For question 1-7, you must choose which of the paragraphs A-H fits into the numbered gaps in the following newspaper article. There is one extra paragraph which does not fit in any of the gaps

The bigger they come, the better

On the face of it, no. The fact that the game's current leaders. Andre Agassi and Martina Hingis, are both shorter than nearly all their rivals would appear to bring the discussion to a quick close.

But these are among the lonely few, swimming against the tide, according to Nick Bollettieri, the coach whose tennis academy at Bradenton in Florida has turned out Agassi, Monica Seles and a host of other illustrious graduates.

That seems the safer bet nowadays. Consider: two decades ago, the average height of the women's top 10 was 1.64m and not a player among them was over 1.72m. Last year, it was 1.77m; not a player among them was under 1.72m. In 1974, the 10 best men on the circuit averaged 1.77m. By last year, that figure had soared to 1.87m and 35 of the top 50 measured over 1.82m tall.

Brad Gilbert, Agassi's coach and himself a former top-10 player, agrees: Height has become a huge advantage,'he says. 'They are all such great athletes now and so well-conditioned that players who are 1.92m have the flexibility of guys several inches shorter.'

Echoing Gilbert, Cliff Drysdale, an elegant former player now a commentator, says that a player with the talent of a Rios or an Agassi can certainly turn the tables on the big guys, but he has to be at 100% all the time. All three agree that height is even more of a factor on the women's side and that nothing illustrates this better than Hingis' recent reversal of fortune.

'power corrupts Martina's game,' says Mary Carillo, a tennis analyst for the US television network, CBS. 'She can no longer rely on her ability to out-think opponents. No matter how clever she is, because of her size, she is at a serious disadvantage against the convulsive power of Davenport and the William sisters.'

Hingis had nothing in her arsenal to counter the blistering pace cooked up by Davenport, who has now won their lst four meetings. There does not appear to be much Hingis can do at the moment, short of taking a growth hormone, to overcome the size deficit and reassert her dominance.

To Bollettieri, the statistics merely confirm what has been clear to spectators at courtside for several years. It is becoming increasingly difficult for short players to win.

Davenport drove this point home with particular force during last weekend's Australian Open final. The 1.87m Californian blasted Hingis off the court, taking the year's major title 6-1, 7-5.

Likewise, the up-and-coming young Australian Llyton Hewitt, hardly seems handicapped by the several inches in size he gives away to most opponents. In 1998, Chile's Marcelo Rios briefly carried his 1.74m frame all the way to the number 1 ranking.

While noting the many benefits that accrue to tall players by virtue of their elongated bodies Carillo warns against attaching too much importance to height. 'All athletes are bigger nowadays, kids in general are bigger,' she says. 'But there are other things to consider. The rackets are better, the training is better. It's wrong to think that size alone is what gets these guys to the top.'

Three years ago, the Swiss teenager appeared virtually unbeatable. These days, however, Hingis is barely clinging to her number 1 ranking, and the aura of invincibility has lifted. The reason? Her three tallest, strongest and most talented rivals, Lindsay Davenport and Serena and Venus Williams, have finally found the consistency and confidence required to cash in on their natural assets.

The game is definitely moving in the direction of the bigger athlete,' he says, a trend hastened in his view by the speed of the courts, the liveliness of the balls and the power of the rackets. 'If I have a scholarship to award and I have to choose between two juniors of equal talent and equal drive, but one is going to be much taller than the other, I have to go with the big kid.'

Tennis, a sport once ruled by modestly built, slim athletes who got by largely on finesse and guile, has evolved into a game of hard-hitting giants, but how much of a factor is height? Is it just a coincidence that so many big boys and girls now crowd the courts, or has natural selection propelled them to the top? In professional tennis, does size really matter?

How, then, does he account for Agassi's success? 'Andre plays like a big man. He has a huge game. He obviously can't match the first serve of a Philippoussis, but he hits the ball as hard anyone.'