Log in:  

Register

The real Tennis thread.

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

04 Sep 2017 11:10

When I checked the odds before any matches, Fed was the favourite followed by Nadal. Now Nadal is the favourite followed by Fed. Does that make sense to those of you who have watched the matches?

Ok, Fed had these 5 setters and it seems a bit brittle, but then Nadal struggled against absolute nobodies too and I feel like The Dolg may well beat him
User avatar SeriousSam
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,184
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:06
Location: Now here

Re: The real Tennis thread.

04 Sep 2017 12:41

OMG this Schwarzman guy is 170 cm. And he's in a Grand slam quarter final.

Pound for Pound GOAT
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: The real Tennis thread.

04 Sep 2017 16:16

The Hitch wrote:OMG this Schwarzman guy is 170 cm. And he's in a Grand slam quarter final.

Pound for Pound GOAT

It's talent my friend. Roger is the second player with more aces in the history of tennis and he is "only" 185 cm. I think he can beat carreno busta who isn't a good server at all. He has a chance!
SeriousSam, nadal is the favourite now because federer gave (in the first two rounds) signals of a back injury. He looked heavy on the court
portugal11
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,659
Joined: 05 Aug 2015 23:15

04 Sep 2017 18:29

185 is way above average height, even for a young male. At that height it's perfectly believable that someone could hit aces and be an all around superstar.

170 is very very difficult.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re:

04 Sep 2017 19:01

The Hitch wrote:185 is way above average height, even for a young male. At that height it's perfectly believable that someone could hit aces and be an all around superstar.

170 is very very difficult.

Average height for a tennis player? I don't beleive it.
How could i miss rublev, this kid is fire. Today, he destroyed goffin who is normally very reliable
portugal11
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,659
Joined: 05 Aug 2015 23:15

04 Sep 2017 19:04

Haha Hitchie loves his tennis player sizes.

If somebdoy would ask me who to watch to leaern to play tennis, I'd tell them to watch Diego Schwartzman. No crazy unique talents and yet still so **** good. His racket head skills and point construction are amazing

Meanwhile, Rublev, 19, (1.88 for Hitch) reaches his first Slam QF. Has now reached more Slam QFs than Alex Zverev. That kid is amazing
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 13:03

Hitch is right about it being extremely unusual for someone that diminutive to be good. https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/go-shorty?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/ covers some of the stats
User avatar SeriousSam
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,184
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:06
Location: Now here

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 13:07

SeriousSam wrote:Hitch is right about it being extremely unusual for someone that diminutive to be good. https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/go-shorty?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/ covers some of the stats

Do have to note on the serve and return games numbers than he doesn't go deep into big tournaments that often and thus plays less matches against top opponents.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 14:39

SeriousSam wrote:Hitch is right about it being extremely unusual for someone that diminutive to be good. https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/go-shorty?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/ covers some of the stats

They mostly talk about serves though.

Being small is also more difficult because the net is basically higher for you.

Also, in the current topspin game, the ball bounces so high, smaller players have to hit the ball from a much higher position relative to the body, an uncomfortable technique outside the hitting zone. Well either that or stand way back and hit the ball when there is less pace on it and be more succeptible to drop shots.
I think this was one of the reasons why Del Potro was so good at his peak (and Soderling was great that year too). He was smashing every shot cos at that height you can hit the ball at such a comfortable position even within the baseline.

In tennis for smaller players, there are no advantages. In team sports smaller people can be great because there is the low centre of gravity to beat opponents eg Maradona or in NFL Barry Sanders. In stamina sports they can also excel (kenenisa Bekele, Pantani).

But in tennis everything favours being tall.

The article says that behemoths don't do well (6 foot 4 +) but 6 foot 4 (or 193 cm) is the 99th percentile even for males.

Half the worlds male population is around Schwarzman's height. Even if you look only at Europe and US where most tennis players come from, 50% of young males are smaller than 177cm, so even the "small" tennis players like Aggasi or Ferrer are actually above average height. If there were 300 million males in their 20's who were over 194 cm, I bet you some of those would be tennis champions.

Much respect to Diego. If Tennis was organized by size like boxing is, he would be Mayweather.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 15:52

Being tall is pretty much a universal advantage for males. In business and love too.

Quarter-finalists:

Anderson: 2.03 m
Querrey: 1.99 m
Del Potro: 1.98 m
Rublev: 1.88 m
Busta: 1.88 m
Federer: 1.85 m
Nadal: 1.85 m
Schwartzman: 1.7 m

I do feel like there's something about being >1.9m that produces a disadvantage, when the worse ability to change direction, accelerate and reach low balls starts to outweigh the reach advantage. The very tall players just cannot move like the 1.9m Djokovic and Murray.
Last edited by SeriousSam on 05 Sep 2017 15:56, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar SeriousSam
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,184
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:06
Location: Now here

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 15:55

The Hitch wrote:
SeriousSam wrote:Hitch is right about it being extremely unusual for someone that diminutive to be good. https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/go-shorty?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/ covers some of the stats

They mostly talk about serves though.

