PDA

View Full Version : Players to challenge Federer in 2007


ckthegreek
03-02-2007, 07:17 AM
Players that have a realistic chance of beating Federer this year...

Haas
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Baghdatis
Gonzalez
Gasquet
Safin

The Grand Slam
03-02-2007, 08:09 AM
Head-to-heads:

Haas: 7-2, with Federer winning the last 6 of their meetings.
Nadal: 3-6, with Federer winning the last 2 of their meetings.
Djokovic: 4-0.
Murray: 1-1, with Murray winning ther last meeting.
Baghdatis: 4-0.
Gonzalez: 10-0.
Gasquet: 5-1, with Federer winning the last 5 of their meetings.
Safin: 7-2, with Federer winning 4 of their last 5 meeting.

diegaa
03-02-2007, 08:14 AM
nalbo is always there. their last meeting at the FO 06 was a liar result.

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 08:23 AM
Haas-a chance, but wont.

Nadal-if they play 3 times on clay this year, Nadal will win 1 of the 3, and it wont be the French Open. If they play 2, Nadal still probably wins 1 of the 2, but if Fed wins the first and the second is the French 0 for Nadal.

Djokovic-could but wont.

Murray-good chance to sneak out a win, wont be in a grand slam, but good shot to do it in another event, even a Masters.

Baghdatis-hell no.

Gonzalez-hell no.

Gasquet-definitely not.

Safin-not a prayer.

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 08:24 AM
nalbo is always there. their last meeting at the FO 06 was a liar result.


Nalbandian has a much better chance then Baghdatis, Gonzalez, has been Safin, or Gasquet, that is for sure. I would give him even a better shot to actually "beat" Federer then Djokovic or Haas do in fact.

diegaa
03-02-2007, 08:58 AM
Nalbandian has a much better chance then Baghdatis, Gonzalez, has been Safin, or Gasquet, that is for sure. I would give him even a better shot to actually "beat" Federer then Djokovic or Haas do in fact.

you are now in my official OK list. :)

fastdunn
03-02-2007, 09:13 AM
Actually I thought Robin Soderling gave pretty good challenge to Federer
in a match of 2006.

2006 ATP Masters Series Madrid
Spain Hard R16 Federer 7-6(5) 7-6(10)

In fact, I personally thought it was the toughest challenged match to Federer in 2006
(of course on non-clay surfaces)
Robin pushed Federer pretty hard in that match.

diegaa
03-02-2007, 09:14 AM
Actually I thought Robin Soderling gave pretty good challenge to Federer
in a match of 2006.

2006 ATP Masters Series Madrid
Spain Hard R16 Federer 7-6(5) 7-6(10)

yeah, i was there. it was even closer than it looks.

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 09:41 AM
you are now in my official OK list. :)

Kewl, thanks. :p

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 09:44 AM
Actually I thought Robin Soderling gave pretty good challenge to Federer
in a match of 2006.

2006 ATP Masters Series Madrid
Spain Hard R16 Federer 7-6(5) 7-6(10)

In fact, I personally thought it was the toughest challenged match to Federer in 2006
(of course on non-clay surfaces)
Robin pushed Federer pretty hard in that match.

Actualy Soderling also gave Federer very tough matches in the 2004 Canadian Open round of 16 and Halle first round 2005 I believe. I think all their matches have been very close. Another lower ranked player who has given Federer very tough matches now the last multiple times they played is Oliver Rochus.

Those two probably have a better chance to upset Federer then alot of the very highly ranked guys people automaticaly look at. The highest ranked guys are not neccessarily the best chances. I dont care what the rankings say, Soderling or Rochus as of now have a better chance to beat Federer then Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Blake, or Robredo despite their much higher rankings.

Gasquetrules
03-08-2007, 08:50 AM
Gasquet has shown he can challenge Federer on clay and on slow hardcourts. He beat Fed at Monte Carlo at age 18 (2005). And he thoroughly outplayed Federer from the baseline to win the first set of last year's Rogers Cup final in Toronto just before the US Open. In that match Federer had to abandon the baseline against Gasquet and start attacking the net, or it was obvious he would loose the match in straight sets.

In his run to the final, Gasquet beat Murray and Blake easily in straight sets.

The only guy on the pro tour today who moves better than Gasquet is Federer. Gasquet is five years younger than Fed, so it's just a matter of time before he begins taking matches from him.

Gasquet has played extremely close five set matches in the Slams and Davis Cup against the top players like Safin and Hewitt and has done well against the other top talent his age.

Like Fed, Gasquet can play on any surface and has a beautiful all-court attacking game, and has a more lethal backhand drive than Fed.

Gasquet will begin winning some big titles in two or three years.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
03-08-2007, 08:56 AM
when murray beat roger last year, it was because fed was exhausted and tired.

if murray cant even beat roddick and nadal, what chance does he have on roger, lets say on wimbledon?

djokovic will not be able to beat federer, hes just not talented enough.

nadal can on clay, and maybe nalbandian too.

DueSouth
03-08-2007, 09:02 AM
if murray cant even beat roddick and nadal, what chance does he have on roger, lets say on wimbledon?


I dont really see how you can say that because Nadal and Murray have only played once...and murray managed to take him to 5 sets, so its not like he has i high match loss deficit to Nadal.
And also murray is 3-2 up in h2h with roddick,one of those wins being at wimbledon and the another was very recently(San Jose 2007),so i dont think that point is very valid. I think he'd hav a shot at beating Fed though....we will have to wait and see

splink779
03-08-2007, 09:07 AM
Gasquet, Murray, and Nadal. Thats it! Unless Safin can play like he did 2 years ago.

Haas, no matter how well hes playing, has shown he still cant do it.

What these other guys have shown is that at their best, they have what it takes and have done it.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
03-08-2007, 09:36 AM
I dont really see how you can say that because Nadal and Murray have only played once...and murray managed to take him to 5 sets, so its not like he has i high match loss deficit to Nadal.
And also murray is 3-2 up in h2h with roddick,one of those wins being at wimbledon and the another was very recently(San Jose 2007),so i dont think that point is very valid. I think he'd hav a shot at beating Fed though....we will have to wait and see

but it was on hardcourts, what if they were to play on clay, ofcourse nadal will stil win, and i understand his h2h with roddick, its pretty close, but my point is, if murray is haivng a tough time with roddick, then what chance does he have on fed, i mean fed just takes roddick as a joke.

DueSouth
03-08-2007, 09:41 AM
but it was on hardcourts, what if they were to play on clay, ofcourse nadal will stil win, and i understand his h2h with roddick, its pretty close, but my point is, if murray is haivng a tough time with roddick, then what chance does he have on fed, i mean fed just takes roddick as a joke.

true but i dont think murray is having a hard time with roddick,sure roddick won the last meeting but i dont think murray has that much of a hard time beating him. I read this article and for some reason murray really wants to play on clay and thinks he has a chance of beating nadal....well its good to be optomistic andy:-D Lol
Anyway everybody loses to federer on grass.....so i dont think any of the guys mentioned at the top have a chance against him on grass...the 5 times he was beaten last year were 2 on h/c and 3 on clay

boreas
03-08-2007, 11:01 AM
true but i dont think murray is having a hard time with roddick,sure roddick won the last meeting but i dont think murray has that much of a hard time beating him.

Hmm... I know most people here hate Roddick, but damn. I personally think they are very close as of right now. Roddick was slumping big time, but since have picked up his game, right when Murray started also picking up his game. I will agree that Murray will eventually have more tools and/or will be able to use them more effectively.

DueSouth
03-08-2007, 11:06 AM
Hmm... I know most people here hate Roddick, but damn. I personally think they are very close as of right now. Roddick was slumping big time, but since have picked up his game, right when Murray started also picking up his game. I will agree that Murray will eventually have more tools and/or will be able to use them more effectively.

I dont hate roddick,he is actually one of my faves,i just think,like you said, that murray is going to hav the upper hand in the future.

federerfanatic
03-08-2007, 11:16 AM
Gasquet, Murray, and Nadal. Thats it! Unless Safin can play like he did 2 years ago.

