Not completely. When you're serving, most of your power comes from your legs, with your wrist and shoulder providing a lesser amount, so just because someone can serve well doesn't mean that they would make a could bowler. Case in point: me - when I played tennis I could serve at around 170 kph (played seriously until I was about 16), yet I struggle to bowl at anything quicker than slow-medium.Barney Rubble said:I voted tennis. They have the athleticism, the height, the power, and above all, phenomenal hand-eye co-ordination. The muscles used in the serving action would also be used for bowling; those used in the action for a forehand would be very useful when batting, particularly for hitting through the leg-side.
As for fielding, they're used to running around and changing direction very rapidly - their ability to pick up a ball quickly and throw it would be second to none after years of sprinting to the net to reach opposition drop-shots.
That said, I reckon tennis players would make good cricketers. They'd definately have the co-ordination, reactions and concentration required and would probably also move their feet very well.
I think badminton players would be even stronger at whipping the ball through mid-wicket though because they'd have extremely strong and flexible wrists - you use your wrists far more in badminton than you do in tennis.