Roland Garros, Paris 2020

[stroke]

Very dangerous to have fixed ideas in coaching. Someone will always comes along to blow your theories into oblivion. Usain Bolt is 6'5'' and seems to move pretty well to me.

Ha, Bolt is pretty quick. That being said, he has a bit of a Monfils kind of build. Very impressive look, no Grand Slams.

[don_budge]

Ahh, but I am going to sound like a broken record here. Tsitsipas and Medvedev are outside of the ideal height range to win major titles. RRN were all right at the ideal height. My guess is that being too tall just takes too much wear and tear and hampers movement. Querry is also too tall. I am with Stotty on Rublev. He is the ideal height and if we use a analytics approach to tennis would be a better bet to win majors than Tsitsipas, Medevedev, or Zverev.

Analytics are not everything but so far the trend continues. 6'1" is the ideal height. An inch or two above or below is acceptable. Once we get past that it becomes very difficult to win a major title or multiple Masters 1000's.

That's funny arturohernandez...it was you telling me that I was beating a dead horse. I wouldn't beat a horse dead or alive. My horses would kill me if I did. But seriously, the question of height is very, very interesting. I love it when you site the ideal height as 6' 1" because that is exactly what I am. But that height has to be qualified too as hockeyscout will no doubt attest too. Certain athletic features have to be present to make that the golden rule in tennis.

But it is an interesting discussion about how tall a man is and how it is related to how he plays tennis. I think too that the ideal height is right around there too. In fact, in all of sports some of the best athletes are 6'1" tall. Probably the best combination of speed, agility coupled with desired outcomes of athletic endeavours. Surely in tennis for the past fifty years ago this has been the median height and one would surely have to be really ignorant or stupid to argue against. But now the case is being made for a taller player to break through.

The game has been "engineered" in a manner that has changed desired outcomes and these changes have allowed taller players to compete in a game that was "traditionally" optimally being played and championed by arturohernandez's dead horse argument for the player 6' 1" in height. Now the standardised surfaces all bounce the same. Even the grass at Wimbledon has been "engineered" to a velcro like quality that causes the ball to not only sit up but to actually stand up. Stand up tall. Now most shots are being played at shoulder high for a 6' 1" player or waist high for the Jolly Green Giant's. This engineered hybrid of tennis fits right into the wheelhouse of the tall man.

But even so we have yet to see the big man break through in a Grand Slam event even though they have won at lesser levels. Why? Because of the five set format. A big man cannot sustain what is necessary to attain the desired outcome over the course of five sets. To this point. It cannot be ruled out of course but so far it has yet to happen. The 6' 1" inch bar is a good one. Stefanos Tsitsipas exceeds this bar too and it the end he may be shut out of Grand Slams because of it. Milos Raonic comes to mind. Long ago I was critical of his game because of his build. For a guy like him to try and grind it out from the baseline like the smaller man is just plain stupid. Over the course of time joints become fragile from the wear and tear of the grind and it is evident that it has taken its toll on him and other big players who showing great promise have come up short in the three out of five format. They might be able to sustain it over two out of three sets but we have yet to witness one sustain it over three out of five over the course of seven matches.

Speed and agility are two of the most important attributes of a tennis player but a third comes to mind as well and that is one of endurance. I don't think too many athletes over a certain height can overcome the natural deficits they face at their enhanced height. The example of Usain Bolt was brought up earlier and besides being totally irrelevant to the performance of a tennis player it also might be noted that he is trained to run in a straight line and not to zig zag over every square inch of a tennis court. Which is another point that I have frequently discussed in many posts and that is the taller men should play a game that fits more into their natural mode of operation and that would be one of straight and forwards motion. Instead of grinding out at the baseline they might be well advise to the serve and volley brand of tennis as this fits into their natural attributes.

I watched Pierre-Hugues Herbert playing around with Alexander Zverev. Herbert played a lot of drop shots that exploited the taller baseliner changing direction and he was quite successful at it. Herbert is also a skilled doubles player and made better use of the whole court than did Zverev on the whole. Zverev did manage to prevail but now he takes his long, lanky, tired and sore body into the next round and perhaps into the round after that. But if you look at his physique you can almost predict that it is going to catch up with him at some point. Just a hunch. Based on past performance.