Haas, no matter how well hes playing, has shown he still cant do it.

What these other guys have shown is that at their best, they have what it takes and have done it.

Murray yes. Gasquet no. Nadal on clay, that is it. Nadal has wins over Federer in the past on hard courts but wont happen again. Murray can beat Federer on a given day.

Gasquet no, his best in the Canadian Open final wasnt good enough to beat a sluggish Federer, when Federer was also "on" like when they played at the first round of Wimbledon he whooped Gasquet. Gasquet's only ever win was after saving a match point on "clay", and was their first ever meeting.

Djokovic has a better shot of beating Federer then Gasquet does. Nalbandian also has a better shot then Gasquet, even today.

boreas
03-08-2007, 11:18 AM
I guess I was just confused since you didn't really mention you were thinking in future terms. The last couple meetings I have watched between the two have been very entertaining. The one that really stood out with the cincinnati 06 quarters, both taking shots at each other when at net. You could definitely tell there is some ambiguity there.

TGV
03-08-2007, 11:39 AM
Just Nadal and Murray and maybe Nalbandian.

Of course he could lose to other players but that would more likely be a fluke/law-of-numbers catching up etc.

As for Gasquet, he is very talented but I don't think he has the return game to trouble Federer. In his last 5 matches (14 sets), he broke Fed's serve just 3 times and 2 of those were in the first set of Toronto final.

Since Federer is a threat to break your serve at any time, to keep up with Fed, it is paramount that you must be able to make inroads into Federer's service games. If you look at Fed's recent losses, his opponents were able to break Fed's serve several times: Murray 7 times in 2 sets, Nalbandian 11 times in 5 sets, Nadal 9 times in 4 sets at 2005 FO etc.

(On a sidenote, in the last two matches with Nadal, Federer lost his serve only 3 times and just faced 5 break points. So I think that bodes well for Fed in his future meetings with Nadal)

caulcano
03-09-2007, 12:16 AM
Haas-a chance, but wont.

Nadal-if they play 3 times on clay this year, Nadal will win 1 of the 3, and it wont be the French Open. If they play 2, Nadal still probably wins 1 of the 2, but if Fed wins the first and the second is the French 0 for Nadal.

Djokovic-could but wont.

Murray-good chance to sneak out a win, wont be in a grand slam, but good shot to do it in another event, even a Masters.

Baghdatis-hell no.

Gonzalez-hell no.

Gasquet-definitely not.

Safin-not a prayer.


Pretty much summed it up for me.

christos_liaskos
03-09-2007, 01:52 AM
when murray beat roger last year, it was because fed was exhausted and tired.

if murray cant even beat roddick and nadal, what chance does he have on roger, lets say on wimbledon?

djokovic will not be able to beat federer, hes just not talented enough.

nadal can on clay, and maybe nalbandian too.

I dont think the h2h's with other players means anything when it comes to playing Federer. Its like saying that because Nadal has a bad record against Berdych, what chance would he have against Fed, clearly the h2h between Nads and Berdy has no influence on the h2h between Fed and Nads.

Gasquetrules
03-09-2007, 08:24 AM
I agree with the people who don't see Gasquet beating Federer this year. Gasquet can push Federer on the right surface, but Federer is just too good right now for Gasquet to beat him.

My prediction for Gasquet is down the road two or three years. Fed will go the way of Sampras one day. He'll get into his late 20s and begin to loose just a bit of that quickness. The wear and tear will begin to show as it does in all great atheletes. Stamina will slip a bit. A player doesn't have to slip but a shade to become vulnerable on the ATP Tour.

And of all the younger players out there, Gasquet has the most complete game. He comes closest to Federer with his balance, court movement and overall athletic ability. He already has the groundstrokes to stay with the best of the baseliners and just needs to get a bit more consistent in his net play.

He's still young. Even Federer said of him that too much has been expected of him too young, just as it was with him. Federer still hadn't put it all together when he was Gasquet's age.

But when Federer is 28 and Gasquet is 23, things could begin to change.

And even if Gasquet never wins a single Slam, after Federer he is still the most beautiful player to watch on the ATP Tour right now. Guys like Murray, Ljubicic, and Blake (Gasquet beat them all easily in Toronto) look wooden in comparison to Gasquet. He beat them with superior court movement and athletic ability.

Aesthetically, there are Federer and Gasquet -- beautiful tennis players. The rest, in compariosn, are mechanical. Murray looks like a robot when opposite the net from Gasquet.

chaz_233
03-09-2007, 08:27 AM
At this point, only Murray, if he's having a good day and Fed is having a miserable day. Nada-l would have to seriously get in shape if he wants to compete with Fed. The rest, no way.

fr600
03-09-2007, 08:36 AM
At Federer's current form, chance of anyone defeating him is close to zero.

goforgold99
03-09-2007, 08:39 AM
The only one that can beat Federer is Roger himself.

skiracer55
03-09-2007, 10:24 AM
...I'm gonna say James Blake. I know, there's no reason he should, I just think he will...he has a great game, but more than that, he's really determined, and doesn't let previous losses deter him....

Vlad
03-09-2007, 10:51 AM
Murray yes. Gasquet no. Nadal on clay, that is it. Nadal has wins over Federer in the past on hard courts but wont happen again. Murray can beat Federer on a given day.

Gasquet no, his best in the Canadian Open final wasnt good enough to beat a sluggish Federer, when Federer was also "on" like when they played at the first round of Wimbledon he whooped Gasquet. Gasquet's only ever win was after saving a match point on "clay", and was their first ever meeting.

Djokovic has a better shot of beating Federer then Gasquet does. Nalbandian also has a better shot then Gasquet, even today.



Djokovic, so far only won 2 sets from Roger in 4 meetings.. Murray only beat Roger because Fed had no intentions in winning Cincy and wasn't that interested in that match.. Gasquet, on the other hand, won on clay, and pushed him all the way on hard in Toronto and grass in queens (served for the match).., so Richard CAN be competitive with Roger on every single surface.

federerfanatic
03-09-2007, 11:59 AM
Djokovic, so far only won 2 sets from Roger in 4 meetings.. Murray only beat Roger because Fed had no intentions in winning Cincy and wasn't that interested in that match.. Gasquet, on the other hand, won on clay, and pushed him all the way on hard in Toronto and grass in queens (served for the match).., so Richard CAN be competitive with Roger on every single surface.

Federer played like crap at Halle and Toronto, and Gasquet at his best still couldnt beat him, and the Toronto win wasnt even that close in the end, even though it was 3 sets, despite Roger being sluggish. Federer was losing sets to everybody at those 2 events, so it he wasnt sharp at all. When Federer played well at Wimbledon he whooped Gasquet, Gasquet had only 5 winners the whole match, and Federer wasnt spraying the ball like he did in those other 2 matches to let Gasquet in the match.

Djokovic actually took Federer to 3 sets in events he wasnt struggling and wasnt going to 3 sets with everybody he played.

Beating even a disinterested Federer on hard courts in 2 sets as Murray has done, is more impressive then beating Federer on "clay" in 3 sets after saving a match point.

Come to me a few years from now and see who has the most success vs Federer. It wont be Gasquet who relies on poor play from Roger to even be competitive. It will be Murray and/or Djokovic.

Vlad
03-09-2007, 12:10 PM
Federer played like crap at Halle and Toronto, and Gasquet at his best still couldnt beat him, and the Toronto win wasnt even that close in the end, even though it was 3 sets, despite Roger being sluggish. Federer was losing sets to everybody at those 2 events, so it he wasnt sharp at all. When Federer played well at Wimbledon he whooped Gasquet, Gasquet had only 5 winners the whole match, and Federer wasnt spraying the ball like he did in those other 2 matches to let Gasquet in the match.

Djokovic actually took Federer to 3 sets in events he wasnt struggling and wasnt going to 3 sets with everybody he played.

