Over 1.96 lenght becomes a liability rather then a strenght. Raonic is a rather weird case because of his build, long legs, and long arms. Very few players over 1.90 that move expectionally well. From the top of my head, only Monfils and Murray are very good movers. It is no surprise that the game recently has been dominated by players in the 1.80-1.90 range. They can be the elite movers in the game without being underpowered. I don't think that will change. The very tall players are usually more injury prone, less consistent and more serve-dependent players. There's only so much you can win by serving better.
The most important metric in tennis is usually the % of games won, they usually add %serve games won and %return games won. So an average player may hold serve 80% of the time, and break 20% of the time, adding up to 100. Slam winners are typicaly around 120 for the tournament. Now the best baseliners and rally players can go up from that, despite possibly having an average serve. The tallest players, however, may serve huge and hold over 95% of their games at times, they get rather poor movement and as a result they're pretty bad at breaking serve.
Raonic, who is now in the Wimbledon final. He has the fastest serve on the Tour right now, and holds 96% (!) of the time. Yet despite his improved ground game, he only breaks 14% of the time, which is still below average. Thus, Raonic is at 110, and wins around 55% of games. Only one Ivanisevic won Wimbledon, winning a lower percentage of games at 54%.
Murray otoh, doesn't have one of the best first serves in the world, and his 2nd serve is typically vulnerable. Yet due to his superior ground game, he's holding 91% of the time, and he's breaking 39% of the time, adding up to 130, winning 65% of the games he's played. 10% difference in games won, all due to superior ground game.
There's basically a trade off, between movement and power, the taller you get. However, this doesn't apply to players below 1.80, because a tennis court is big enough for speed to be more important than acceleration, not to mention reach being very important as well. Over 1.90 you slowly start to get worse movement, which hurts both serving and returning game, and the increase in power only helps to a degree. Tall, big game players are usually dangerous and have more chance of blowing hot and cold.
Naturally, there are individual differences. There's some very good servers under 180, and some players of almost 2 meters move somewhat decently. The ideal length is probably between 1.85 and 1.90. Changes in technology and court surfaces ahve put more emphasis on athletic ability. As such, I think that shorter players that are too underpowered have a harder time making it. They can obviously become pro, or even win ATP titles, (look at Diego Schartzmann, who is 1.69 I believe) but at the top of the game, where edges are thin and they're all great athletes, being underpowered is just gonna make the difference between being a top 10 player and a slam champion.
The most important metric in tennis is usually the % of games won, they usually add %serve games won and %return games won. So an average player may hold serve 80% of the time, and break 20% of the time, adding up to 100. Slam winners are typicaly around 120 for the tournament. Now the best baseliners and rally players can go up from that, despite possibly having an average serve. The tallest players, however, may serve huge and hold over 95% of their games at times, they get rather poor movement and as a result they're pretty bad at breaking serve.
Raonic, who is now in the Wimbledon final. He has the fastest serve on the Tour right now, and holds 96% (!) of the time. Yet despite his improved ground game, he only breaks 14% of the time, which is still below average. Thus, Raonic is at 110, and wins around 55% of games. Only one Ivanisevic won Wimbledon, winning a lower percentage of games at 54%.
Murray otoh, doesn't have one of the best first serves in the world, and his 2nd serve is typically vulnerable. Yet due to his superior ground game, he's holding 91% of the time, and he's breaking 39% of the time, adding up to 130, winning 65% of the games he's played. 10% difference in games won, all due to superior ground game.
There's basically a trade off, between movement and power, the taller you get. However, this doesn't apply to players below 1.80, because a tennis court is big enough for speed to be more important than acceleration, not to mention reach being very important as well. Over 1.90 you slowly start to get worse movement, which hurts both serving and returning game, and the increase in power only helps to a degree. Tall, big game players are usually dangerous and have more chance of blowing hot and cold.
Naturally, there are individual differences. There's some very good servers under 180, and some players of almost 2 meters move somewhat decently. The ideal length is probably between 1.85 and 1.90. Changes in technology and court surfaces ahve put more emphasis on athletic ability. As such, I think that shorter players that are too underpowered have a harder time making it. They can obviously become pro, or even win ATP titles, (look at Diego Schartzmann, who is 1.69 I believe) but at the top of the game, where edges are thin and they're all great athletes, being underpowered is just gonna make the difference between being a top 10 player and a slam champion.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram