I've seen a lot of this young man up close this week, and he has all the things he needs to get to the top level..
Noah Rubin, watch out here he comes...
- Thread starter Timbo's hopeless slice
- Start date
Well, you may scoff, but I've seen a lot of this young man up close this week, and he has all the things he needs to get to the top level..
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
......except height; he's 5'10" in a game increasingly dominated by much taller fellows.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
No size or power. Doomed to mediocrity. Sort of a Ferrer/Nishikori type, except with half the talent.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
I love this, 'sort of a David Ferreted/ Nishikori type'
So ten years in the top five, multiple titles and GS finals then?
This place is absolutely hilarious...
He is closer to 5' 8" though, but I totally disagree with 'no power'
Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk
So ten years in the top five, multiple titles and GS finals then?
This place is absolutely hilarious...
He is closer to 5' 8" though, but I totally disagree with 'no power'
Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Thing is, I was at the AO as well, so I have seen a lot of tennis players up close over the last month or so, and the idea that Rubin lacks either power or talent is just silly and could only be promoted by someone that gets their tennis exclusively from a screen...
Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Nah, not comparable at all, Flip just doesn't have the shots Noah does, I've seen them both play live.
Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
No way. Don't see it happening at all
Druss
Hall of Fame
He ain't going anywhere except perhaps just inside top 30. He's too small and not enough weapons to make it big! He only pushed Federer because the Maestro himself was having a very bad day at the office, so don't get too carried away from that AO result.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Well, I disagree, actually. And I didn't actually see the Federer game. But I've seen a lot of tennis, and a lot of tennis players, and this guy has that bit extra.
Apart from his court coverage, which is elite, he has amazing RHS on his FH coupled with excellent variety and directional control.
People have mentioned Nishikori and Ferrer, but I think a better comparison would be pre 2005 Hewitt, although Rubin has a better serve and is less prone to go into defensive hit it up the middle mode..
Apart from his court coverage, which is elite, he has amazing RHS on his FH coupled with excellent variety and directional control.
People have mentioned Nishikori and Ferrer, but I think a better comparison would be pre 2005 Hewitt, although Rubin has a better serve and is less prone to go into defensive hit it up the middle mode..
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
I assume by live you mean in person ?
If that's the measure of insight and I don't know why it would be, I'll prevail more times than not verse any random poster on this board.
OK, so I have to present my watched them in person credentials ?
:I've seen Peliwo several times but not since he won the boys USO.
I've seen Rubin more than Peliwo but only one full match but it did make quite an impression on me -- a stomping by Delbonis (losing 6-0 in the third). Man verse Boy. I had a brief chat with his Dad who I recall said his son was going to Wake Forest. I think he did briefly ?
I go with the too small/no weapons view as opposed to a future Goffin-lilke player. If he can crack the top 30 I'll be extremely surprised
. But I didn't see it for Stevie Johnson either (though Johnson is physically bigger with a much bigger serve and a solid forehand).I don't really think my view is the outlier. I think your view is that he has "all the things he needs to get to the top level."
I don't think it's that controversial to think a player needs to be both substantially taller/larger than Rubin and have at least one major weapon that can hurt an opponent to make it to the top level. Rubin has no shots that can really do damage. Goffin/Simon and the like are highly unusual but I suppose that would be the model for Rubin.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
He looks 5'7 or 5'8.
Druss
Hall of Fame
Pre-2006 Hewitt? Are you serious? I'm not sure you know what you're talking about!
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Take it easy. You may be talking to his Dad or agent.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
nah, I'm just a tennis coach, no personal connection at all, although I have hit with him, and Hewitt..
he has more weight of shot than Lleyton ever did, and a much more reliable serve. He's probably slightly taller than Ferrer, has the courtspeed but is more aggressive.
He is also only 21.
Sure, I might be totally wrong, but I might not..
he has more weight of shot than Lleyton ever did, and a much more reliable serve. He's probably slightly taller than Ferrer, has the courtspeed but is more aggressive.
He is also only 21.
Sure, I might be totally wrong, but I might not..
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Well, I have had hitting sessions with both of them, have you?
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
I don't get it then. I can see (though not agree with) you saying despite not having all the tools needed in 2017 to make it to the top level that he will beat the odds because of x, y and x. However, I don't see how a coach with no personal interest in the outcome can possibly say someone with Rubin's physical attributes and strokes has "all the things he needs to get to the top level."
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
@-NN-
@Meles
Great question, but expect simplistic answers.
My personal hunch: Laver in today's game would not do nearly as well. Balls would be bouncing up to his shoulder, and the Popeye forearm would not be necessary.