Beating even a disinterested Federer on hard courts in 2 sets as Murray has done, is more impressive then beating Federer on "clay" in 3 sets after saving a match point.
ven on grass.
Come to me a few years from now and see who has the most success vs Federer. It wont be Gasquet who relies on poor play from Roger to even be competitive. It will be Murray and/or Djokovic.


Fed did not play poor tennis in last 2 sets in Toronto final.. first set, yes, he didn't play well, but also credit to Gasquet who was hitting some sick winners all over the place. In second and third sets, Roger played some really solid tennis to win that match. That Monte Carlo match was a quaterfinal, which Gasquet WON instead of Fed losing it.. I suggest you watch that match again if you get a chance, especially second set demolition where Gasquet couldn't do a single thing wrong and Fed simply had no answers..


Djokovic so far is not even part of coversation when it comes to beating Fed.. until he plays a match that will be at least close in final set.. Murray did beat him, but that was Fed's worst match of the last 3 years probably (as most of even Fed fans would agree in here)

no matter how much you deny, fact is Gasquet played him tough on ALL surfaces (hard, clay and grass) and had his chances even on grass.


Djokovic? Not really.. at least not YET.

federerfanatic
03-09-2007, 12:52 PM
Federer ended his match in Toronto with Gasquet with over 20 more unforced errors then Gasquet had, and those certainly were not caused by the Nadal-like retrieving or counter-punching skills of Gasquet. Federer did not play well for his standards in that match, or that event in fact, and still won comfortably in the 3rd set. He played even worse in their Halle match which I got to see later on, maybe Djokovic or Murray would have beaten him playing like that, although we will never know for sure. Even you say he didnt play well in the first set of Toronto, but did play well in the 2nd and 3rd, well guess what the 1st set is the set Gasquet won, and the 2nd and 3rd were pretty easy for Fed.

I saw Gasquet's win over Federer in Monte Carlo. That is still to this day the best match Gasquet has ever played, and yes he did win that match. However that is vs Federer on clay, Federer on clay is miles different from any other surface. He would never be able to dictate play for periods of the match the same way on any other surface, their other matches since on other surfaces prove this.

You say Djokovic has only taken any sets off Federer in 2 out of 4 matches, well Gasquet only has in 3 out of 6, so no difference at all, except Gasquet has that 1 win after saving a match point. There is almost no difference at all. As I said Djokovic took a set off Federer the last 2 times when he was playing better tennis at those events then the last 2 times Gasquet took a set.

Proof, look at Federer's scores in those tournaments:

Monte Carlo

First round-Novak Djokovic 6-3 2-6 6-3
Second round-Alberto Martin 6-0 6-1
Round of 16-Benjamin Ballaret 6-3 6-2
Quarters- David Ferrer 6-1 6-3
Semis- Fernando Gonzalez 6-2 6-4
Finals- Rafael Nadal 2-6 7-6(2) 3-6 6-7(5)


Dubai

First round- Kristian Pless 7-6(2) 3-6 6-3
Round of 16- Daniele Bracialli 7-5 6-3
Quarters- Novak Djokovic 6-3 6-7(6) 6-3
Semis- Tommy Haas 6-4 7-5
Final- Mikhail Youzhny 6-4 6-3


Halle

First round- Rohan Bopanna 7-6(4) 6-2
Round of 16- Richard Gasquet 7-6(7) 6-7(7) 6-4
Quarters- Olivier Rochus 6-7(2) 7-6(11) 7-6(5)
Semis- Tommy Haas 6-4 6-7(4) 6-3
Final- Tomas Berdych 6-0 6-7(4) 6-2


Canadian Open

First round- Paul-Henri Mathieu 6-3 6-4
Secound round- Sebastien Grosjean 6-3 6-3
Round of 16- Dmitry Tursunov 6-3 5-7 6-0
Quarters- Xavier Malisse 7-6(4) 6-7(5) 6-3
Semis- Fernando Gonzalez 6-1 5-7 6-3
Final- Richard Gasquet 2-6 6-3 6-2


Federer was struggling alot more at the tournaments Gasquet took a set, taking a set vs Federer at those events wasnt that significant a feat, after all everybody else was doing it too. The events Djokovic took a set, only 1 other person at the 2 events combined took a set. Djokovic can take a set off Federer when he is not struggling, Gasquet has not done that since their first match.

Who cares if Murray's win over Federer was with Federer playing badly, Gasquet cant even beat Federer in three chances last year, two matches when Federer was playing badly, Murray had only that 1 chance last year, and if he did get lucky playing Federer when he did, he still didnt get any other chances to show himself vs Federer. Their only other match was 16 months ago, so even if you refuse to accept Murray's 2 set win on hard courts last year, there is no other chances Murray had to show himself vs Federer except his rookie season. Gasquet had many chances.

Vlad
03-09-2007, 01:16 PM
Djokovic never even had a lead in his matches against Roger.. he only won 2 sets which where second sets after he lost the first and as you know the pressure is off in second set, because you have nothing to lose and go for your shots.. and also notice that he lost third sets relatively easily in those matches..


another thing to consider is that Roger's 2 wins out of 5 over Gasquet were in FINALS of Masters events. This is where Roger usually plays his best tennis, just look at his finals record since 2003.. meanwhile Djokovic only played Roger in quarters ONCE which was Dubai, other matches where 1st round, DC playoff to stay in World Group, and R16 in slam. All in all, I think Gasquet played Roger tougher SO FAR and in more important matches.

The only lopsided match between Roger and Richard was in WImbledon first round where Gasquet had to play the next day in the morning after winning his second title on grass and therefore had little time to prepare or get rest.
And yeah, Roger played great tennis in that match too.


Murray: they only played twice, so there isn't much information to conlude how their matches will go in the future, because the match that Murray won was arguably the worst match Fed played in long time. A lot of people would agree on that.. some say he even tanked (Mary Carillo), I think he did too as he had little interest in that match. He was coming off a win in Toronto and was tired, needed a rest and good prep for US Open, instead of trying to grind it out in Cincy, which he thought of skipping in the first place..

Ten_is
03-09-2007, 01:28 PM
Earlier I said Nadal is going to get injured soon. Which he is now getting injuries. This is because of his style of play. He's quite jerky and stiff. Not as fluent and flexible as other players.

Now I say this.. Andy Murray will be the next guy giving Federer a hard time and I think he'll go up to #2 spot this year / next year. I'm serious. Not because he beat him due to Fed's fatigue, but because he's now thinking more and playing better. Doesn't matter if he can't win against Roddick yet.

I see the way he plays and his time is coming. Yes I agree with Gasquet.. he played great in Toronto. So Gasquet will be #3 but isn't going to be #1. His baseline is most competitive to Roger's I agree. He is amazing and has very strong backhands but forehands need improvement. That's exactly why Roger attacked him at the net in Toronto and beat him. Either way,.. Gasquet had some Amazing clean winners especially with his backhand. Should be nice to see who can give Fed a run. Fernando Verdasco plays very similar to Fed especially on his forehand side. The downside with Verdasco, is his temper. He gets frustrated easily and talks to himself when he's angry or not playing well.. if he can pass that and strengthen his mental game, he could easily outrun and outbeat Federer in the next few years.

Just some predictions

Ten_is
03-09-2007, 02:43 PM
Just a thought..


Isn't it funny how most players fight and fight and almost take Fed in the first but die so early while Fed gets better?


Gonzo in Australian open
First set he was close to having it, at set point then lost it. After that.. you could see he lost confidence. He got tired earlier and his serves were much much weaker.

Gasquet at Rogers Cup Toronto
Won first set 6-2, was over happy about it but couldn't do it in the second. Fed outsmarted him. Once he lost that second set 6-3, his confidence dropped very low and lost the third easily 6-2 while Fed got better and better.

Roddick US Open
First set seemed easy for Fed with Roddick fighting the second and winning. Third went to Fed and then Roddick gave up the fourth completely to 6-1.

