Tiger80 Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 NEW DELHI: Former Britain No.1 and World No.4 Tim Henman on Thursday said Indians lacked the physicality to become good tennis singles players -- a disadvantage that has hampered the country's finest such as Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi. "There are some really good players, very impressed with the standard here. The challenge for them is the physicality of the game -- how fit, how strong you can get... also the mental side of things... the intensity, the concentration to keep playing well from the first ball to the last ball," Henman said at the launch of a pilot scheme -- 'HSBC Road to Wimbledon', first Wimbledon event outside Britain. "Tennis doubles and singles is almost like two different sports," said Henman. "You can play a little doubles to advance your singles game but at the end of the day singles is where it's at and it would be ideal to just focus on that aspect of the game." India's top singles player Somdev Devvarman is currently ranked 90th in the world while the next best is Yuki Bhambri at 172nd place. Leander Paes, who won the singles bronze at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, was the top ranked player in the junior circuit but after turning professional in 1991 almost immediately joined the doubles circuit. "When you reflect on their games they have good skills, wonderful hands but it is the physical aspect, having the big shot, the physical prowess on the court, hit and move fast and play for three to five hours that's what I think they haven't been able to do," Henman said of Paes and Bhupathi. Talking about the need for professional international coaches for youngsters in India, Henman said it was far more important to recruit talented players. "At the end of the day, you have to go out and find the talent, the coach is only as good as the player. India is a nation keen on sports and with a lot of people there are obviously a lot of talented players out there." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/top-stories/Indians-lack-physicality-for-singles-game-says-Henman/articleshow/28600673.cms
randomGuy Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Very few people have access to lawn tennis court in India.
vvvslaxman Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Ramesh krishnan was a great touch artist. Guys like him Stefan Edberg went out of the picture once the power players like Courier started coming in.
Muloghonto Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Henman is almost correct, its not physicality we lack, its the height. We are, ultimately a society where the average male height is 5'7 or 5'8, while 'tennis champion nations' like US, German, Spain, etc. tend to have average male height in the 5'10 zone. Tennis tends to favour the taller men because ultimately, the biggest weapon in tennis is the serve(even today and yes, even on clay) and in general, taller you are,better server you are. Note that some fairly ordinary tennis players, who I'd put in the 'average in almost every department but serve' have cracked the top 10 purely on the basis of monster serves: Rusedski, Cilic, Isner spring to mind. Whereas I think the shortest ever Grand Slam singles winning male was Michael Chang and he stood at 5'7 ( our national average for male). Almost all tennis champions are in the 6 foot+ category with only a few that are a shade under 6 foot ( Federer, Agassi, Nadal, Connors, Lendl were all either 5'11 or 6 foot). So it is difficult to compete in a sport where we are batting well below the sporting height average. As it is, Somdev Devvarman is our best tennis player and when I see him, I realize why he cannot be a top 20 or even a top 40 player: he has good skills & variety but he is not able to win the standard 15-30 free points per match that top 40 players win on the back of pure aces & service winners. He gets atmost 2-3 aces per match and 2-3 service winners. Thats simply not good enough in tennis unless you are the occasional junkballing freak on clay.
Muloghonto Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Ramesh krishnan was a great touch artist. Guys like him Stefan Edberg went out of the picture once the power players like Courier started coming in. It wasnt so much Courier was the 'game-changing power hitter', it was actually Agassi. Courier was in the Lendl mould of 'consistency from the baseline with dangerous amounts of power' but he wasnt the aggressive baseliner that Agassi was, who looked to rip winners from the baseline at any opportunity he got. Ultimately Edberg & Ramesh Krishnan style went out of style when the rackets evolved in the mid 90s to render most touch artists useless. Rafter was the last of the 'touch artists' at work and he only worked because Rafter was a very tall guy (6'3 or 6'4) who used an exgaggerated kick serve almost all the time. On the current tour, where the courts are at their slowest I've ever seen and rackets favouring vicious spin-monsters ploughing through the ball, touch artists have no chance. Their skills however, remain very relevant in doubles.
randomGuy Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Uk would have arnd 3 cr males. India easily has more than 3 cr males exceeding 5'10'' i guess. Though UK itself isn't a very strong lawn tennis nation.