But put a lot of these modern guys against Laver, using his equipment, in the old conditions, and I'd wager he would do very well. Being low to the ground was an advantage in the era where balls bounced irregularly and low, and when players had to bend deep to take low ground-strokes at the knee. That Popeye arm was unique and he needed it to swing that wood racket and put all the spin on balls.
In the Laver/Rosewall era pure speed on the serve was not as effective, and good placement was more effective. Even a guy like Rosewall knew that a well placed serve would give him position advantage, enough to move in a bit and take the net on shot three. It also got him in on SnV. Those shots won't get anyone to the net today. Serving that way is like throwing up a hand grenade and walking in under it.
Something else you almost never see today is a forehand slice. Usually they call it a "squash shot" today because it is purely defensive and hit out of position. But the old SnV players used it aggressively to chip and charge on the forehand. It worked because the ball stayed so low, and without magic strings and the ability to put a ton of topspin on every shot returns were often weak and good set-ups for net play.
The games simply are not the same. That's the problem.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
I disagree that he lacks the tools, actually, for the reasons stated. Hewitt proved he could still hang with the top guys despite being injured for the last ten years, Rubin has a similar style, is a similar size, but has a couple of shots that are better..
that's my reasoning
Brokenstrings
Rookie
What's your definition of top level? I don't see him cracking the top 20.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
5'7?
An ally!!
I love him now
Are you good at tennis? Somehow, I sense you have a pretty good game.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
top 25 is a fantastic standard for anyone, but I genuinely think he could be top 10..
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Decently good I suppose. Got a coaching license and mid season when I'm in a groove I guess I'd be around 5.0-ish?
Had some playsight data of my second time back on court after a 4 month layoff (so pretty rusty and not physically fit)...
Forehands (almost only topspin):
- Max spin: 4000 RPM
- Average spin: 2000 RPM
- Accuracy: 90%
- Max pace: 70 MPH
- Average pace 55 MPH
- Max spin: 4000 RPM
- Average spin: 2000 RPM
- Accuracy 80%
- Max pace: 65 MPH
- Average Pace 45 MPH
- First serve %: 40%
- Aces: 4
- Max pace: 106 MPH
- Average pace: 99 MPH
- Max spin: 4900 RPM
- Average spin: 1300 RPM
- Double faults: 7
- Max pace: 83 MPH
- Average pace: 73 MPH
- Max spin: 5000 RPM
- Average spin: 3000 RPM
Wish I had a playsight court every time, super helpful for self analysis.
Brokenstrings
Rookie
That's pretty ambitious, but hopefully he'll do well. Seems like a good guy and we need more youngsters making deeper runs in big tourneys.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Absolutely on the height. Its really turned tennis to a moderately tall players game and therefore has shrunk the talent pool a lot. Sascha Zverev's don't exactly grow on trees. Short players need not apply on the modern tour. No serve, no deal today.@-NN-
@Meles
Great question, but expect simplistic answers.
My personal hunch: Laver in today's game would not do nearly as well. Balls would be bouncing up to his shoulder, and the Popeye forearm would not be necessary.
But put a lot of these modern guys against Laver, using his equipment, in the old conditions, and I'd wager he would do very well. Being low to the ground was an advantage in the era where balls bounced irregularly and low, and when players had to bend deep to take low ground-strokes at the knee. That Popeye arm was unique and he needed it to swing that wood racket and put all the spin on balls.
In the Laver/Rosewall era pure speed on the serve was not as effective, and good placement was more effective. Even a guy like Rosewall knew that a well placed serve would give him position advantage, enough to move in a bit and take the net on shot three. It also got him in on SnV. Those shots won't get anyone to the net today. Serving that way is like throwing up a hand grenade and walking in under it.
Something else you almost never see today is a forehand slice. Usually they call it a "squash shot" today because it is purely defensive and hit out of position. But the old SnV players used it aggressively to chip and charge on the forehand. It worked because the ball stayed so low, and without magic strings and the ability to put a ton of topspin on every shot returns were often weak and good set-ups for net play.
The games simply are not the same. That's the problem.
Players going back and playing with old rackets wood not be a pretty thing either.
peRFection
Semi-Pro
Top 100 possibly. Top 70 if I'm being generous.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Why is top 70 generous? Do you suppose that the Rochus brothers were as talented as Laver? They managed much better than top 70.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
@-NN-
@Meles
Great question, but expect simplistic answers.
My personal hunch: Laver in today's game would not do nearly as well. Balls would be bouncing up to his shoulder, and the Popeye forearm would not be necessary.
But put a lot of these modern guys against Laver, using his equipment, in the old conditions, and I'd wager he would do very well. Being low to the ground was an advantage in the era where balls bounced irregularly and low, and when players had to bend deep to take low ground-strokes at the knee. That Popeye arm was unique and he needed it to swing that wood racket and put all the spin on balls.