Gasquetrules
03-12-2007, 06:05 PM
Federer didn't play badly in the first set of the Toronto final last year. Patrick McEnroe predicted a possible upset, especially if Federer played Gasquet the same way Lubijcic, Blake and Murray did -- trying to rally with him and out-hit Gasquet from the baseline. And that's just the way Federer started that match: staying back.

Gasquet set up the rallies as often as possible to be crosscourt backhand rallies, and Federer was forced into all those unforced errors -- just as Blake was forced into them. The court was a relatively slow and high-bouncing hardcourt that was perfect for Gasquet's powerful topspin groundstroks, especially his backhand. None of the other guys with one handers (Lujbicic, Blake or Federer) could win hit through or overpower Gasquet's backhand. Gasquet hit heavy and deep and forced the errors from all these players.

Murray has a two-handed backhand and did hit a few of his big flat backhands for winners, but overall Gasquet outhit Murray from the back of the court... and from the middle of the court... and from the net. Basically, Gasquet beat Murray, and to a degree Blake, too, with his superior movement and athleticism. Gasquet made Murray look wooden, plodding and downright slow. He did the same to Lujbicic and Blake. Gasquet ran circles around James Blake. Just go back and watch the match. I have all these matches on DVD, so my memory is pretty fresh here. Gasquet left Blake standing flat-footed as he blew winners by him from both sides and controlled the net, too.

Anybody who sees Murray as having more potential for greatness than Gasquet should watch the way Gasquet squashed Murray in straights in Toronto.

Gasquet broke his opponents right at half the time during his run to the final and broke Federer twice in the first set.

The difference between Federer and these other guys that Gasquet straight setted was that Federer has some real variety in his game. Plus, he is arguably the best mover any of us have ever seen on a tennis court. Gasquet couldn't make Federer look slow or wooden, even if he proved to everyone -- including Federer himself -- that he could outhit Fed from the baseline. In the second Federer began attacking the net at every opportunity and using his great movement and athleticism to play a different game. Gasquet clearly had a let down in the second, and once Federer got the match back even he gained confidence and kept Gasquet off balance and on the defense with his continued dominance of the net.

These other guys couldn't do this against Gasquet. Murray tried to take the net, as did Blake, but Gasquet passed them at will.

I also have the Gasquet-Federer match at Monte Carlo when Gasquet pulled off the upset at age 18. Federer played well. He didn't play poorly. But after Gasquet kept busting him up in their baseline exchanges and Federer fell behind, Fed turned the match around by taking the net. But on clay the odds were not with the net man so much as on a hardcourt. Gasquet hung tough and the third set went to a tiebreak -- which Gasquet won with an unbelievable running backhand pass up the line to pass Fed at the net and take matchpoint.

I believe Gasquet has more talent than Nadal. Nadal just peaked early, and clearly now he is slipping.

On the other hand, Gasquet was injured for most of the 2006 clay-court season and really only played decent tennis (for him) in the second half of the year. Gasquet just needs to avoid injury and improve his conditioning and the wins will come in time. Great talent takes longer to fully mature and be realized. Federer is the perfect example. We can't really expect Gasquet to achieve more at an earlier age than Federer himself did. Give him some time. The talent is there.

James Blake's one big year was 2006. His results have been pretty spotty since last year's run at the US Open. He's losing to journeymen in 2007. He's older than Federer, so anyone who believes Blake can challenge Fed is delusional. Blake will do well to win a tournament this year.

Again, Murray has some nice strokes, but his movement is only average and he doesn't show any signs of extraordinary athletic ability. My prediction is that Murray will never win a single Grand Slam event in his career.

federerfanatic
03-12-2007, 06:54 PM
Federer didn't play badly in the first set of the Toronto final last year.

Federer did play very badly in the first set of Toronto, in fact throughout the whole final, and most of that particular tournament, he did. He still beat Gasquet at his best since he is that much better. When Fed is "on" Gasquet is schooled like he was in the first round of Wimbledon.

Patrick McEnroe predicted a possible upset

P-Mac is an idiot who usually predicts wrong. Nothing new.

especially if Federer played Gasquet the same way Lubijcic, Blake and Murray did -- trying to rally with him and out-hit Gasquet from the baseline. And that's just the way Federer started that match: staying back.

Since Federer's forehand is about 3 times better then the overhyped Gaskit, his backhand is atleast as good, and he is a much more efficient mover, and has much better court smarts with much better understanding how to contstruct a rally point, of course he can feel he can and will beat Gasquet staying back. He can beat Gasquet anyway he chooses to do so, and repeatedly does so.

Murray has a two-handed backhand and did hit a few of his big flat backhands for winners, but overall Gasquet outhit Murray from the back of the court... and from the middle of the court... and from the net. Basically, Gasquet beat Murray, and to a degree Blake, too, with his superior movement and athleticism. Gasquet made Murray look wooden, plodding and downright slow. He did the same to Lujbicic and Blake. Gasquet ran circles around James Blake. Just go back and watch the match. I have all these matches on DVD, so my memory is pretty fresh here. Gasquet left Blake standing flat-footed as he blew winners by him from both sides and controlled the net, too.

Murray was too worn out by the semis and put on a pitiful performance. So did Berdych in the quarters, except he did not have the fatigue excuse, he just always plays an awful match coming off a big win(his win over Nadal in the last round). Gasquet's only win over a top player playing decently that event was his win over Blake.

Anybody who sees Murray as having more potential for greatness than Gasquet should watch the way Gasquet squashed Murray in straights in Toronto.

Yes since Gasquet beat a weary and sluggish Murray comfortably in one match he must have more potential. Whatever.

The difference between Federer and these other guys that Gasquet straight setted was that Federer has some real variety in his game. Plus, he is arguably the best mover any of us have ever seen on a tennis court. Gasquet couldn't make Federer look slow or wooden, even if he proved to everyone -- including Federer himself -- that he could outhit Fed from the baseline. In the second Federer began attacking the net at every opportunity and using his great movement and athleticism to play a different game. Gasquet clearly had a let down in the second, and once Federer got the match back even he gained confidence and kept Gasquet off balance and on the defense with his continued dominance of the net.

Gasquet never outhit Federer from the baseline. Federer hit himself off the court from the baseline in the first set. In the 2nd and 3rd sets he started coming in a bit, but he also started to dominate Gasquet from the baseline by keeping his superior groundstrokes, especialy his much superior forehand, in the court unlike the first set.

I believe Gasquet has more talent than Nadal. Nadal just peaked early, and clearly now he is slipping.

Gasquet will be lucky to ever achieve what Nadal already has.

Again, Murray has some nice strokes, but his movement is only average and he doesn't show any signs of extraordinary athletic ability. My prediction is that Murray will never win a single Grand Slam event in his career.

Like you are on everything else you said you will be incredably wrong.

psamp14
03-12-2007, 07:12 PM
since the federer loss these boards have gone crazy with all the new threads...i'm surprised no one has mentioned canas yet...LOL ;)

Baghdatis72
03-12-2007, 07:41 PM
since the federer loss these boards have gone crazy with all the new threads...i'm surprised no one has mentioned canas yet...LOL ;)

You beat me to it :lol: :p

ktownva
03-12-2007, 08:50 PM
I would add Sam Querrey and Fernando Verdasco to the list. These guys look like future top ten.

diegaa
03-12-2007, 09:09 PM
I would add Sam Querrey and Fernando Verdasco to the list. These guys look like future top ten.

verdasco????? no way man. he has a bit of the game, but lots to learn on the confidence field. besides, he is no kiddo.

FitzRoy
03-13-2007, 01:01 AM
federerfanatic - I wanted to reply to your comments about Murray, Đoković, and Gasquet.

I think Đoković is more likely to beat Federer this year than Murray. I like his game better - very fluid mover, with more speed and agility than Murray. He's my favorite player out of the young guys, and one of my favorite to watch on the whole tour.

Murray has an incredible return of serve, though. It's tough for me to pick who has more talent between the two, but I have to go with Novak.

