Who is the best mover for their size?

I wonder if being an inch taller from 6'1-6'2 impacts your movement that much.
For example if it does, you would probably say djoko over nadal.

But for me, the best mover for their size has to be monfils, imo hes the quickest out there. JJ moves very well for his height of 6'8, whereas isner at 6'9 turns slower than the QE2!

thoughts?

JJ, buries Isner in terms of movement that is why I think he will have a much better career and may be a slam winner in the future. Del Po showed that you could win a slam at 6 foot six, and JJ may be the guy to push the envelope even further. He is incredibl quick for his height, maybe the prototype for the future player who is both tall and powerful but can also move with the best of them.

Del Potro, Raonic, Tomic , Berdych are all great movers given the height. I guess averge height in Tennis stardom as grown with time, currently an average height would be 6'3 compared to 90's where average height would have been 5'10-5'11.

I think the difference in inches obvs becomes more important the taller you get. Like there may be a bigger difference between say berdych at 6'5 and dp at 6'6, than 6'1 to 6'2.

Gasquet at 6'1 is a pretty bad mover imo.

I would say Djokovic. He is 6'2" and a great mover not for "his size" but for any size. Most players above 6'1" if they can move at all are called "good movers for their size". But it's rare that they can look pretty doing so. Maybe for the benefit of spectators tennis should introduce a height limit? Above 6'3" maybe players should play a separate tour. Spectators could be charged a reduced fee because of the limited spectacle. I still wouldn't watch...

Ha ha! I was going to suggest 6'2" as a limit but I knew I wouldn't get away with it.

LuvSports. What are you talking about? Gasquet at 6'1" is the perfect height and a beautiful mover. I don't think he does the same amount of gym work as some others though. It's probably the artist in him.

watch more of his matches, he is not a very good mover.

Do you not think monfils moves well?

Gasquet's main problem is that he plays farther back off the baseline than anyone on a hardcourt, Nadal included. This sounds like it would help in your defensive skills but I actually think it ends up putting too much pressure on your defense. He isn't as fast as murray, Novak, or Nadal that is for sure; but he is pretty quick. The problem he gets into is that his court positioning forces him into situations where he is running around like a chicken with his head cut off. Standing six or 8 feet off the baseline is an invitation for the other player to run you around the court. It opens up too many wide angles and increases the chance that you will drop the ball short in the court. He actually moves well enough but his court positioning is too defensive and therefore he does way too much defending. And he simply isn't a grinder to play that way, he isn't fit enough and he isn't fast enough. I think that makes him seem like a poor mover but he really isn't, his court positioning puts too much pressure on his movement and invites players to attack him with angles and earlier striking.

It would be like Arsenal deciding that they are going to play every match by dropping 11 guys behind the ball and waiting for an odd set piece or counter to get a goal. That style doesn't suit the personnel they have and they probably would look stupid trying it. The same thing about Gasquet, his game is suited to attack but he positions himself like the second version of borg and borg he is not so he looks stupid doing it.

Oddly, he positions himself much better on grass than on hardcourts where his court positioning is among the most defensive on tour. Far worse than Nadal on a hardcourt, and Nadal can actually play that way while Richard can't.

Socal, your analysis on Gasquet is spot on.
Same with Monfils.

Of the 'particularly' tall players (which in my mind is taller than 6'3), I think Berdych moves well. This may be because he is best-proportioned. He doesn't "look" tall, unlike say Del Potro who looks very long-limbed.

JJ also moves a lot better than you would expect from a guy of his extraordinary height.

I know I'm biased but I think that when it comes to movement, Novak is in a class of his own. In terms of raw speed he has rivals (notably Andy) but it's the agility and flexibility that sets him apart. It must add a good 30-50cm to his reach.

Depends a lot on the surface HM.
On hard courts yes, on clay I think Nadal's movement is better than anyones.

On grass Novak still looks a bit uncomfortable.

Yes I agree but monfils is the athlete that could pull it off. But again same issue monfils is not really built to be defender. No one has as much easy power off of every shot that monfils has but he chooses to play the match with the court positioning of an out and out defensive player. With that serve and that forehand he should be looking to step in every shot.