Being small is also more difficult because the net is basically higher for you.

Also, in the current topspin game, the ball bounces so high, smaller players have to hit the ball from a much higher position relative to the body, an uncomfortable technique outside the hitting zone. Well either that or stand way back and hit the ball when there is less pace on it and be more succeptible to drop shots.
I think this was one of the reasons why Del Potro was so good at his peak (and Soderling was great that year too). He was smashing every shot cos at that height you can hit the ball at such a comfortable position even within the baseline.

In tennis for smaller players, there are no advantages. In team sports smaller people can be great because there is the low centre of gravity to beat opponents eg Maradona or in NFL Barry Sanders. In stamina sports they can also excel (kenenisa Bekele, Pantani).

But in tennis everything favours being tall.

The article says that behemoths don't do well (6 foot 4 +) but 6 foot 4 (or 193 cm) is the 99th percentile even for males.

Half the worlds male population is around Schwarzman's height. Even if you look only at Europe and US where most tennis players come from, 50% of young males are smaller than 177cm, so even the "small" tennis players like Aggasi or Ferrer are actually above average height. If there were 300 million males in their 20's who were over 194 cm, I bet you some of those would be tennis champions.

Much respect to Diego. If Tennis was organized by size like boxing is, he would be Mayweather.


Bounce height isn't all that big of a benefit, except on the backhand. Reach is a way bigger problem, but he does have the advantage of being super quick on the first 2 meters. He can return super aggro on 2nd serve return because it's so hard to hit in his body. He also shows that being underpowered from the baseline doesn't happen all that often if you're quicke enough and a very clean ball striker. Especially on fast courts
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 16:18

SeriousSam wrote:Being tall is pretty much a universal advantage for males. In business and love too.

Quarter-finalists:

Anderson: 2.03 m
Querrey: 1.99 m
Del Potro: 1.98 m
Rublev: 1.88 m
Busta: 1.88 m
Federer: 1.85 m
Nadal: 1.85 m
Schwartzman: 1.7 m

I do feel like there's something about being >1.9m that produces a disadvantage, when the worse ability to change direction, accelerate and reach low balls starts to outweigh the reach advantage. The very tall players just cannot move like the 1.9m Djokovic and Murray.


Outside tennis I don't think height is that big a deal, unless you have small man insecurities or something. Personality is more important. But in sport, in events where height is important (like a net or a basket) it is crucial.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 16:20

The Hitch wrote:
SeriousSam wrote:Being tall is pretty much a universal advantage for males. In business and love too.

Quarter-finalists:

Anderson: 2.03 m
Querrey: 1.99 m
Del Potro: 1.98 m
Rublev: 1.88 m
Busta: 1.88 m
Federer: 1.85 m
Nadal: 1.85 m
Schwartzman: 1.7 m

I do feel like there's something about being >1.9m that produces a disadvantage, when the worse ability to change direction, accelerate and reach low balls starts to outweigh the reach advantage. The very tall players just cannot move like the 1.9m Djokovic and Murray.


Outside tennis I don't think height is that big a deal, unless you have small man insecurities or something. Personality is more important. But in sport, in events where height is important (like a net or a basket) it is crucial.

Leg space in airplanes man. Hitting your head everywhere. It's no fun at times
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

05 Sep 2017 16:37

Lol, Hawkeye getting the wrong ball.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 18:09

The Hitch wrote:
SeriousSam wrote:Being tall is pretty much a universal advantage for males. In business and love too.

Quarter-finalists:

Anderson: 2.03 m
Querrey: 1.99 m
Del Potro: 1.98 m
Rublev: 1.88 m
Busta: 1.88 m
Federer: 1.85 m
Nadal: 1.85 m
Schwartzman: 1.7 m

I do feel like there's something about being >1.9m that produces a disadvantage, when the worse ability to change direction, accelerate and reach low balls starts to outweigh the reach advantage. The very tall players just cannot move like the 1.9m Djokovic and Murray.


Outside tennis I don't think height is that big a deal, unless you have small man insecurities or something. Personality is more important. But in sport, in events where height is important (like a net or a basket) it is crucial.

You get the occasional 5'9" basketball player (Isaiah Thomas) who's incredible but they are rare. There are other sports where it is pretty important too: rowing, some football positions, cricket (fast bowling), some rugby (ok most rugby) and high jump as well. But as a small man I don't think it's really a big deal in life. Or at least you don't notice it.
Brullnux
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,825
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 20:05

There's research showing that being tall is a good for you controlling for background characteristics. Hich mentioned personality being what's really important, but I'm all but certain being tall would predict positive outcomes holding constant a personality measure such as the Big Five traits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)

You might not think it's a big deal, Brullnux, but research suggests taller version of you would likely be doing better in life.