As a previous poster said, I think Gasquet's return of serve will hold him back against Fed on fast courts. Gasquet doesn't seem to return as well as Đoković, and certainly not nearly as well as Murray. If a player can't consistently return Fed's serve (like Caņas did), then there will be more rallies on his serve than on Fed's (since Fed puts so many serves back in play), and that's a recipe for disaster. To me, this was basically what happened in all of the Federer-Gasquet matches since that one in Monte Carlo.

ktownva
03-13-2007, 05:40 AM
verdasco????? no way man. he has a bit of the game, but lots to learn on the confidence field. besides, he is no kiddo.

I'm sticking to my honest opinion that he (Verdasco) is a dangerous cookie. He plays Grip & Rip off both sides, much like Gonzo but with a bigger backhand. Plus his forehand is as good as it gets. He does have a long way to go in the confidence dept, but that will happen after a breakthrough win. I like this dude a lot, he hits the crap out of the ball.

Gasquetrules
03-13-2007, 08:32 AM
I was impressed with Verdasco's shot-making ability and overall game the first time I saw him. He sure looks dangerous. I'm surprised he hasn't had more wins on the tour than he has. Third round seems to be about it for him.

aramis
03-13-2007, 08:38 AM
Ferrero can challenge Federer. He has the power baseline game and he likes playing against him; he isn't intimidated by Roger like 99% of the tour.

Gasquetrules
03-13-2007, 08:39 AM
You guys may be onto something I haven't noticed regarding Gasquet's return game. I looked at the stats on his win over Neimenen yesterday, and it was indeed clear that they played many more points on Gasquet's serve than on Jarko's. Gasquet defended an incredible number of break points, (so many of his games went to deuce) but converted on a much higher percentage of the few break chances he had. So clearly Gasquet was defying the odds and must have pulled out some great shots under pressure to win the match.

Which leads me to ask: How fast are the courts at Indian Wells?

I know that at the Rogers Cup Toronto tournament last summer, Gasquet broke his opponents about 48 percent of the time up through the semis. That was a slow hard court. Perhaps the return game just isn't as good on the faster surfaces.

I expect Gasquet to have a good clay court season this year... provided he avoids injury.

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 09:27 AM
federerfanatic - I wanted to reply to your comments about Murray, Đoković, and Gasquet.

I think Đoković is more likely to beat Federer this year than Murray. I like his game better - very fluid mover, with more speed and agility than Murray. He's my favorite player out of the young guys, and one of my favorite to watch on the whole tour.

Murray has an incredible return of serve, though. It's tough for me to pick who has more talent between the two, but I have to go with Novak.

As a previous poster said, I think Gasquet's return of serve will hold him back against Fed on fast courts. Gasquet doesn't seem to return as well as Đoković, and certainly not nearly as well as Murray. If a player can't consistently return Fed's serve (like Caņas did), then there will be more rallies on his serve than on Fed's (since Fed puts so many serves back in play), and that's a recipe for disaster. To me, this was basically what happened in all of the Federer-Gasquet matches since that one in Monte Carlo.

Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree with your points to some extent on Djokovic vs Murray. Djokovic is definitely the smoother mover, with more general athletic ability then Murray. However I think upstairs between the ears Murray has it all on Djoko at this point, that could change as both mature though. You are right Murray has already an incredable return, and backhand as well I would add. Djokovic has wonderful groundstrokes off both wings IMO, technicaly sound and lots of power without much effort.

You are also right on Gasquet's return. He does not return as well as either Murray or Djokovic, or perhaps even Berdych or Baghdatis in fact. Federer has a very underrated serve, and you have to get be able to pressure his serve to have a chance to beat him. Despite the limited success Djoko has had vs Federer so far he returned his serve quite well considering the quality of Federer's first serve the times he has played them, he was just outplayed the last couple times they played. The last time Murray played Fed, Fed's serve and overall game were not there obviously, but he has shown he can return Roddick's serve pretty well and make Roddick work on his serve which says something.

Peter H.Gilmore
03-13-2007, 09:30 AM
Feels weird not to be mentioning Fed this late into the tournament. He´s usually this far into events. But on the upside there´s an open draw and we can freely say our picks for winning the event without being made fun of. I can´t really say who´s going to win this. Gonzo is strggling through the draw, Nadal seems to have his game moving up a little. But I think Roddick may win it.

fastdunn
03-13-2007, 09:42 AM
Gasquet - It's his forehand that is a problem right now whether it's service
return or groundies. Some players take longer time to develope forehand.
Example is Sampras. Sampras had very erratic forehand in his early days
but later developed it into his #2 weapon. Of course, his backhand
is simply best 1 hander on tour and in fact I've never seen this kind of
1 handed hackhand in about 20 years....

Verdasco - He's got great game. But he seems to almost always play
horribly on critical points. Makes me wonder why some players are great
on critical points and some don't...

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 09:48 AM
Gasquet - It's his forehand that is a problem right now whether it's service return or groundies. Some players take longer time to develope forehand. Example is Sampras. Sampras had very erratic forehand in his early days but later developed it into his #2 weapon. Of course, his backhand is simply best 1 hander on tour and in fact I've never seen this kind of 1 handed hackhand in about 20 years....

Sampras's only problem off the forehand was too many UEs. Gasquet's forehand is nowhere near enough off a weapon compared to guys like Fed, Nadal, or even some of the other newbie kids. So different cases IMO.

Verdasco - He's got great game. But he seems to almost always play
horribly on critical points. Makes me wonder why some players are great
on critical points and some don't...

Verdasco has no tennis brain, he makes Roddick or Phillipousis look like masters thinking players by comparision. He just hits the ball as hard as he can, doesnt care too much how many go out, and just keeps doing that, and hopes to connect on enough to win matches, keep a decent ranking, and make money. I hate watching him play, even if he does have obvious weapons that go to waste pretty much.


By the way I asked you on another thread since we seemed to be in disagreement on the potential of the leading 20ish up and coming 6 of-Gasquet, Berdych, Baghdatis, Murray, Djokovic, and Monfils, I asked you which order you would rather their potential, not currently who is better, but their future potential from most to least of the 6. Mine- 1. Murray, 2. Djokovic, 3. Berdych, 4. Gasquet, 5. Baghdatis...............way behind 6. Monfils, in that order.

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 09:52 AM
As for challenging Federer, Gasquet will never have a serve, return game, forehand, net game, anywhere near as good as Fed's. So no he will not challenge him as much, if they had a match were all they hit was backhands-no forehands, no serves, no returns, no volleys or overheads, then maybe it would be a super rivalry with a 3-3 head to head tie or something. However since that is not the case Gasquet wont be that strong a rival ever.

Murray or Djokovic have more then one shot they will be able to compete with Federer with which is another reason they will have more of a shot.

fastdunn
03-13-2007, 10:36 AM
Sampras's only problem off the forehand was too many UEs. Gasquet's forehand is nowhere near enough off a weapon compared to guys like Fed, Nadal, or even some of the other newbie kids. So different cases IMO.
.

I never intended to mean Gasquet forehand has same potential as Sampras'.
I am unable to assess that.
I only said some players takes longer to develope forehand.
I actually think forehand is harder shot to master to its potential
than backhand.


By the way I asked you on another thread since we seemed to be in disagreement on the potential of the leading 20ish up and coming 6 of-Gasquet, Berdych, Baghdatis, Murray, Djokovic, and Monfils, I asked you which order you would rather their potential, not currently who is better, but their future potential from most to least of the 6. Mine- 1. Murray, 2. Djokovic, 3. Berdych, 4. Gasquet, 5. Baghdatis...............way behind 6. Monfils, in that order.

Yep, you and I have different opinions on these guys' potential.

But if it's about "potential", I think Gasquet and Baghdatis has bigger
and more dangerous "potential" than Djokovic.
Djokovic is a safer "possibility" but I don't think he has the ball striking
ability of great players. I see Hewitt type of success at maximum..

Djokovic has a chance to "score" a few wins over Federer later in the future
but I think Gasquet and Murray has a better chance to actually "beat"
Federer in the future, IMHO. Of course it could be very distant future
when Federer declines some...

