PDA

View Full Version : How Good is Srichaphan?


Anonymous
11-18-2004, 05:43 AM
How good is Paradorn? Does he have the raw talent to play with Roddick, Hewitt, and Federer? I've seen him play before but I don't think I've ever seen him play well, he's always supposedly playing bad or something...Does anyone know or have an opinion on how good Srichaphan really is?

VashTheStampede
11-18-2004, 09:01 AM
He's a talented player, but he's just not too consistent.

daniel_rst
11-18-2004, 10:14 AM
I can give you a statistical opinion. Paradorn is good, but not as good as Roddick or Hewitt. Federer is really out of the question for even the established top 10.

Here is Paradorn's career in terms of rating (higher rating is better)
http://www.setratings.com/images/temp/pan1.png

If we compare him to, say, Roddick:
http://www.setratings.com/images/temp/panrod.png

You can see that Roddick is currently playing better tennis. In fact, he is about 300 points behind Roddick at the moment. Statistically, that means Roddick would have about an 85% chance of winning any match against Paradorn.

There was a time in early 2003 when Paradorn was really playing well, but this year has not been kind to him.

Daniel

ty slothrop
11-18-2004, 10:34 AM
Daniel, that is one hell of a site, i would like to know more about how you arrive at the actual number value assigned to a player

daniel_rst
11-18-2004, 10:47 AM
Hi Ty -

The numbers are estimates of actual player skill on a scale of 0 - 3000. The basic system was developed in the 1960's by a mathematician named Elo. The ratings adjust based on wins and losses and the relative strengths of the opponents. The ELO system is in use in professional chess and table tennis and a great number of other situations.

There is a lot more information available *here* (http://www.setratings.com/article.php?art_id=5)

gts072
11-18-2004, 11:44 AM
Wish he was better. Needs a new coach I think.

BreakPoint
11-18-2004, 11:55 AM
I think a coach like Brad Gilbert would do wonders for Paradorn.

Brettolius
11-18-2004, 01:35 PM
ain't gonna happen unfortunately. he'll never leave his daddy's side. so why don't they both hire a coach and work with him together? then he can not feel like he is betraying his dad, and possibly fully realize his potential. if not, then it"s a shame...

Django
11-18-2004, 03:29 PM
Paradorn is remarkably like James Blake -- nice guys, big go-for-it forehands, all-court games, but not consistent enough to challenge seriously at Grand Slams. Nothin' wrong w/ that, of course.

!Tym
11-18-2004, 03:37 PM
Hits big, explosive, agile, shot maker from anywhere on the court, splendid tennis physique, blinding racket head speed, good feel at the net, big serve... In short, he's either an all-around player or he's just plain all-erratic.

His biggest problem to me is that when his high-octane game's not firing on all cylinders he bows out of matches too gracefully, almost seemingly accepting defeat sitting down like a monk...this as opposed to going out kicking and screaming regardless of how well he's playing on the day (i.e. Chang/Muster/Connors types).

To me, he seems to lack the intangibles in a match, that knack for willing yourself to victory, of winning the key points, really hunkering down when needed, having that intuitive sense of knowing when you must be all there mentally, etc.

This intuition/intangible quality for example is something I feel Roddick has over say Moya, Coria, and Safin.

That intuition/intangible quality of sensing when the right time to put your foot to the gas peddle is, is something Roddick has always had to my mind. Sampras is a guy who CLEARLY had this natural mental toughness/intuition...it's not simply a matter of trying as Srichiphan does, it's a sixth sense that some guys cleary are just born with, i.e. Jordon/Bird/Reggie Miller, and others like Karl Malone are not.

Safin has this "it" factor in spurts, but he didn't today and that's why he lost and made some dumbounding errors when it counted most.

Roddick, on the other hand, you always feel like he's ready to cross the finish-line...whereas so many other top players you just know they have a way of getting side-tracked, distracted, in a daze, etc.

With that said, Safin to me isn't like Srichiphan in that with Srichiphan I can't really ever recalling him digging deep to win a tight match...he kind of just goes away when it matters most. He's like steaming hot rice that simply just loses steam when it matters most, a la the 5th set vs. Rusedski at the U.S. Open.

Safin on the other hand, he's not always much of an inspirational, dig deep kind of player; but you know deep down that on any occasion he is capable of digging deep. It's not easy to coax it out of him, but once in a blue moon and if you're life were on the line and he was playing for it and he actually liked you...you'd have faith that he would be able to dig deep, look within, and pull out an old play from the book of Rudy Tomjonavich, "Never underestimate the heart of a champion...whose friends life is on the line."

