Russia’s Dinara Safina shakes hands with Australia’s Jelena Dokic after their quarterfinal match at the Australian Open Tennis tournament in Melbourne, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2009. Safina won the match 6-4, 4-6, 6-4. AAP Image/Stuart Milligan
Until she was upstaged by comeback super-mom Kim Clijsters, Melanie Oudin was THE story of the US Tennis Open.
Slaying Russian giants round by round, and blessed by the extreme self-confidence and enthusiasm that only an American upbringing can engender, naturally the question arises as to whether the 17-year-old native of Marietta, Ga – gotta love someone who hails from a place with the same name as my mother! – is the Next Big Thing of women’s tennis.
On Oudin’s tennis shoes is inscribed the word “believe”.
Well here are some names and numbers that are a matter of fact rather than belief:
Kim Clijsters 1.74, Serena Williams 1.75, Svetlana Kuznetsova 1.74, Venus Williams 1.85, Ana Ivanovic 1.83, Maria Sharapova 1.88, Amelie Mauresmo 1.74, Anastasia Myskina 1.74, Jennifer Capriati 1.70, Mary Pierce 1.78, Lindsay Davenport 1.89, Steffi Graf 1.76.
With one (deliberate) omission, these are the names and heights, in metres, of all grand-slam winners in women’s singles from the last decade, stretching back to the French Open of 1999, Steffi’s last major title.
A remarkable pattern emerges: 11 of these 12 winners, representing 33 of these 36 titles won, are 1.74 m or taller (Capriati is the one exception).
One may also note that two other recent no. 1’s, Jelena Jankovic at 1.77 and Dinara Safina at 1.85 m, are above this watermark.
So my nearly golden rule of women’s tennis is: a woman needs to be 1.74 m or taller to be a champion.
Indeed, one might even wonder whether there is something magical about being 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m) tall, plus or minus a centimetre: it’s almost spooky how often these numbers appear in the above list (do I need to introduce that Martina Navratilova is 1.73 m tall?).
Where does this leave Melanie Oudin, who is 1.68 m tall? Well all is not lost for her – read on! – but I do not like her chances of becoming a champion (assuming that she has finished growing).
What about the men? Here’s the equivalent list to that above for women:
Juan Martin del Potro 1.98, Roger Federer 1.85, Rafael Nadal 1.85, Novak Djokovic 1.87, Marat Safin 1.93, Gaston Gaudio 1.75, Andy Roddick 1.88, Juan Carlos Ferrero 1.83, Pete Sampras 1.85, Lleyton Hewitt 1.80, Albert Costa 1.80, Thomas Johansson 1.80, Goran Ivanisevic 1.93, Gustavo Kuerten 1.90, Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1.90, Pat Rafter 1.85, Carlos Moya 1.90, Petr Korda 1.90, Richard Krajicek 1.95, Boris Becker 1.90.
Once again I have deliberately omitted a single name; otherwise this list includes all winners of grand-slam titles in men’s singles right back to Wimbledon 1995.
And once again there is a remarkable pattern: 47 of the 53 titles covered here have been won by players who are 1.85 m or taller.
Further, of the 5 winners who are under this mark, Gaudio, Costa and Johansson would definitely be categorized as journeyman winners who were far from being tennis greats (Hewitt and Ferrero, the other two, are more debatable in this regard).
So my nearly golden rule of men’s tennis is: a man needs to be 1.85 m or taller to be a champion.
Further, there also seems to be a magic height for men: is it not astonishing that Federer, Nadal and Sampras, three of the four great players of the last two decades, are all exactly 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m) tall?
More generally, there is a clustering of male champions in the range 1.85 – 1.90 m, e.g. also Jim Courier 1.87, Stefan Edberg 1.88 and Ivan Lendl 1.87 m.
So if you have ever felt, like I have, that Lleyton Hewitt (1.80 m) was just a few cm short of being a tennis champion for the ages, above lies the proof. Five centimetres does not sound very much, but at Lleyton’s height it has meant the world.
One may also wonder whether being too tall is an impediment. Certainly players like Marat (1.93 m, 2 titles), Goran (1.93, 1), Krajicek (1.95, 1) and Mark Philippoussis (1.95, 0) did not win nearly as many major titles – in Scud’s case, none! – as they looked capable of.
The newly crowned Juan Martin del Potro (1.98 m) will be an interesting test case in this regard. It may be that success-starved Australians have to start praying that the young prodigy Bernard Tomic, who is already 1.93 m tall, stops growing!
Before finishing, I need to make clear that I am not attempting any causal explanation here, although obviously such would go along the following lines: increasing height confers an advantage in terms of clearing the net (this is what gives rise to a threshold height), but at the same time it confers a disadvantage in terms of the intricate coordination needed to play tennis (otherwise Shaq would be a tennis champion!), and there is an optimum height in the middle.
Rather, I am just pointing out a very strong correlation, much as there is between smoking and lung cancer.
This analogy is useful. Just as there are smokers who do not get lung cancer, so there are male tennis players who are 1.85 m tall who are not grand-slam winners.
More to the point, just as there are non-smokers who contract lung cancer, so there are relatively rare cases of tennis champions who are below the threshold height for their gender.
The above lists contain some minor celebrities in this regard, e.g. Capriati, Hewitt, Ferrero.