Inviting pressure on yourself with too defensive of mindset can actually make the problem worse. Often times the best defense is a good attack which doesn't provide your opponent with the opportunity to attack you. Gasquet and monfil's passive court positioning doesn't suit their game and hurts them. For some reason harrison plays like that as well.

It Must Be Love wrote:Depends a lot on the surface HM.
On hard courts yes, on clay I think Nadal's movement is better than anyones.

On grass Novak still looks a bit uncomfortable.

Yes, agree on both counts.

I was talking about movement in the broader physical ability sense. Novak though does obviously struggle with some of the nuances of non-hard surfaces.

On clay I think he's very good (if he can slide on a hard court, clay is no problem) but Rafa is the king. Rafa seems to slide as part of the shot movement whereas Novak (and most other players) seem to slide and then hit the shot. A small difference but a telling one.

Novak on grass... yeah, that's often not pretty.

HM Murdoch wrote:Of the 'particularly' tall players (which in my mind is taller than 6'3), I think Berdych moves well. This may be because he is best-proportioned. He doesn't "look" tall, unlike say Del Potro who looks very long-limbed.

JJ also moves a lot better than you would expect from a guy of his extraordinary height.

I know I'm biased but I think that when it comes to movement, Novak is in a class of his own. In terms of raw speed he has rivals (notably Andy) but it's the agility and flexibility that sets him apart. It must add a good 30-50cm to his reach.

I am waiting for Novak to deliver a beautiful backhand from a full split position like Jean Claude Van Damme in bloodsport delivering the killer nutshot from a full split. The flexibility is amazing and quite key to the whole occassion, he looks like a ninja defending that backhand corner.

socal1976 wrote:I am waiting for Novak to deliver a beautiful backhand from a full split position like Jean Claude Van Damme in bloodsport delivering the killer nutshot from a full split.

Preferably whilst wearing those shorts too. Or Patrick Swayze's grey joggers from Road House. I don't mind which.

deffo agree about nadal on clay, him and the surface are one and it seems like he can recover quicker from a shot than anyone else.

I think the diffo between novak and monfils (monfils is quicker imo but they both slide well) is that monfils wastes needless amounts of energy, whereas novak's is so effective and seems to not exert that pointless energy (maybe because novak is much fitter and isn't impacted as much by it).

Yes that is atough call as to which movie is the finer cinematic opus. Two great movies, blood sport and roadhouse. But since I really like seeing rednecks get there brains beaten in I would go for roadhouse. Plus there is a lot more sex a nudity in roadhouse.

I remember watching an interview with Berdych and Tsonga in New York, and they both said Murray is the fastest on tour. In terms of raw speed that might be the case, but Novak is the best mover because of his elasticity. And his ability to hit quality when doing his Mr elastic thing.

Novak, Murray and Rafa really are head and shoulders ahead of everyone in terms of movement.... Apart from Monfils. He has the reach, the speed, the engine, the elasticity, the acceleration... Unfortunately he's nowhere near as good a tennis player as the above mentioned 3.

Interestingly though, he was the stand out junior of his era. More so than Novak and Andy. He was number 1 for quite a while and nearly did the junior slam I believe. He and Gasquet were the two everyone expected to evolve into great players.

LuvSports! wrote:deffo agree about nadal on clay, him and the surface are one and it seems like he can recover quicker from a shot than anyone else.

I think the diffo between novak and monfils (monfils is quicker imo but they both slide well) is that monfils wastes needless amounts of energy, whereas novak's is so effective and seems to not exert that pointless energy (maybe because novak is much fitter and isn't impacted as much by it).

It again goes back to positioning. Novak runs a great deal less than Mongols because he stands up on the line. Monfils looks more frantic because of where he stands. He does a lot more running in his matches than what would be required.

socal1976 wrote:Yes that is atough call as to which movie is the finer cinematic opus. Two great movies, blood sport and roadhouse. But since I really like seeing rednecks get there brains beaten in I would go for roadhouse. Plus there is a lot more sex a nudity in roadhouse.

Road House also has the superior dialogue. There's a barely a sentence uttered that isn't a work of genius. When I become king, I'm taking Shakespeare off the curriculum and insisting our students study the Road House script.

It also has a monster struck.

Which is used on a stake out.

socal1976 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:deffo agree about nadal on clay, him and the surface are one and it seems like he can recover quicker from a shot than anyone else.