So it will be interesting from your point of view arturohernandez who will prevail in this years French Open. Not that there is much of interest so far. Traditionally the French Open is the most boring of all of the Grand Slams. The monotonous play on the clay will take its toll on anyone attempting to watch one of these snooze fests. I really wonder if anyone watches any of these matches from beginning to end. I think you would have to be incredibly dull to do so. Like isn't there anything else going on in one's life to have the time to sit and spectate a three, four, five or even six hour snoozer. This game has been engineered beyond recognition. The state of the game is rather dismal. The story of Rafael Nadal is surely an indication that something is rotten in Denmark.

Carry on boys. Tsitsipas is watchable? We'll see. He is only watchable if he is playing. He hasn't really evolved much in the past two years or so. Just a bigger version of. Is that enough? Being bigger? We'll see.

[glacierguy]

Overall, I am positive about Tsitsipas, but his serve action makes me want to shout at his coaches and detracts from my appreciation of the rest of his game. If someone taught a baby giraffe how to serve, it would look like Tsitsipas. Come on - fluidity & coordination, not muscle.

And I am 6'2" so totally agree with arturohernandez

[don_budge]

Stefanos very watchable today...a different player. Cuevas offered very little resistance.

[stroke]

Stefanos very watchable today...a different player. Cuevas offered very little resistance.

I was surprised how Stef routined Cuevas, who is s very good clay courter, but Stef really took it to him from the very beginning. Interesting that the commentators said Cuevas was a boyhood idol of Cuevas. Stef is an interesting guy. Not many would choose Cuevas as a tennis idol, but he does have a very pretty game and is very professional out there.

[arturohernandez]

Very dangerous to have fixed ideas in coaching. Someone will always comes along to blow your theories into oblivion. Usain Bolt is 6'5'' and seems to move pretty well to me.

Agreed! Height is only one metric. And as a coach, of course, we have to try and make our player the best they can be. But as a spectator, I cannot help but wonder if the 6'1" idealized height metric continues to hold weight. The ideal height in tennis has gone up over the years. I guess my questions is whether it has reached it's peak.

It's the changing of directions and the ability to move inside the court and moving back and forth where being too tall doesn't help. Not sure that straight line speed in tennis would be at the world class sprinter level. It would be very high but we would have to add all of the other types of movement into the equation. And there I think Bolt would have trouble if placed with an equally skilled 6'1" individual in a tennis match. He might get to one ball with speed but can he recover and get to the next one. Would he be able to handle low volleys and then move back to hit an overhead? And can he do it as well as someone who is more in the ideal height range?

So many what ifs...

[arturohernandez]

That's funny arturohernandez...it was you telling me that I was beating a dead horse. I wouldn't beat a horse dead or alive. My horses would kill me if I did. But seriously, the question of height is very, very interesting. I love it when you site the ideal height as 6' 1" because that is exactly what I am. But that height has to be qualified too as hockeyscout will no doubt attest too. Certain athletic features have to be present to make that the golden rule in tennis.

But it is an interesting discussion about how tall a man is and how it is related to how he plays tennis. I think too that the ideal height is right around there too. In fact, in all of sports some of the best athletes are 6'1" tall. Probably the best combination of speed, agility coupled with desired outcomes of athletic endeavours. Surely in tennis for the past fifty years ago this has been the median height and one would surely have to be really ignorant or stupid to argue against. But now the case is being made for a taller player to break through.

The game has been "engineered" in a manner that has changed desired outcomes and these changes have allowed taller players to compete in a game that was "traditionally" optimally being played and championed by arturohernandez's dead horse argument for the player 6' 1" in height. Now the standardised surfaces all bounce the same. Even the grass at Wimbledon has been "engineered" to a velcro like quality that causes the ball to not only sit up but to actually stand up. Stand up tall. Now most shots are being played at shoulder high for a 6' 1" player or waist high for the Jolly Green Giant's. This engineered hybrid of tennis fits right into the wheelhouse of the tall man.

But even so we have yet to see the big man break through in a Grand Slam event even though they have won at lesser levels. Why? Because of the five set format. A big man cannot sustain what is necessary to attain the desired outcome over the course of five sets. To this point. It cannot be ruled out of course but so far it has yet to happen. The 6' 1" inch bar is a good one. Stefanos Tsitsipas exceeds this bar too and it the end he may be shut out of Grand Slams because of it. Milos Raonic comes to mind. Long ago I was critical of his game because of his build. For a guy like him to try and grind it out from the baseline like the smaller man is just plain stupid. Over the course of time joints become fragile from the wear and tear of the grind and it is evident that it has taken its toll on him and other big players who showing great promise have come up short in the three out of five format. They might be able to sustain it over two out of three sets but we have yet to witness one sustain it over three out of five over the course of seven matches.