And be better at tennis.
User avatar SeriousSam
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,184
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:06
Location: Now here

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 20:52

SeriousSam wrote:There's research showing that being tall is a good for you controlling for background characteristics. Hich mentioned personality being what's really important, but I'm all but certain being tall would predict positive outcomes holding constant a personality measure such as the Big Five traits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)

You might not think it's a big deal, Brullnux, but research suggests taller version of you would likely be doing better in life.

And be better at tennis.
i am no expert nor a serious follower of tennis, expect occasionally. that said, it is imo a visual fact as well as common sense that being tall in tennis helps... from having a longer reach to a certain plus due being above the nets edge. when THIS advantage is combined with leg speed, yep you got a winning formula. but quite often i saw (and actually experienced being 195) the instant acceleration was/is a challenge. look at the giraffes running clips to appreciate the point.

as in many things, it boils down to a combination of winning components where the advantage of size may be important but far from sufficient...
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,493
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: The real Tennis thread.

05 Sep 2017 21:04

SeriousSam wrote:There's research showing that being tall is a good for you controlling for background characteristics. Hich mentioned personality being what's really important, but I'm all but certain being tall would predict positive outcomes holding constant a personality measure such as the Big Five traits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)

You might not think it's a big deal, Brullnux, but research suggests taller version of you would likely be doing better in life.

And be better at tennis.


There's life outside the research lab as well though. Research shows Its bad to smoke but some smokers life to a 100. Research Or logic would give trump no chance of becoming president. And yet...

I'll come out of the closet. Im 171 cm. Most of the people my height I know would claim that as 175 but **** that, I'm gonna be honest it's 171, and To claim otherwise would be to accept the paradigm that smaller is worse.

Knowing several small people I can tell you once you get inside their heads many are insecure as **** about their height. The limiting beliefs it causes are immense.

This is the reason taller people do better imo. Cos small people tend to let it effect their heads. But at the end of the day it's all mental. El chapo is 165 cm. Theirs flaws in using him as an example But At the end of the day that is a brutal industry where small things like height are amplified and he hasn't let it effect him. How much "better" could he have done from his humble beginings if he was taller. What about messi? Yeah I give a 190cm John doe a better chance than a 170cm John doe at life, but the 170cm version can Definately with the right mindset overcome it.

I have a close friend whos about 160. Smallest guy in any room he ever enters. He's also the centre of our social circle and number 1 on anyone's list of people they will remember. He doesn't give a **** about height, or if he did it was long ago he is just confident and a good guy. Or maybe he's smart and knows how to play the game. I rarely meet guys no matter how tall who don't rapidly accept him as the leader.

Also leaving aside personal experience, I reject this simplified idea that any 1 variable automatically guarantees a better life. "Research" as you like to say, after all also shows that money after a certain point Is more likely to contribute to depression than hapiness. If being tall is so much better then small people will confront problems earlier in life, deal with them and become stronger. That's just how life works. Its why people born in **** situations often end up succeeding so much.

Its one of the reasons why I'm so much against the sjw identity politics of "our group is a victim". The world is never that simple.

Personally I rarely find height to be limiting at all. Everyone in the world has weaknesses and most people are insecure. If you learn how to deal with people, manage social situations, be a leader etc the world is your oyster no matter what limitations research claims you may have.

Its such a superficial variable. How people so in life is based on so much else (if they don't let the superficial variables get to them)
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

05 Sep 2017 21:35

It's gonna affect everyone differently, though I imagine that from an evolutionary point of view being tall would be an advantage, especially for men.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

05 Sep 2017 21:41

It's only annoying when there's something on the top shelf of a supermarket with higher than normal shelves. Or when there is an attractive girl 6 inches taller than you. Or at concerts - this might be the worst one actually. But let's be real, 90% of the time you forget about your height. I'm about 170cm too, and I only really think about my height if it's a topic of conversation or whatever, or immediately relevant to the situation (eg I'm playing football and I'm being marked by someone well over six foot for a corner). As hitch says, it can cause a lack of confidence but in some I know, shorter than me, it does the opposite: they make up what they don't have in height with persona and exuberance. Sometimes if you play it wrong then it just becomes irritating, but usually it's fine

I also end up having pretty good acceleration over 10m.

Anyway, back to tennis. I was half surprised to see Naomi Osaka get knocked out. She absolutely smoked Kerber, but it may have been a bit of a one off. And Carreno Busta still hasn't dropped a set
Brullnux
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,825
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Unchained and 8 guests

Back to top