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 11:00 AM
I never intended to mean Gasquet forehand has same potential as Sampras'.
I am unable to assess that.
I only said some players takes longer to develope forehand.
I actually think forehand is harder shot to master to its potential
than backhand.

That is an interesting theory. The forehand is generaly the stronger shot compared to the backhand once players are mature, especialy for the guys, but maybe when you are developing the backhand is the quicker to master like you said.

Yep, you and I have different opinions on these guys' potential.

But if it's about "potential", I think Gasquet and Baghdatis has bigger
and more dangerous "potential" than Djokovic.
Djokovic is a safer "possibility" but I don't think he has the ball striking
ability of great players. I see Hewitt type of success at maximum..

Djokovic has a chance to "score" a few wins over Federer later in the future
but I think Gasquet and Murray has a better chance to actually "beat"
Federer in the future, IMHO. Of course it could be very distant future
when Federer declines some...

Ok thanks for clarifying your thoughts. It is always fun to speculate on the potential of that group of players and how each of their careers will turn out. It seems like you feel Gasquet and Murray, and even Baghdatis have more potential to be a dangerous type of player who can emerge and sweep through a grand slam event and big names; while Djokovic is more likely to be a steady threat, who will be "in there" alot but wont have the same strong possability to just blow threw a whole draw or take down the best player at any given moment.

It is interesting to wonder if we were all on this forum together in 2000 or 2001 how we would have compared the potential of Federer, Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt at the time compared to how it has turned out which all atleast at the midway point of their careers. I always believed Federer would become the most best of that group, I did not believe he would be as great as he has become, or as dominant but I believed he would be the best of that group and spend alot of time at #1 less dominantly then he is now, but with more slams and success then that group. I also believed Ferrero would be the weakest of that group, even including his clay court success. Between Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick, I do believe I believed Hewitt would have more succes then the other two as he was already up there, I do not remember who I believed would do better in the end between Safin and Roddick.

What I do remember is strong opposition to my belief back then Federer would become the best of that group. Many believed it would be Hewitt, probably since he was the most at the top at the time of those players. Many also believed it would be Roddick because of the level of hype he had at the time. There were mixed reviews on Safin. The majority belief at the time was Hewitt and Roddick would be the 2 best of that group in the end though, probably followed by Safin, then Ferrero just over Federer due to his predicted clay court career, then Federer last. I am not bragging BTW, I am just pointing out it would be interesting if alot of us could look back on our projections for that group if we were all on this forum together then as well, and how unpredictable things can be.

Before that it would have been interesting to see what most of us thought of the career potential of the Haas, Phillipousis, Kiefer, Moya, Enqvist, Rios group around 96 or 97.

Vlad
03-13-2007, 11:06 AM
As for challenging Federer, Gasquet will never have a serve, return game, forehand, net game, anywhere near as good as Fed's. So no he will not challenge him as much, if they had a match were all they hit was backhands-no forehands, no serves, no returns, no volleys or overheads, then maybe it would be a super rivalry with a 3-3 head to head tie or something. However since that is not the case Gasquet wont be that strong a rival ever.

Murray or Djokovic have more then one shot they will be able to compete with Federer with which is another reason they will have more of a shot.




Hey Federerfanatic, so then how can you reach number 12 in the world if you don't have (as you mentioned) forehand, serve, volleys, overheads, returns,etc. Do you sometimes think when you post something?


btw, it is my opinion, but Gasquet is more natural volleyer than Roger.

Vlad
03-13-2007, 11:09 AM
Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree with your points to some extent on Djokovic vs Murray. Djokovic is definitely the smoother mover, with more general athletic ability then Murray. However I think upstairs between the ears Murray has it all on Djoko at this point, that could change as both mature though. You are right Murray has already an incredable return, and backhand as well I would add. Djokovic has wonderful groundstrokes off both wings IMO, technicaly sound and lots of power without much effort.

You are also right on Gasquet's return. He does not return as well as either Murray or Djokovic, or perhaps even Berdych or Baghdatis in fact. Federer has a very underrated serve, and you have to get be able to pressure his serve to have a chance to beat him. Despite the limited success Djoko has had vs Federer so far he returned his serve quite well considering the quality of Federer's first serve the times he has played them, he was just outplayed the last couple times they played. The last time Murray played Fed, Fed's serve and overall game were not there obviously, but he has shown he can return Roddick's serve pretty well and make Roddick work on his serve which says something.




Service return?

check out ATP stats for this year.. Gasquet is 4th (above all Murrays, Djokovic, Federers, etc.) in points won (35%) off first serve return..


and you still claim he has no return?


In return games WON, he is in top 10 this year and is tied with Murray and Djokovic with 32%.


Here:
http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/


read THE FACTS before you post your biased opinion.

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 11:18 AM
Hey Federerfanatic, so then how can you reach number 12 in the world if you don't have (as you mentioned) forehand, serve, volleys, overheads, returns,etc. Do you sometimes think when you post something?


btw, it is my opinion, but Gasquet is more natural volleyer than Roger.

I said he will never have forehands, serves, returns, volleys, or overheads anywhere near Fed's level, I never said did not have any. Reaching #12 in the world does not show you currently have or ever will have forehands, serves, returns, volleys, or overheads anywhere near Fed's level. Learn to read before you post moron.

Peter H.Gilmore
03-13-2007, 11:20 AM
Players that have a realistic chance of beating Federer this year...

Haas
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Baghdatis
Gonzalez
Gasquet
Safin

I think that´s pretty fair. I wonder about Baghdatis´desire to be a top 5 player someday. He has the tools but he seems too happy go lucky to be a consistent threat to Federer and winning slams. He´s fun to watch. Of the list I rate Nadal, Murrary and Djokovic as the most likely because they have more years ahead of them. As for Safin? I think this would be most accurate in 2005 or before. The Safin of late looks very average to poor, (by his standards of course :-) ) Gonzo is a threat but I wonder if his run in the last 5 months or so is for real or is he going through a ¨Blake run¨?

Vlad
03-13-2007, 11:29 AM
I said he will never have forehands, serves, returns, volleys, or overheads anywhere near Fed's level, I never said did not have any. Reaching #12 in the world does not show you currently have or ever will have forehands, serves, returns, volleys, or overheads anywhere near Fed's level. Learn to read before you post moron.



so what makes you think that he doesn't have as good of an overhead? or volley for that matter? Is that just your opinion?

I agree on forehand and serve though.. Fed has the best forehand in the world, no doubt about that.. he also has excellent serve. But I can tell you this much about volley: I think on average, Gasquet comes in more times then Roger and usually wins good % of those points.. so, IMO he has at least as good of a volley and looks very natural at net. Also, it is not accurate to claim things like WILL NEVER have better this or that.. Did Roger have best forehand on tour when he was 20? I seriously doubt that.. so keep age in perspective.


btw, calling me moron won't win you any arguments..

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 11:30 AM
Service return?

check out ATP stats for this year.. Gasquet is 4th (above all Murrays, Djokovic, Federers, etc.) in points won (35%) off first serve return..


and you still claim he has no return?


In return games WON, he is in top 10 this year and is tied with Murray and Djokovic with 32%.


Here:
http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/


read THE FACTS before you post your biased opinion.


Your "evidence" that Gasquet has the return of serve required to challenge Federer more seriously, or as good as Murray, Djokovic, or Federer is truly pathetic.

Let me try to break this down simply for you:

1)There is more to "return games" then just the actual return of serve.

2)Stats like that alone as sufficient proof is an outrageous concept. I guess you then believe Diego Hartfield has by far the best return of serve in mens tennis today, after all he is 3% higher then the next best guy in 1st serve return points won. Juan Ignacio Chela would also have the 2nd best return of serve today if this is what you are going by, after all he is next highest % in 1st serve return points won. Also Nicolas Devilder must have a top 10 return of serve today according to you, after he is tied for 8th best % in 1st serve return points won.

