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?

You don't ask easy questions do you
I don't know all players' exact height, but the good sign is if you actually don't notice their height, i.e. it does not impair their movement.
JJ is very tall and moves very well for his height, Delpo is not bad either, he is not that fast but is very agile.
Paire is quite tall and moves really well, it helps that he doesn't with a ton like Delpo or Isner.
Karlovic is a clasic giraffe and you can see his height in the way he moves.
Berd is too heavy and it affects his style of play.
Monf is very athletic, but uses it only for scrapping.
Cilic is very light on his feet for his size, too, but now chooses to stay on the base line and totally annihilates that advantage.

. 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.

Very interisting topic. In my opinion the movement is one of the important players parameters in tennis nowadays. The answer who is the best is difficult because the movement can not be analyzed separately but in the context of a player's complexity and it also depends on a surface and an opponent. The more is the surface slippy the more heavier players struggle against lighter ones. Then you are so fast as fast you can read the game and it is obvious that top 4 belong to the best.

Nole is the lightest out of the 4, so that although he is not the fastest he can stretch his body to the biggest extent from them and therefore he does not have to run so much. Nole's coverage of the court is excellent due to his height and great elasticity. He is lighter and can reach further due to his elasticity, which are easily explainable reasons why he has a great stamina. The great feeling and timing of Nole is due to his great movement and body elasticity, then it looks like he has so much time for hitting, but he is quick and also flexible, that is it.

Nadal's movement is great due to his great acceleration and very flexible body.

Murray is quite fast as well, but he is not so flexible and runs quite a lot, many times quite a lot unnecessarily, but it has nothing with legs rather with his brain. He can read the game pretty well though.

Fed on his peak wasthe best mover on the tour, now he struggles with back, but he is still great on his foot.

All 4 are players with the height of 186/190cm, so it shows that this height is the best for tennis players atm. Players above 190cm struggle with their movement against them. On the other hand the shorter players do not have such a coverage of the court by their reach, worse serve and can not generate such a swing.

I agree with you there Paul. To me currently Djoko has the best size/pace ratio. Murray is not far behind...slower but taller and carrying more muscles (has to). As I said, not long ago it was simply impossible to be as tall and bulky and as mobile on a tennis court.

An important part of mobility in tennis is anticipation. Federer and Murray are the best out of the top 4. Nadal is standing too far back but makes it up by his sheer pace.

I posted this on v2 as well and was interesting to see some responses.

lydian said kafelnikov was a brilliant mover for his 6'3 frame and had brilliant footwork, need to see more of him 2bh.

Kafel was a good mover....if he was 6'3 cause I thought he was shorter...then Lydian has a point this time.....if Kafel is that tall.

haha, tenez begrudgingly agrees with lydian.

I know you don't agree with him on lots of things, but he sure knows a hell of a lot more than i do about tennis!

luvsports! wrote:haha, tenez begrudgingly agrees with lydian.

I know you don't agree with him on lots of things, but he sure knows a hell of a lot more than i do about tennis!

He knows....I have told him that....but the problem is that he is not honest when it doesn't suit his players and there are multiples examples of it. If you are biased then it doesn;t matter how much you know as you don't want to see some evidence.

luvsports! wrote:haha, tenez begrudgingly agrees with lydian.

I know you don't agree with him on lots of things, but he sure knows a hell of a lot more than i do about tennis!

I never noticed Lydian showed any particularly sharp tennis knowledge, tbh.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:haha, tenez begrudgingly agrees with lydian.

I know you don't agree with him on lots of things, but he sure knows a hell of a lot more than i do about tennis!

I never noticed Lydian showed any particularly sharp tennis knowledge, tbh.

He has been watching tennis for years ....but as a fanboy.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:haha, tenez begrudgingly agrees with lydian.

I know you don't agree with him on lots of things, but he sure knows a hell of a lot more than i do about tennis!

I never noticed Lydian showed any particularly sharp tennis knowledge, tbh.

He has been watching tennis for years ....but as a fanboy.

Lydian once said he watches tennis like his young son who wants to see "swashbuckling" Nadal. Well

.

Hi Wilson - Who are you? YOu are not pro staff..are you?

Is the text in bracket from Lydian? That's someting I have always said when referring to Nadal's positive impact on the game.