Speed and agility are two of the most important attributes of a tennis player but a third comes to mind as well and that is one of endurance. I don't think too many athletes over a certain height can overcome the natural deficits they face at their enhanced height. The example of Usain Bolt was brought up earlier and besides being totally irrelevant to the performance of a tennis player it also might be noted that he is trained to run in a straight line and not to zig zag over every square inch of a tennis court. Which is another point that I have frequently discussed in many posts and that is the taller men should play a game that fits more into their natural mode of operation and that would be one of straight and forwards motion. Instead of grinding out at the baseline they might be well advise to the serve and volley brand of tennis as this fits into their natural attributes.

I watched Pierre-Hugues Herbert playing around with Alexander Zverev. Herbert played a lot of drop shots that exploited the taller baseliner changing direction and he was quite successful at it. Herbert is also a skilled doubles player and made better use of the whole court than did Zverev on the whole. Zverev did manage to prevail but now he takes his long, lanky, tired and sore body into the next round and perhaps into the round after that. But if you look at his physique you can almost predict that it is going to catch up with him at some point. Just a hunch. Based on past performance.

So it will be interesting from your point of view arturohernandez who will prevail in this years French Open. Not that there is much of interest so far. Traditionally the French Open is the most boring of all of the Grand Slams. The monotonous play on the clay will take its toll on anyone attempting to watch one of these snooze fests. I really wonder if anyone watches any of these matches from beginning to end. I think you would have to be incredibly dull to do so. Like isn't there anything else going on in one's life to have the time to sit and spectate a three, four, five or even six hour snoozer. This game has been engineered beyond recognition. The state of the game is rather dismal. The story of Rafael Nadal is surely an indication that something is rotten in Denmark.

Carry on boys. Tsitsipas is watchable? We'll see. He is only watchable if he is playing. He hasn't really evolved much in the past two years or so. Just a bigger version of. Is that enough? Being bigger? We'll see.

I had not seen this post yet when I was responding to the other one. As a 5'7" male, I have played numerous males that are 6'1" If I play at my absolute best, I can match them in a match or two. But over time, it is just too difficult to play them because I give up a lot of space all around me. I can come to the net and be fairly successful. I can hold my own from the baseline. And even with my serve. But I always have the disadvantage of just not being able to crank it the same way.

Two days ago, I hit with a former college player who is 6'1". There are shots that he can hit that I simply cannot in terms of speed, pace, and spin. His serve is a bullet. And he does not even practice everyday or play seriously.

And I can try to outmaneuver him or do all kinds of tricky things to throw him off. But if he is on and his shots are falling he will win.

Sampras felt this way about McEnroe. He could kind of pick at Sampras and bug him. But there is nothing he could really do to hurt him. Lendl could hurt him. Agassi who was much stronger and basically had the best hand eye coordination of any tennis player at the time could pester him.

They might have changed the game but in the end 5 sets are 5 sets. And having to run around for five sets is difficult for taller players.

Del Potro did it at 19 but then his wrist gave out. Cilic played out of his mind for two weeks and pulled it off. Zverev or Tsitsipas might do the same. But to do it multiple times will be almost impossible for them. Maybe 3 or 4 times but even with the new conditions, it will be very difficult to do it more than 10 times.

But that is why they play the games. My bet is on Rublev, Thiem, Shapo, and FAA when the old guard moves on. And again I am talking from the experience of knowing how height affects things on the other end.

[don_budge]

I had not seen this post yet when I was responding to the other one.

My bet is on Rublev, Thiem, Shapo, and FAA when the old guard moves on. And again I am talking from the experience of knowing how height affects things on the other end.

Funny how that happens. As it goes you spin to me and I spin to you. This was sort of a no lookee but right on the money. Those are four good picks. Interesting observation about Del Potro and Cilic. Somehow the bigger and taller frame is not built to hold up under the three out of five format. So it seems. Stefanos Tsitsipas may surprise us but he has yet to display the kind of consistency over the two week duration of a Grand Slam playing best of five.

