Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by BeHappy, Jan 12, 2013.
Of any ATP top 100 professional that is.
110mph serve and he cannot move.
He is now moving better than Anderson or Raonic, if that means anything.
He has a good game, but his form lacked in the 2012 season. Hopefully he can continue to be fit for the 2013 season and get back into the top 30 by year's end.
Tomic floats like Federer. Neither look like they are exerting energy, yet they both cover the court exceptionally well.
I've seen Tomic play live and he actually moves very well when healthy
Athleticism is tough to judge with tennis. I mean Agassi probably wasn't that great an athlete by any measurable standard. But holy hell did he have hand-eye coordination.
97% service games won in Sydney... not bad for a 110mph serve
Anticipation and quickness are lacking. If that's what counts as athleticism in tennis, then yeah he's not a great athlete.
He's not the quickest, but I think he positions himself well and is good at placing the ball in places that cut down his opponent's options.
Not a good athlete? I'm quickly becoming a fan of Bernie's game. Check him running down a lob and hitting an unbelievable winner, in scorching heat, against Florian Mayer this week.
as an aa fanboy, even i cannot deny the truth of this statement.
to say that tomic is the worst athlete ever is a bit much. i don't even think he's the worst athlete currently in the game. i've seen him move very well in the past so maybe he's just a little knicked up or was out of sorts for a match or something.
i think there are probably worst athletes on the atp tour right now (some of which might be ranked higher than tomic) but if you are supremely talented than can offset some lack of innate athletic ability.
His movement has improved over the off season with his new trainer.
Ditto. You don't get his results with his game without great movement. Maybe not GOAT movement, but great nonetheless.
That is absolutely absurd. Tomic's movement is horrendous compared to Federer's. Tomic is simply not among the "great" movers on tour like Djokovic, Murray,Nadal, Ferrer etc.
With that said, he is not even close to being the worst athlete ever. BeHappy is probably trolling agin.
he does move well for his height. of course he doesn't move like ferrer but don't forget he is like 6"5.
his serve is indeed terrible mechanically. it usually gets the job done but it is totally WTA style technically. He opens up too early and doesn't properly sequence his body. You can see that he is not a natural thrower. you rarely see something like that in the top200 in the world.
No. It takes the reflexes of a cat to drive that orange BMW of his on a wild chase from the authorities.
I see now he had to put it up for auction. Sad.
Particularly americans, but actually all people on these boards are obsessed with athleticism and how much somebody benchpresses or runs a 100 metres. I think with talented players, this is the LEAST interesting aspect. The fact that Tomic is a top 100 pro and on a good day a top 20 one, tells you that this guy is insanely talented. His body is clearly underdeveloped and athleticism is the most trainable aspect of being a tennisplayer. At this age, relearning strokes, hand eye coordination, mental fortitude, or a good serve are all way harder to develop. I think this makes Tomic a particularly good prospect. He's got the raw talent, but just needs to work hard physically. If he does, he's future top 10 or top 5.
It's the opposite - why do you think the NFL recruits based almost exclusively on stats such as 40 yard dash, max squat, max deadlift, 225 bench press test and vertical jump height?
It's because they know that these qualities are the most important aspects of any sport. Select athletes that are good at these, and the rest will follow. Skills, tactics and vision are secondary and can always be developed later.
looks like that tennisfan182 troll is back.
Surprised it took you this long Sid.
He doesn't half post some *****.
His movement is pretty good from what I have seen. He takes pretty large steps though, which makes it look a bit clunkier to spectators.
I think he moves very well considering his size. He has an awkwardness about his movements but I think that deceives: I think he moves more quickly and changes directions better than you'd think watching him. He's the type of player that looks a little like they are in slow motion OR like they are not in a hurry. And a player who can beat guys in the top 100 while looking like he's not in a hurry is frightening.
The serve is week though, that's for sure. And it kinda looks like he'd need to revamp his technique to get into the 130s like he should be able to, given his size. I doubt he'd risk making radical technical changes at this age, though.
tennis is not the nfl.
how do you think federer would fare against the current top 10 american tennis players in those exercises/stats that you mention? i'm pretty sure more than half will beat him stats wise, but on a tennis court none of them stand a chance.
anyway, back to tomic. a previous poster mentioned something about him being fit/healthy! he's 20, how can he not be fit/healthy?!