I think the diffo between novak and monfils (monfils is quicker imo but they both slide well) is that monfils wastes needless amounts of energy, whereas novak's is so effective and seems to not exert that pointless energy (maybe because novak is much fitter and isn't impacted as much by it).

It again goes back to positioning. Novak runs a great deal less than Mongols because he stands up on the line. Monfils looks more frantic because of where he stands. He does a lot more running in his matches than what would be required.

do they run a lot?!

socal1976 wrote: Novak runs a great deal less than Mongols

Which is surprising because they were noted horsemen...!

Movement is much more complex than just speed left and right...

- Outright top speed
- Footspeed, I.e. cadence
- Foot-eye coordination
- Agility of footwork...fine motor control
- Speed around net, I.e. agility
- Speed off the mark as opposed to top speed
- Speed in turning left or right from the hips
- Flexibility

All these things are slightly different, and the top players differ in what they excel at. For example, I believe Nadal and Federer's sheer dexterity of footwork is a level above others. Best footwork I ever saw was Borg and Kafelnikov. Djokovic's speed in turning (one reason why he's such a good returner) and flexibility is at the top. Murray's or Monfil's outright speed is very high (huge stride length), Federer's movement and reactions at net is great, Nadal's explosive speed off the mark, ...etc...etc. There is no one best mover...they all differ...maybe if you could add all the sub-movement scores up you might have a list but for me it's very hard to judge, especially when different types of movement become more important on different surfaces, or even against different types of player.

It's not best quality but watch Kafelnikov's footwork here vs Federer at Stuttgart 2000. He wasn't recognised for it at the time, nor his BH which I still think is one of the best the game has seen. Is tennis played any better than this today? I think not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfnYgGmPz4A

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes that is atough call as to which movie is the finer cinematic opus. Two great movies, blood sport and roadhouse. But since I really like seeing rednecks get there brains beaten in I would go for roadhouse. Plus there is a lot more sex a nudity in roadhouse.

Road House also has the superior dialogue. There's a barely a sentence uttered that isn't a work of genius. When I become king, I'm taking Shakespeare off the curriculum and insisting our students study the Road House script.

It also has a monster struck.

Which is used on a stake out.

I fully agree about Roadhouse, can't make out a word of shakespeare. It had everything that movie; drunk rednecks beating their brains in, lots of sex scenes and nudity, Swayze sporting his mullet hairdo god bless him and yes even monster trucks. "I thought you would be bigger" another great piece of dialogue. Sam Sheppard as his old mentor was pretty cool as well.

Bloodsport did have the greatest recent kung fu villain in Chong le, not to mention so great slow motion ass kickings with Van DAmme yelling at the screen, but clearly it is not in the same class as roadhouse.

lydian wrote:It's not best quality but watch Kafelnikov's footwork here vs Federer at Stuttgart 2000. He wasn't recognised for it at the time, nor his BH which I still think is one of the best the game has seen. Is tennis played any better than this today? I think not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfnYgGmPz4A

Lydian I mean I get accused of saying things that are controversial but come on Kafelnikov was a very good player and could play today and succeed even today but he isn't in the class of the big 4, he is a cut below them. Although take nothing away he had a lot of weapons and was a great baseliner. Is the level of play better now than back then, absolutely and no question. The players as a whole are fitter and faster, you would concede, and sorry that is a huge part of the sport. More than anything the one type of player I hate playing is a fast player who is also consistent, it is a nightmare. Speed kills in modern sports, fitness is paramount to be able to rev the engine at higher and higher frequency. And in terms of shotmaking the players today have no shortcomings. I am still at loss to see where you believe the deficiency in the players technical abilities lie, what exactly is missing from their arsenal's that other players could do. If anything a lot of things today's players can do that players in the past simply couldn't.

It Must Be Love wrote:Depends a lot on the surface HM.
On hard courts yes, on clay I think Nadal's movement is better than anyones.

On grass Novak still looks a bit uncomfortable.

Novak indeed the worst of the top4 .