It's a question of endurance and stamina. That fifth set is one of the supreme tests in all of sports. stroke thinks that tennis players are among the toughest athletes pound for pound and you really cannot argue with that. I think that the coaching braintrust is lacking in IQ though. The big guys should be looking for that opportunity to move in to the net but they are discouraged from doing so because of the conditions. Court surfaces, balls, strings and racquets. I can remember when the shorter guy like yourself was not to be counted out. Think Laver, Rosewall and company. But the surfaces were fast and slick on three of the four Slam surfaces. The game was played lower to the earth. All you had to do was get the ball down at the big fellas feet and they were cooked. Once over easy. Easy peasy.

I may be locked into the French Open after all. Held hostage. A second dog underwent surgery yesterday so I am on the coach cuddling the pooches. It verifies my contention that you must be forced to watch this stuff. I watched Rublev play Fokina for a stretch. Fokina was giving it a good go until Rublev kicked it into overdrive. Saw a bit of Berretinni and Lloyd Harris. Pretty unimpressive tennis from my point of view. From the don_budge paradigm of teaching tennis. Endless baseline rallies with the odd drop shot thrown in for a bit of spice. That isn't enough.

Going forwards it is worth nothing how many players I don't recognise their names. The field is really watered down. The fact of the matter is I really miss Roger Federer. He makes everything that more interesting. Other matches that are otherwise unwatchable become a bit of a curiosity if it is a potential opponent of Federer's. But I'm going to take my medicine and watch some of this snooze fest. Maybe I will get a bottle of Jägermeister. Now that is some good stuff boy!

[don_budge]

Agreed! Height is only one metric. And as a coach, of course, we have to try and make our player the best they can be. But as a spectator, I cannot help but wonder if the 6'1" idealized height metric continues to hold weight. The ideal height in tennis has gone up over the years. I guess my questions is whether it has reached it's peak.

It's the changing of directions and the ability to move inside the court and moving back and forth where being too tall doesn't help. Not sure that straight line speed in tennis would be at the world class sprinter level. It would be very high but we would have to add all of the other types of movement into the equation. And there I think Bolt would have trouble if placed with an equally skilled 6'1" individual in a tennis match. He might get to one ball with speed but can he recover and get to the next one. Would he be able to handle low volleys and then move back to hit an overhead? And can he do it as well as someone who is more in the ideal height range?

So many what ifs...

Spot on! Right on the money! Every player is different and your observation of the ideal height is interesting. At 6' 1" a player is not too tall to play from the baseline and tall enough to make his presence felt at the net and also tall enough to have an extremely good, aggressive serve. A taller player becomes less agile as a rule and perhaps stamina may come into question in a game of lateral movements. Less so if the play is more linear...for instance forwards. A player less than this height is somewhat restricted into how much of a presence that they might be at the net. But there is some wiggle room in these general analogies as of course exceptions will always be available.

I still think that Roger Federer is "The Living Proof" as in my teaching paradigm. How tall is he? It's a rhetorical question.

[stroke]

Thiem certainly looks primed and ready for the challenge to take on Rafael and Novak. If he is going to beat them in a Grand Slam at close to their best, now is the time certainly. As great as those 2 are, they(particularly Rafa) are not as good as they once were. Stef, the best 6'4" mover ever, looks ready also. Sinner the dark horse. His movement, consistency, resolve, and endurance are there. What I particularly like about him is similar to Novak(and hardly any other players), his backhand is just as good as his forehand. That unusual trait is a game changer. Stan in that conversation also.

[stotty]

Thiem is looking great. He has a tricky draw yet is churning his way through it without any problems. Novak looked stellar yesterday. Wawrinka is playing now who has pretty good also so far. If he wins he will play Thiem...what a bummer. That would make a great semi final. The bottom half is tougher than the top that's for sure.

[stroke]

Fritz, a player I have long liked his game, looks to me to have a good chance to advance out of his quarter.

[stroke]

The Nadal forehand still appears to be the biggest weapon in clay court tennis. As Brian might say, a very clean partition.

[stotty]

The Nadal forehand still appears to be the biggest weapon in clay court tennis. As Brian might say, a very clean partition.

It was a brutal start. Such a bully. Rafa wouldn't allow a nervous opponent a single point if he could help it...thinks nothing about humiliating someone. I never allowed my children to win love and love to against players well beneath them...always had them give a game or two away. Not very American I know but nothing wrong with a bit of compassion when victory is guaranteed to start with. Just mindless to slaughter someone and stuff their nose in it.

The thing is Rafa can brutalise bloody good players...

[stotty]

Shame to see Stan go out...