I saw his match vs Kevin Anderson yesterday and his forehand looked very weird..Can't really describe it.
That is rubbish. Skills, tactics, and vision can certainly not be developed later. Any rational person knows that the male specimens from your fantasies (4 second 40 yard dash, 500 lbs bench press, 60 inch vertical jump) would never be able to hit a tennis ball as crisply and perfectly as Nalbandian no matter how much training they receive. Fortunately, most tennis coaches are not idiots, so they don't go around looking for grown men with huge biceps to develop into future tennis talents.
Tomic can hit 125+ regularly
Actually, you didn't list the NFL tests that are most relevant to tennis: The first ten yard split of the 40 yard dash, the three cone drill and the 20-yard shuttle. All three test short-distance speed and change of direction ability. Vertical jump is probably the best single indicator of lower-body explosive power, so that is a good one. The best performers in these four tests in the NFL are cornerbacks, and I believe that someday we'll see an athlete that could have been a top NFL cornerback choose tennis instead, and he will transform the sport. These guys have explosiveness, speed and agility that has never been seen on a tennis court.
You're right that Tomic is nowhere near that class of athlete. But neither was John McEnroe. Speed and power are important but the gifts of touch, anticipation and court craft are even more important in tennis.
(Squat, deadlift and bench press would not be good tests for tennis athleticism as very high scores in those tests would indicate excess muscles mass which would make a player less efficient over a long match.)
That is only the fault of the pathetic pool of talent that tennis has to draw from where all the best go to the NFL and NBA, and tennis gets the leftovers who couldn't have made it in any other sport.
John McEnroe would never have been allowed to dominate in the manner he did if tennis took the best athletes, because then it wouldn't be long before a player came along who had volleys just as deft as his, but with the athleticism of an NFL wide receiver to go with it - and McEnroe would have gotten thrashed.
It makes me sick how everyone thinks Nadal is such a great athlete, when, compared to athletes of pretty much any other sport, he would be flat out appalling in any of those basic indicators of athleticism (bench, dead, squat, vert jump, 40 yard dash) I listed.
Half? I think 99% beat him. And on a tenniscourt, they wont win a point most likely.
With a game like American foot(?)ball which asks for little special qualities other than being a great athlete, it's very different. What do you think is more special about Federer and Nadal?
1) the way they can hit a forehand?
2) their 40 yard dash, squat, deadlift, benchpress or vertical jump?
My whole point is that tennis, just like actual football is way more about skill than about athleticism. Skill you don't learn at age 20, you just don't.
There's a lot that can be improved in terms of fitness and strength, but some things you'll never learn after your 8th birthday. It's almost like selecting the next Mozart solely on fingerlength and flexibility or something.
It can very well be that they do it that way in AF, I don't know much about AF, but I think in tennis things are very different.
Total BS. Tennis has a WORLDWIDE pool of talent , while NFL have to do with only Americans. I'm pretty sure that worldwide, a lot more kids are into tennis than into American football. You are right that the tennisplayers will be nowhere near as strong and maybe not even as fast (though I think Nadal is pretty quick and so is Djokovic) but that's because tennis requires other things. It's actually a skillsport.
If you are serious about this, you have no idea. A tennisplayer that starts playing at age 10 can already never ever become worldclass I think.
Btw, which of your "Basic indicators" actually takes flexibility, interval speed, endurance, balance, agility and quickness to change direction into account. All PHYSICAL attributes you need to be a great tennisplayer, but not within your basic indicators.
What does that mean?
football. Not American, but worldwide. The one you refer to as soccer, I think. The actual meant to say that it's actually played with your foot mostly.
lo @ the idiotic comments regarding the NFL.
what a bunch of one trick ponies!
fun to watch, but a niche sport that nobody cares about anywhere else..
as for Tomic..
just watch it.
(y'all are talking about a version of Tomic that is obsolete, it is like talking about Federer's on court tantrums and mental fragility, it was true when he was 18..)
He's definitely not the best athlete but he has great tennis instincts and weight-training can make him bigger, stronger, and faster. In fact he already looks to have made some improvements in that area over the offseason.
Wow. That was incredible!
ye, you only really need to watch the first point, he isn't the same player, eh?
no it dosnt..just because someone is fast, muscular, strong, or superfit dosnt mean they will be good at any particular sport.
