SeriousSam said:
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.