3)We are less then a quarter of the way through the season.

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 11:37 AM
so what makes you think that he doesn't have as good of an overhead? or volley for that matter?

Watching him play without the rose-colored glasses you wear.

But I can tell you this much about volley: I think on average, Gasquet comes in more times then Roger and usually wins good % of those points.. so, IMO he has at least as good of a volley and looks very natural at net.

You just keep believing that.

btw, calling me moron won't win you any arguments..

Conversations with the annoying Gasquet fan brigade are not really arguments, they are beating your head against a brick wall for awhile. I get suckered into indulging for a bit, then I come to my senses and relieve myself.

The best part of the year is the 4 grand slams where Gasquet makes his usual before-quarterfinal exit and the brigade dissapears for a few weeks, giving us all a breather, before then returning with their new claims of future heroics from their hero.

FitzRoy
03-13-2007, 11:38 AM
It's true that return of serve and "return game" are two different things.

I actually think Gasquet plays a pretty decent "return game", because he's very solid and consistent with his groundstrokes and will win many rallies on his opponent's service points with his shotmaking ability....as long as he can get the serves back in play consistently.

My explanation for his place in the standings with those percentages is that he'll break serve a lot against opponents who don't have great serves, because he can hit with anyone from the baseline. But against top servers with good pace and accurate placement (like a Federer), it seems to me like he can struggle at times with return consistency.

Murray, on the other hand, simply has a very good return of serve, among the very best in the game right now.

And in purely technical terms, I think Djoković is better than Gasquet at returning serves as well.

I could be wrong about Gasquet, though; I just perceive that he has too much swing on his service returns, and that fast serves can rush him much more than they do Murray or Djoković. Maybe I'm wrong in this perception, or maybe he'll get better...I like his game and have nothing against him, so I'd be ok with being wrong about this.

Vlad
03-13-2007, 11:40 AM
Your "evidence" that Gasquet has the return of serve required to challenge Federer more seriously, or as good as Murray, Djokovic, or Federer is truly pathetic.

Let me try to break this down simply for you:

1)There is more to "return games" then just the actual return of serve.

2)Stats like that alone as sufficient proof is an outrageous concept. I guess you then believe Diego Hartfield has by far the best return of serve in mens tennis today, after all he is 3% higher then the next best guy in 1st serve return points won. Juan Ignacio Chela would also have the 2nd best return of serve today if this is what you are going by, after all he is next highest % in 1st serve return points won. Also Nicolas Devilder must have a top 10 return of serve today according to you, after he is tied for 8th best % in 1st serve return points won.

3)We are less then a quarter of the way through the season.





RETURN GAMES WON: (is that good enough measure of return for you??)

Gasquet 32%
Djokovic 32%
Murray 32%


Hewitt 29%
Berdych 28%
Haas 27%

Nadal 26%
Baghdatis 24%

Roddick 20%



Now, you (in your previous) post made a CLAIM that he DOES NOT return as well as Murray, Djokovic "or even" Baghdatis and Berdych (your words)


I prove that what you said was just your biased opinion, no more, no less.

Vlad
03-13-2007, 11:48 AM
It's true that return of serve and "return game" are too different things.

I actually think Gasquet plays a pretty decent "return game", because he's very solid and consistent with his groundstrokes and will win many rallies on his opponent's service points with his shotmaking ability....as long as he can get the serves back in play consistently.

My explanation for his place in the standings with those percentages is that he'll break serve a lot against opponents who don't have great serves, because he can hit with anyone from the baseline. But against top servers with good pace and accurate placement (like a Federer), it seems to me like he can struggle at times with return consistency.

Murray, on the other hand, simply has a very good return of serve, among the very best in the game right now.

And in purely technical terms, I think Djoković is better than Gasquet at returning serves as well.

I could be wrong about Gasquet, though; I just perceive that he has too much swing on his service returns, and that fast serves can rush him much more than they do Murray or Djoković. Maybe I'm wrong in this perception, or maybe he'll get better...I like his game and have nothing against him, so I'd be ok with being wrong about this.



I understand where you come from... but then again, how can you explain him winning better % of first serve returns then Murray AND Djokovic?

Perhaps, so far this year, he only faced "soft" servers.. and both Murray and Djokovic where returning some of the best serves in the game.. (it does apply to Murray though since he did face Roddick couple times this year)

On average, it is hard to say who has better this or that.. I can tell you this much: Richard CAN return very well at times. Off both sides too.. but he is more of a Federer type of returner then let's say Agassi or Murray who look to attack more then getting more balls in play..

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 11:49 AM
RETURN GAMES WON: (is that good enough measure of return for you??)

Gasquet 32%
Djokovic 32%
Murray 32%


Hewitt 29%
Berdych 28%
Haas 27%

Nadal 26%
Baghdatis 24%

Roddick 20%



Now, you (in your previous) post made a CLAIM that he DOES NOT return as well as Murray, Djokovic "or even" Baghdatis and Berdych (your words)


I prove that what you said was just your biased opinion, no more, no less.

No you have still proven nothing at all, on any of your bizarre "points". These are the top 6 right now in return games won so far this season:

1. David Ferrer 40%
2. Tommy Robredo 35%
3. Roger Federer 34%
3. Xavier Malisse 34%
5. Guillermo Canas 33%
6. Paul Goldstein 33%

If where you ranked in return games won was evidence of who was the better returner then David Ferrer would have "by far" the best return of serve in the game today since he is 5% over second place. Robredo would also be second best because he is 2nd place in return games won. However in fact Ferrer and Robredo most would still say would have more trouble returning the highest quality serves, with Federer is among, on a medium-fast surface then the very best returners. So this proves nothing, despite your desperate attempts to imply something from it. Also Paul Goldstein would have the 6th best return of serve in the mens game today if this stat was evidence. If you are going to insist on that stat as evidence you then also choose to insist David Ferrer is by far the best returner in mens tennis today, far better then anyone else, Robredo is the 2nd best, and Goldstein is the 6th best.

I already explained:

1)there are more to return games then the return of serve
2)stats like this are poor attempt at "evidence" as I just showed yet again above.
3)we are less then a quarter of the way through the season

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 11:53 AM
It's true that return of serve and "return game" are too different things.

I actually think Gasquet plays a pretty decent "return game", because he's very solid and consistent with his groundstrokes and will win many rallies on his opponent's service points with his shotmaking ability....as long as he can get the serves back in play consistently.

My explanation for his place in the standings with those percentages is that he'll break serve a lot against opponents who don't have great serves, because he can hit with anyone from the baseline. But against top servers with good pace and accurate placement (like a Federer), it seems to me like he can struggle at times with return consistency.

Murray, on the other hand, simply has a very good return of serve, among the very best in the game right now.

And in purely technical terms, I think Djoković is better than Gasquet at returning serves as well.

I could be wrong about Gasquet, though; I just perceive that he has too much swing on his service returns, and that fast serves can rush him much more than they do Murray or Djoković. Maybe I'm wrong in this perception, or maybe he'll get better...I like his game and have nothing against him, so I'd be ok with being wrong about this.

You explained it perfectly. That is also alot of the reason Ferrer and Robredo are so high in return games won % as well. They are so tough to beat once you get into a neutral baseline rally, so against opponents without that high quality of serve will win alot of return games, raising their overall stats. That plus they do not have that strong of serves themselves, thus they do not have the luxury of feeling safe to hold so give their all throughout a match, most times, on their opponents serve games.

It does not mean players like them, or Gasquet, will have the best chance to return the serves of the quality of Federer with success.

FitzRoy
03-13-2007, 11:53 AM
1. David Ferrer 40%
2. Tommy Robredo 35%
3. Roger Federer 34%
3. Xavier Malisse 34%
5. Guillermo Canas 33%
6. Paul Goldstein 33%


Malisse is actually among the guys I rate most highly in returning serve, especially first serve. I think he's one of the hardest guys to ace.