In the Laver/Rosewall era pure speed on the serve was not as effective, and good placement was more effective. Even a guy like Rosewall knew that a well placed serve would give him position advantage, enough to move in a bit and take the net on shot three. It also got him in on SnV. Those shots won't get anyone to the net today. Serving that way is like throwing up a hand grenade and walking in under it.
Something else you almost never see today is a forehand slice. Usually they call it a "squash shot" today because it is purely defensive and hit out of position. But the old SnV players used it aggressively to chip and charge on the forehand. It worked because the ball stayed so low, and without magic strings and the ability to put a ton of topspin on every shot returns were often weak and good set-ups for net play.
The games simply are not the same. That's the problem.
The games are not the same, yet one wonders if potentially useful tactics have been needlessly lost and may yet again be found in the future. Who is to say that mastering a consistent forehand slice couldn't be a useful addition to one's arsenal in the game today? It's a risk though, as there are only so many hours in the day and one must allocate their training time wisely for the rigours that are presented to them in their time.
The problem with Laver's height is that he looks like more of an exception than a rule, so he appears less interchangeable than some other greats. Having said that, it's not like I have figures on the average height of the top 50 players throughout all of tennis history. It also depends on assumptions, and why shouldn't I give Laver the benefit of the doubt given that his incredible accomplishments are facts of life. I think he'd do well. At the same time, the greats are still products of their time, so I'd imagine he'd do less well than he did... and the same goes for the rest.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I think that young players always go with what seems to be working, used by the great players they go up against.
I keep thinking of the Connors/Evert/Borg era. At that time it looked as though the 1HBH was a thing of the past.
Then everything flipped.
It only takes one, which is pretty close to "The Highlander", but you know what I mean.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Impressive. At my best I was around 5.0/5.5 right out of HS with a chance to play college at DIV 1 school but I didnt take it up
In fact, I didnt go to college right away lol.
Right now I can hold my own with 5.0s but my challenge is just getting enough court and practice time. I find tennis is a very hard sport to maintain an advanced level at without consistent play. Where I live in NY, its insanely expensive to play more than 2 or 3 times a week in the colder months. For the 4 or 5 months you can play outdoors, its dirt cheap but they are mainly miserable green clay courts.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah I have much of the same problems... Playing in winter just isn't worth it money wise. Courts in summer are ok here at least though (I do need to pay club fees though).
Well, you may scoff, but I've seen a lot of this young man up close this week, and he has all the things he needs to get to the top level..
Define top level? Top 100 definitely - hes a better smycheck who is somewhat similar.
I agree w you but have thrown some shade at Rubin on some posts. Slowly coming around, his mental game is pretty strong. Maybe a solid top 50 player with an occasional week 2 GS appearance and QF on masters and maybe a title or two at the 250s.
He needs more of a weapon he cant just run around like he did in college and juniors.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
His FH must have developed recently 'cos it is definitely a weapon now..
Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk
rodrigoamaral
Hall of Fame
Don't see him getting any higher than 30-40.. Not enough weapons..yet
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Imagine Laver with a modern player's frame and a hybrid gut/poly string setup. It might not be safe to come to net.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Zzzzingggg!
QuadCam
Professional
I have a hard time seeing Rubin anything higher than the 30-50 rankings. Fun to watch him play, though. So many of our American men float in that range. Johnson, Querrey, & Sock but Jack just pulled into the 20s at the end of last year. Isner is declining and will toil in the 30-50 range for the next couple of years before retiring.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
We will see, I think you're wrong, actually, but we shall see..
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
he won't break top 50 for sure. he is too small and NO weapons. He is NOT like Goffin. dont' compare him to Goffin who is lightening quick. Rubin is no where as quick. and Goffin forehand and backhand is 10 X better than Rubin. so Rubin is Poor man's Goffin. which puts him around ATP tour #90.
Well, you may scoff, but I've seen a lot of this young man up close this week, and he has all the things he needs to get to the top level..
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
LOL,,,, Rubin can only Average 55 mph on forehands ??????????? that means he hits some at like 20 mph ? that is like grandpa speed.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
god you're a cretin, those numbers are Spin to Win's
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
I totally disagree, he is as quick as anyone I have ever seen, a view shared by a number of pros I spoke with this week.
As for his strokes, well, again, i just don't agree with you..
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Paire doesn't see it...
Paire (after losing, 2016 AO ) rudely described Rubin as "not a good player." Even classless jerks whining after a loss don't usually make that sort of insulting claim.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
which leaves tehe annoying Paire, where, exactly? Didn't he say Murray would never win a slam once, too?
Similar threads