Muloghonto Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Uk would have arnd 3 cr males. India easily has more than 3 cr males exceeding 5'10'' i guess. Though UK itself isn't a very strong lawn tennis nation. 'Very strong' ? Except for Tim Henman, the Canadian import (Rusedski) and Murray, English tennis has done absolutely nothing for almost 50 years. Of them only Murray is elite level tennis player, so I'd categorize UK as a weak tennis nation. Of 3 crore Indian males who may exceed 5'10, how many play tennis ? The national height average is important, as height is a huge factor in sports like tennis, basketball, volleyball, etc. and having a lower national average than whats required in these sports means that your average Indian has no chance, to have a chance, they have to be above average to begin with, which is a demographical handicap.
randomGuy Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Yaar, i am saying tht due to large population of 1200 million, average height is not a hindrance in us not being a strong tennis nation.
Muloghonto Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Yaar' date=' i am saying tht due to large population of 1200 million, average height is not a hindrance in us not being a strong tennis nation.[/quote'] It is, because the average is a benchmark for the society. You cannot expect your society's top 10% to be good enough as the 50% of another society and still dominate, actual population notwithstanding. We do not have a China-style autocratic 'choose your sport for you' approach, so the law of averages applies. If we had a system like China (which i dont advocate btw), then we might've been able to artificially boost the tennis pool by designating tall guys with good hand-eye coordination as tennis players but without such control over career choices, you are left with the average being a factor.
alexander Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Henman was a huge loser. Dont take him seriously.
Muloghonto Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Henman was a huge loser. Dont take him seriously. Success in executing a sport and success in analysis of one are not linked.
bsriharsha Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Henman is right....Tennis now is all about speed and power
Tiger80 Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 Henman is almost correct, its not physicality we lack, its the height. We are, ultimately a society where the average male height is 5'7 or 5'8, while 'tennis champion nations' like US, German, Spain, etc. tend to have average male height in the 5'10 zone. Tennis tends to favour the taller men because ultimately, the biggest weapon in tennis is the serve(even today and yes, even on clay) and in general, taller you are,better server you are. Note that some fairly ordinary tennis players, who I'd put in the 'average in almost every department but serve' have cracked the top 10 purely on the basis of monster serves: Rusedski, Cilic, Isner spring to mind. Whereas I think the shortest ever Grand Slam singles winning male was Michael Chang and he stood at 5'7 ( our national average for male). Almost all tennis champions are in the 6 foot+ category with only a few that are a shade under 6 foot ( Federer, Agassi, Nadal, Connors, Lendl were all either 5'11 or 6 foot). So it is difficult to compete in a sport where we are batting well below the sporting height average. As it is, Somdev Devvarman is our best tennis player and when I see him, I realize why he cannot be a top 20 or even a top 40 player: he has good skills & variety but he is not able to win the standard 15-30 free points per match that top 40 players win on the back of pure aces & service winners. He gets atmost 2-3 aces per match and 2-3 service winners. Thats simply not good enough in tennis unless you are the occasional junkballing freak on clay. I don't think Height is problem for Indians. There are several communitties in India Where average male height is 5-9, 5-10.Of course when you take National average then you get the height of many Indians which are extremely poor and don't get proper nutrition , hence there height is very short, but then these type of people could hardly play an expensive sports like tennis
JourneyMan Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 If Henman was able to drag his skeleton all the way to the Wimbledon SFs, then I doubt physique is the issue. Tennis is an expensive sport, the average person doesn't have the kind of money to seriously get into the game. If India are serious about it, they need state-funded programs, decent scouting and top training. Don't know how much backing Bhambri is getting, but the talent is definitely there.
yoda Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 It's not just the height. There is a lot of hard work and prep and us lazy Indians just lack it.
Gollum Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Bad genes. Honestly we suck in almost all physical sports, at least w.r.t to our huge population.
CG Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 It's not just the height. There is a lot of hard work and prep and us lazy Indians just lack it. Lazy upper middle class u mean.Most indians work their socks off to earn a living.
jusarrived Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 I dont agree . of the current players Bhupati and Rohan dont lack physicality . Rohan has a massive serve , so did Mahesh . Fitness though is an issue
vvvslaxman Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 It's not just the height. There is a lot of hard work and prep and us lazy Indians just lack it. Agassi when he wanted to return after 30 , worked his butt off. Climbed mountains in Nevada. Really pushed himself hard. We don't like to get involved in testing physical limits Some do. But not as much as them.
Recommended Posts