The two great examples of recent times are Justine Henin (1.68 m, 7 titles in the last decade) and Andre Agassi (1.81 m, 5 titles since Wimbledon 1995 and 8 in all): these are the names I omitted from the respective lists above.
The case of Henin gives some hope for Melanie Oudin (also 1.68 m), but at the same time one has to recognize that such a player seems to emerge only once per decade in women’s tennis: Henin in the 2000s, Hingis (1.70 m) in the 1990s, Evert (1.68 m) in the 1980s.
Is Oudin such a once-per-decade player? Time will tell, but obviously the odds are low.
Finally, a tidbit: in all I have given the heights of (by my reckoning) 45 tennis players above, and in only one case did I find that Wikipedia is wrong: it lists Guga as 1.96 m rather than the correct 1.90 m.
I mention this for the benefit of those who propagate the myth that Wikipedia is inaccurate.
Pat
Guest
Height must be an advantage in most sports as the games were designed for shorter people at a time when people were generally shorter. Height gives the advantage of perspective, looking down on the nets, rather than across the nets, just as if one was on a hill looking down and surveying the landscape. Perspective is important in any activity where unequal height cannot help but confer unequal advantage. Further, the leg and arm extensions are longer for taller players, all other things being equal.
Marie Heitz
Guest
In considering there to be a maximum desirable height, have you taken into consideration the normal distribution of heights amongst people? As there are fewer people born who will measure over 1.9m, ergo there will be fewer people to choose from to make tennis champions.
Bushranger
Guest
The first time I ever saw Jelena Dockic, at the Olympics in Sydney, I was surprised how tall she was. If you go on a tour of the Melbourne Park tennis centre they have a relative hieght scale for women players and they are all very tall. This is hardly surprising as height must confer significant advantages in reach and power as well as being able to serve from a greater height to produce more speed and bounce. What interests me is that there seems to be a maximum ideal height. Players who are taller than this might actually be at a disadvantage. Tennis is a game of speed as well as power, and players who are taller and larger than the ideal may lose more in lack of speed than they gain in the power their height confers. Of course exceptions like Henin make up in talent and speed what they lose in hieght. I'd like to see whether this trend is evident in a larger group of players such as the top 100. There may be a correlation between height and ranking.
bever fever
Guest
Not really on topic but i just want to say it, does anyone think that Federer would make a great squash player, he seems to play a stack of squash looking shots, wonder if he has been exposed to it or just naturally plays them, i would imagine with all the aussie coaches around that he has been exposed to it. I understand that tennis and squash are both raquet sports but Federer looks a natural at squash to me, unlike some other tennis champions.
Mushi
Guest
Isn’t this just common sense? The higher your point of contact on a serve or shot the more angle you have to work with getting the ball over the net and hence the greater margin for error on a shot. It isn’t just height however it is as much about reach, whilst there is a strong correlation between height and reach it is possible for a 6’1” player to have the reach of a 6’6” player making them “play taller”. The further away from your body that you can effectively strike the ball the “smaller” the court becomes and the more time you have to position your feet before striking the ball, thus blunting the “mobility advantage” to a large degree.
Mushi
Guest
You can't say she's better than federer because of a physical disadvantage, it is a sport so physical ability is the most basic of differentiators.
bever fever
Guest
I play quite a bit of tennis and the taller you are the (usually) less mobility you have around the net and court in general, of course height helps when serving and its a lot harder to lob someone whos tall. I would say that around 6'1 or2 is still the ideal height, just as it is for many sports codes. People are generally bigger now than 50 years ago, the average height of a dutchman is now 6 foot(183cm) thats a pretty tall average, slavic peoples(serbs, croats, russians) also tend to be big people. BTW i am 6 ' and their is no way Hewitt is , me thinks he fudged his height, and this becomes a issue whether some players do fudge their height, many fooballers do it. If you go back in history and try and walk through doorways from only a couple of hundred years ago you would have a pretty sore head. When Australia was first setled the first generation of kids were called cornstalks as they were noticeably bigger than there anglo irish parents.
iccir
Guest
oi oi... this is almost exactly what's been going on in my head for the past few weeks... height is a pre-reqiusite in tennis in the open era.. From my observation Justine Henin is better than Roger Federer due to the fact that she's playing against giants with flamboyant dresses while Roger is playing against mere homo sapiens... not until Juan Martin comes along to test him... though he has a height advantage, he uses it well with enough power & speed to counter Fed's game... hence the bottom line for a perfect champion given the average height would be perfect balance of everything... In the case of Justine, she defines the term balance in the most extreme way of perfection... and definitely she has the quality of adaptability unlike Roger's game nowadays.... he only plays his game & fails to adapt when it mattered the most... Just a tiny question, are Chris Evert, Billie Jean King & Martina Hingis played with players who's average height is similar to that of Justine's generation?
Arden
Guest
I got to the list of women's champions and wondered if this guy forgot about Justine Henin. I'm pretty sure I went back to it about 3 times before deciding you are full of crap. I did read on and finally found Henin and Agassi's name later. It seems like to truly be really really really good at tennis, you have to have an ideal physique specially for that sport. I have to said I never thought about height being a major difference in tennis. A rather interesting read.