Murray at 6'3 is a ridiculously good mover

So fitter + faster = better quality tennis? So the guys of 2000 couldn't be fitter or faster today? Don't forget it's Federer in the video whose game wasn't light years away from where it is today. Yes if we compare today to 1980 then it's ridiculous but I believe the players around 99-00 were more rounded players than today as they had to play over more diverse surfaces. It wasn't the same drill tennis kids get taught today from the baseline.

It's not that today's players are lacking, just that weren't lacking in 2000 either...infact they tended to be good all over the court.
Kafelnikov wasn't just a great baseliner, he was a great net player too - an amazing doubles player actually (4 slams) - and so very attacking. He's the last guy to win a slam in singles and doubles at the same event. He won titles from carpet to clay at highest levels. You don't get many guys like that. Federer hated playing him, as did many others. But he overplayed, got disillusioned after 2000 and underachieved for his talent even though he'd got 2 slams and a Gold medal. Unlike you I don't believe the latest is the greatest.

Anyway my point is that great footwork wasn't invented in 2012. This thread is about great movers and I say that for 6'3' Kafelnikov was an amazing mover, one of the best at that height or higher, and definitely best footwork for that size given his baseline and net prowess. I remember watching him practice at Wimbledon and being awe-struck by his movement back then.

When did I claim the latest was the greatest? I stated these period of stars is better than what we saw in early 2000s. Kafelnikov was before that period, I think he was a very good pro and very talented. Don't question that at all. But he is not as good as what we are seeing from the current big 4. But for the players of the early 2000s in general they lacked consistency and I don't believe they were any more well rounded than players today. It wasn't a serve and volley era back then either. My personal opinion is that the late 80s early 90s was the best period of top flight talent I have seen, this one would probably be second.

And I have always maintained that. Of course players of the past were great movers as well. Although I think speed and fitness is more valuable today and at a higher level in the past. I don't think that is a very controversial point.

Cilic is easily the best mover of the really big guys. Easy to forget he is 6"6. If he wasn't a bit mentally flakey he could be right at the top of the game.

Tsonga for me. 6'2 nearly 200lbs. Moves very swiftly and smoothly around the court.

Becker was another one for a S&Ver was a good mover. 6'3 under 180lbs. Ivanisevic was another good mover and for me is the best of the tall guys 6'4 or 5 I think.

Delpo is certainly a worthy shout.

I think JJ is a better mover than dp 2bh and hes 6'8!

I think JJ is way behind Delpo, Berdy and Raonic in the movement stakes amongst the big guys.

I think JJ is the best mover at his size. I think all those guys actually move fairly well. Del PO in particular I think is a best mover of the big guys. But JJ is right up there with him. Raonic is not as bad as people say either he moves pretty well for a big man and so does berdy. The most athletically gifted though has to be JJ for me. Big, big upside.

There are many aspects to movement: Speed, flexibility, explosiveness, anticipation etc.

The most important is footwork.

Undoubtedly Federer at his peak has the best footwork ever seen on court. Rafa is probably a close second.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31federer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Read the above article - nuff said.



emancipator

Nice article. He sure does move well, if you look at any still of him in mid-movement he always looks in control and balanced. I would add that in my opinion only 2 people came close to his footwork...Borg (just watch videos of his feet, they're like a blur) and I'm like a stuck record but...Kafelnikov. He lacked other movement skills higher up, inc. a slightly stiff back which being 6'3' didn't help, but his footwork was absolutely exemplary. If you read about him many comments say "silken movement". Mecir was another like that.

Footwork is now one of the core skills they train from juniors, kids spend as much time doing shuttle runs, etc, as hitting balls. Talent in the feet is just as, if not more, important than ball striking ability. It's what separates out the top4 from everyone else.

lydian is the reason why generally nadal handles feds knifing slice so well is partly because of his speedy footwork?

Nadal & Djokovic probably have the best body control on tour. Nadal`s outstreched running forehand pass probably has the most variety on tour. He can angle it past you, bend it around you, drop it at your feet, or just plain drill it down the line, all from the same mechanism. To answer he main question, Monfils has daylight, then a country mile on other big guys. In fact he is probably the most flexilbe on tour. Sliderman FTW

Partly so luvsports. He's nearly always in perfect position to play shots and those 5000rpm BH slices from Fed make you really need to get in place early behind the ball.