I feel like the Tomic mania is going too far.
Someone needs to put the kid in a dumpster.
That's a bit extreme. Not enough talented youngsters as it is...
Vision is not a secondary skill by a long shot. Skill and strategy are learned. Vision is gifted.
I retract that. BOTH vision and skill are gifted. Only strategy can be learned.
They will be good at any sport they apply themselves to.
The athleticism is key, skills can be learned.
Lol at comparing tennis players with the NFL.
Here's a thought experiment. Place one of those 300 pound linemen on a tennis court, against the 100th ranked women's player, who do you think wins?
Also, your own NFL example actually completely destroys your argument. Which is the most important position in the NFL? I think pretty much everyone would agree it's the QB. You really think Peyton Manning is running sub 5s 40 yard dash at any time? Arguably the best NFL player in the NFL right now is not even close to being the best athlete in the NFL (or even a good athlete for that matter).
I'm not sure how great an athlete Nadal is compared to the top players in the NFL and NBA, let alone the various football leagues around the world. But neither do you. Can Nadal run a 4.4 40? I'm inclined to doubt it, but I don't know; he might be that fast. But is he the greatest athlete in the world, in terms of measureable speed, power and agility? Certainly not, and I doubt he would make the world top 100.
But dismissing athletes like John McEnroe just because he's small, slightly built and not the fastest man alive is a mistake, IMHO. I kind of think of tennis as a point guard's game - the skill set is similar and so is the body size. Some of the NBA's best point guards have been 6'2", just like the current top 3 in tennis. People like to say that LeBron, trained, would be the greatest tennis player in the world. But would he be the best point guard in the world? I think he's too big, and he may be too big for tennis too. And consider: the best athlete, in terms of measurables, is not necessarily the best point guard. Think of guys like John Stockton, Steve Nash, Isaiah Thomas. Wonderful athletes, but nothing like LeBron, Jordan or Iverson in terms of jaw-dropping athletic prowess. But yet, Stockton, Nash and Thomas are all hall of fame point guards because they have more than just measureable explosive athletic talent. They've got other stuff. And tennis greatness depends a lot on other stuff.
Would Michael Jordan have been a greater tennis player than Fed? He was certainly a more explosive athlete. But did he have Fed's hand-eye, his touch? Jordan's baseball career suggests not.
I agree that tennis has never seen a true, one in billion super-athlete, but that doesn't mean that the greats of our sport are a bunch of chumps and clods either. On the other hand, when a guy who can run a 4.3 forty and jump 48 inches, who also happens to have feel and touch, a talent for emotional control in prolonged one-on-one contests, along with world-class hand-eye, decides to play tennis the sport will be changed, that's for sure. But that athlete might never come.
I don't completely agree that it is gifted. However, while I do think some are born with it, I believe it is possible for many people to learn vision and skill when they are young.
After a certain age, I doubt it happens.
That may rank amongst the stupidest things I have heard all week. Okay, I might give you the NBA, but the NFL recruits from a larger talent pool?
You mean the sport which outside America no one even understands or knows exists?
Tennis recruits from the entire world. Football recruits from a small minority of Americans whose parents were either not rich enough, or too stupid to prevent their kids from playing a sport which is likely to lead to dementia at the age of 50.
How many Spanish, British, Swiss, Chinese, Indian, Australian players do you see in the NFL?
Well said. Lebron would be an Isner type tennis player. His legs would struggle to carry his huge body through 5 (or even 3) sets.
Maybe great isn't the right word. You're right. Top 30 is a big flipping deal, you don't awkwardly luck into that. He's an excellent mover on court...not great.
Well, I don't know about that. I think Lebron would be a good deal better than Isner. The biggest knock on Isner is that he's slow and not particularly agile. LeBron moves much better than any 6'6"+ ATP guy. And he runs up and down the court pretty well, night in and night out, so I'm not sure stamina would be a big issue. Even average athletes like Isner and Karlovic have success on tour. Big + Live Serving Arm = top 50 ranking. I reckon Lebron would have been an awesome tennis player, but I think that Steve Nash or Isaiah Thomas would have been better. But I could be wrong.
he moves quite well, not fast, but the steps are efficient
but this guy is a bit arrogant...
Separate names with a comma.