Vlad
03-13-2007, 11:57 AM
No you have still proven nothing at all, on any of your bizarre "points". These are the top 6 right now in return games won so far this season:

1. David Ferrer 40%
2. Tommy Robredo 35%
3. Roger Federer 34%
3. Xavier Malisse 34%
5. Guillermo Canas 33%
6. Paul Goldstein 33%

If where you ranked in return games won was evidence of who was the better returner then David Ferrer would have "by far" the best return of serve in the game today since he is 5% over second place. Robredo would also be second best because he is 2nd place in return games won. However in fact Ferrer and Robredo most would still say would have more trouble returning the highest quality serves, with Federer is among, on a medium-fast surface then the very best returners. So this proves nothing, despite your desperate attempts to imply something from it. Also Paul Goldstein would have the 6th best return of serve in the mens game today if this stat was evidence. If you are going to insist on that stat as evidence you then also choose to insist David Ferrer is by far the best returner in mens tennis today, far better then anyone else, Robredo is the 2nd best, and Goldstein is the 6th best.

I already explained:

1)there are more to return games then the return of serve
2)stats like this are poor attempt at "evidence" as I just showed yet again above.
3)we are less then a quarter of the way through the season





I know it is only 14-18 matches into the season.. BUT it is still some type of FACTUAL info that I provided.


what you provided is just your own baised view of things.

show me a BETTER measure than this so far, and then we will talk more.


BTW, winning % of return games IS THE BEST measure of your overall return ability (unless one player plays a lot more tennis on clay, compared to another who plays on fast surfaces, which isn't the case for all young players compared, since they all played on similar surfaces)



have a nice day sir

FitzRoy
03-13-2007, 12:06 PM
I know it is only 14-18 matches into the season.. BUT it is still some type of FACTUAL info that I provided.


what you provided is just your own baised view of things.

show me a BETTER measure than this so far, and then we will talk more.


BTW, winning % of return games IS THE BEST measure of your overall return ability (unless one player plays a lot more tennis on clay, compared to another who plays on fast surfaces, which isn't the case for all young players compared, since they all played on similar surfaces)



have a nice day sir

I think what federerfanatic is trying to say is that in order to have a real chance at beating Federer, you have to be able to put his first serve back into play on a reasonably consistent basis (Cañas did a good job of this in the match the other day), or else you won't be able to threaten him enough on his service games. This is because his first serve is too consistent to rely on service games where he misses 4+ first serves. I'd say the best example of this effect is the Roddick-Federer US Open final; to me, that match came down, in many ways, to the fact that Federer was much more effective at putting Roddick's first serve back into play than Roddick was at Federer's serve. Thus more of the rallies were played during Roddick's games.

And basically, the numbers you've provided aren't really great evidence for Gasquet's ability to put a Federer-quality first serve back in play consistently. Rather, the evidence for that comes from watching the matches that the two have played.

More evidence for this debate should come when Gasquet plays Roddick later; we'll be able to see how Gasquet deals with the Roddick first serve.

FitzRoy
03-13-2007, 12:13 PM
I just checked the match stats for the other time Gasquet played Roddick, in Vienna 2006. In that match, Gasquet won only 7 of 53 points played on Roddick's first serve, which is just over 13 percent.

In Murray's losing effort against Roddick in Memphis, he won 15 of 52 points played on Roddick's first serve, which is more than double Gasquet's percentage.

In all of their other meetings, Murray has been around or above the 25% mark against Roddick's first serve - except for San Jose 2007, which, ironically, Murray still won.

Just having those 7-8 extra points against a quality first serve is, in many matches, the difference between being able to break serve multiple times, and not being able to break at all.

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 12:21 PM
I know it is only 14-18 matches into the season.. BUT it is still some type of FACTUAL info that I provided.


what you provided is just your own baised view of things.

show me a BETTER measure than this so far, and then we will talk more.


BTW, winning % of return games IS THE BEST measure of your overall return ability (unless one player plays a lot more tennis on clay, compared to another who plays on fast surfaces, which isn't the case for all young players compared, since they all played on similar surfaces)



have a nice day sir

I have proven and explained why it is not a good measure to go by, all explanations and examples you have pretty much ignored convienently, and why I do not base my own opinions-whether you like those or not, on those stats.

Whatever though, ignore the explanations I have now gone through twice, or showing how they do not erode the validity of those stats. Next time I see you discuss Ferrer, Robredo, or Ginepri leading into a match with somebody, I will be sure to remind you that you must take into account that David Ferrer is by far the best returner in mens tennis, that Robredo is the 2nd best, and that Ginepri is the worlds 6th best returner, according to your "stats".

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 12:25 PM
Malisse is actually among the guys I rate most highly in returning serve, especially first serve. I think he's one of the hardest guys to ace.

I agree to some extent on what you are saying about Malisse's return of serve. Of those top 6 I listed, Ferrer at an overwhelming #1, Robredo at #2, and even Goldstein at #6, were the ones I was identifying the most as examples against the validity of just going by return games % ranking as automatic who are the best returners. I just decided to list the whole top 6 which included those 3 most glaring examples. I am not saying Ferrer and Robredo are not very good returns, I doubt they are 1 and 2, especialy against the best quality servers on a medium-fast surface, and Ferrer sure as heck is not in a league of his own as that stat would show he is. Goldstein at #6 also seems too high, I know he is a steady baseliner/returner but he would not be anywhere near that high in any aspect of the game, he is just a grinder, nice guy, well educated, who is happy to make some sort of living on tour.

federerfanatic
03-13-2007, 12:26 PM
I just checked the match stats for the other time Gasquet played Roddick, in Vienna 2006. In that match, Gasquet won only 7 of 53 points played on Roddick's first serve, which is just over 13 percent.

In Murray's losing effort against Roddick in Memphis, he won 15 of 52 points played on Roddick's first serve, which is more than double Gasquet's percentage.

In all of their other meetings, Murray has been around or above the 25% mark against Roddick's first serve - except for San Jose 2007, which, ironically, Murray still won.

Just having those 7-8 extra points against a quality first serve is, in many matches, the difference between being able to break serve multiple times, and not being able to break at all.

Thanks for pointing that out. That is an excellent example, how effective you are returning a server of Roddick's caliber.

FitzRoy
03-14-2007, 10:19 AM
Gasquet certainly seemed to have a lot of trouble returning Roddick's serve. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'm sure he didn't win very many points on Roddick's first serve. It looked to me like he had serious problems returning the pace. But that's pretty normal, right? I mean, almost all players do. The exceptions are guys like Fed, Murray; and I think that's a limitation of Gasquet compared to them.

fastdunn
03-14-2007, 10:26 AM
1. David Ferrer 40%
2. Tommy Robredo 35%
3. Roger Federer 34%
3. Xavier Malisse 34%
5. Guillermo Canas 33%
6. Paul Goldstein 33%


I'm not into stats and I think stats are stupid sometimes but
these look like a set of pretty good returners...

federerfanatic
03-14-2007, 10:51 AM
I'm not into stats and I think stats are stupid sometimes but
these look like a set of pretty good returners...

Sure pretty good, I never disputed that. Ok so stats like those can have some basis, just be far from solid evidence of something is what I am saying. Ferrer is a very good returner but do you believe he is "by far" the best returner in mens tennis today, if you go by those stats he is, he is a whopping 5% over 2nd best %. Sure Robredo is a very good returner but is he the 2nd best in the game when there is Federer, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Murray, some others? Sure Goldstein the pro hacker might have a pretty good return but is there anyway any part of his game is top 6 in the game?

federerfanatic
03-14-2007, 10:52 AM
Gasquet certainly seemed to have a lot of trouble returning Roddick's serve. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'm sure he didn't win very many points on Roddick's first serve. It looked to me like he had serious problems returning the pace. But that's pretty normal, right? I mean, almost all players do. The exceptions are guys like Fed, Murray; and I think that's a limitation of Gasquet compared to them.

I agreed. Only the very best returners have some success getting Roddick's serve back in play enough to make him work on his service games. The very best returners in the game like Federer and Murray.