However, its more than that. Fed's slice is nearly always crosscourt, playing into Nadal's FH. As others have said Nadal probably has the most versatile FH on tour, he's able to hit an amazing array of shots with it and its really stable under pressure. Basically its very hard to break his FH down...he rarely makes errors that side. He also tends to extract weaker slices from Fed due to the heavy spin to Fed's BH, so the ball tends to land then bounce up more giving Nadal no problem next shot...Fed doesn't tend to play slice to Nadal to hurt him, just to keep himself in the point from a wide angled Nadal FH.

The BH slice is a shot of beauty but to be fair it rarely troubles the top guys like it used to do pre-2000 when surfaces were faster. Djokovic is probably the worst out of the top 4 at handling them though...probably because his FH grip is the most extreme out of them all meaning he finds it harder to get under a low hit slice.

I have to concur here with lydian, Nadal's forehand should suffer against a good slice backhand like federer's with the extreme grip Nadal uses. Yet, because of how well he moves up into it and around that slice he usually abuses the slice backhand from federer with a viscious run around forehand. In particular on the backhand return from federer, Nadal would move effortlessly into the court and pick off that slice backhand with an angled forehand off the court. That is one major issue in their rivalry the tendency of fed to chip too many backhand returns and for Nadal to run around and abuse the slice return with his first forehand.

Yep, Nadal is that quick any slices to his BH are ruthlessly exploited by running around to his FH side.

I would just take issue on the grip side - people always incorrectly assume Nadal is extreme Western. BTW, Extreme western = Hawaiian and hardly any pro's use that.
Nadal isn't Extreme W or even just plain Western, he's actually Semi-Western.
Djokovic is Western so more extreme than Nadal.

That is why the slice bothers Djoko more he is more western than Nadal.

Yep, exactly what I said in my last sentence at 13.35 GMT.

To be honest my forehand is pretty western, but I don't know if it classifies as semi or western. i grip on top of the fat part of the grip about halfway or little more back on that bevel. Maybe its western maybe it is semi but the racquet face down completely on the forehand.

You're Western.

lydian wrote:Partly so luvsports. He's nearly always in perfect position to play shots and those 5000rpm BH slices from Fed make you really need to get in place early behind the ball.

However, its more than that. Fed's slice is nearly always crosscourt, playing into Nadal's FH. As others have said Nadal probably has the most versatile FH on tour, he's able to hit an amazing array of shots with it and its really stable under pressure. Basically its very hard to break his FH down...he rarely makes errors that side. He also tends to extract weaker slices from Fed due to the heavy spin to Fed's BH, so the ball tends to land then bounce up more giving Nadal no problem next shot...Fed doesn't tend to play slice to Nadal to hurt him, just to keep himself in the point from a wide angled Nadal FH.

The BH slice is a shot of beauty but to be fair it rarely troubles the top guys like it used to do pre-2000 when surfaces were faster. Djokovic is probably the worst out of the top 4 at handling them though...probably because his FH grip is the most extreme out of them all meaning he finds it harder to get under a low hit slice.

I don't think feds does it now, but before he had a real game plan against nadal (05-08) he was more stubborn and wouldn't alter his game, now he uses it pretty rarely against him.

lydian wrote:You're Western.

Thanks I always classified as western although I used to be much more to the eastern or semi western before I started to hit with luxis. Overtime I just kept getting more western and with a little bit more up and down on the swing plane. I don't like the short slice to that forehand or to my two hander either to be honest, love the high ball though and hit the short ball pretty flat even with the western grip, sometimes too flat and I hit it in the net. I do hit with more spin now than I ever have although I generally stand in and take it pretty early and don't have the patience for long points. Are you western or semi? HOw about your son? I know you are a big proponent of the semi, and I like that grip as well used to be semi for the longest time.

To be honest LS Federer has never really consistently hurt Nadal from the word go - what was his game plan 05-08?

i agree, im saying from that time when their rivalry grew and grew, feds didn't have a game plan and that is why he still persisted with that slice, despite its ineffectiveness against rafa.
For me the first time i saw feds have a game plan was madrid 09, where he executed brilliantly (despite rafa being knackered from the djoko match).

Post aus open 09 for me feds had a bit of a game plan and then perhaps annacone coming in helped him actually have one for rafa.