I think Coria lacks this dig-deep and gutting matches out quality. Everyone can win when they're on-fire, but what about when it's just another ordinary day? Coria had Roddick on the ropes last year in the Masters Cup, but when it really mattered Roddick was the one who stepped up and raced to the finish line, IN SPITE of looking mentally and physically out of it by that point, whereas the Coria simply shriveled up. In this year's French Open we saw the penultimate of this trait played out for all the world to see in a most unforgettable or forgettable way, depending on how you look at it and who you were rooting for.

Moya is much the same way. He's got an A game, but I just do not really feel like he has the intangibles to win the guts and glory matches when it's gut check time. Canas outdid him at the French by out-gutting him and digging deeper in the trenches, not by out talenting him. Agassi beat him at the French not because he was playing better, but because he had the intangibles on his side. At last year's Masters Cup, Moya gave Roddick all he could handle, but he predictably couldn't close the deal. Bottom-line, when guys like Moya, Srichiphan, or Coria get in close matches in nerve-wracking situations, I expect them to find a way to lose, to fumble the ball out of bounds with two seconds on the shot clock like Chris Webber...when someone like Mike Bibby and Kobe Bryant might just say give me the ball and get out of my way, I'm shooting it. They miss it or make it, but they're not afraid of ending the game one way or another. Certainly, it's better to take destiny into your own hands than to fumble a mere *chance* at victory away....illusive.

This to me is what so often separates guys who merely have shots, but can't trust themselves to apply them when it matters most.

NoBadMojo
11-18-2004, 05:02 PM
i dont think that describes him at all..he's flashy looking when he plays which maybe makes it look like he's crushing shots when he really isnt....all those big windups take more time and look flashy and powerful, but the reality is he doesnt hit the ball much harder than say a hewitt and his serve certainly isnt as good as hewitts'. he should have a much better serve. he's got a broad shot selection and he is capable of missing every one of those shots with those big windups and has no real weapons..he will always be a journeyman IMO unless he can somehow learn to play a more compact under control game.

!Tym
11-18-2004, 05:40 PM
Hmm, well, I thought he pretty clearly overwhelmed James Blake and Kiefer and Agassi and Kuerten with his explosiveness/power in some of the finer matches I've seen from him. In fact, when he was still an unknown he really surprised Courier with his explosiveness, and he played Kafelnikov at Wimbledon and Martina Navratalova described him as the "human highlight reel" after that match.

As far as Hewitt goes, I've never seen Hewitt actually look like he was overpowering Agassi or really anybody really, but Srichiphan certainly did overpower Agassi at Wimbledon that one year. What I have seen from Hewitt is him out rally opponents while periodically salt and peppering in a few forcing shots here and there to keep them honest. I've also never seen Hewitt described as "the human highlight reel" either. Srichiphan doesn't win by being consistent and getting back that extra ball like Hewitt at all. Srichiphan's not quite a journeyman either in my opinion...he's a tweener, in other words not quite a journeyman, definitely more dangerous than a journeyman, but also not quite a top player either. Srichiphan I feel out hit Agassi in the first set of their Australian Open quarters this year, for example, but let the set get away from him and then kind of just "went away" after that (similar to what I described above as a common phenomenon with him). Srichiphan has also gone deep at Masters events when he's playing well.

He can also bop his serve pretty hard as Courier attested to, "bone crushing" is how he described it. And as Roddick himself said after they met in the RCA finals, it's not like Srichiphan wasn't bopping them in himself. I think Srichiphan's got a more intimidating serve than Hewitt, but also a far more erratic one. On a good serving day, Srichiphan is the more offensive server in my opinion.

Srichiphan can't win on clay to save his life, he's just not very good as a scrapper and at rallying. His groundies invetably end in error if the points become dragged out.

However, whenever I've seen him at his best and on an "on" day, he was anything but Hewitt in my opinion. Furthermore, I actually don't think his windups are that big. He has more of a Kafelnikov style of hitting in my opinion, a load it up, cocked, kind of wind-up/take-back if you will. Gonzales however does have a big windup.

I also recall Srichiphan overpowering Rios in the D.C. semis as well. Just in general, when I've seen Srichiphan winning it's because he's confidently striking and going for his shots.

He absolutely made Kiefer, one of the cleanest, most efficient, and compact ball strikers on tour, look like an absolute kid when he played him in the Hamlet Cup semis last year for example. He didn't do it by hitting controlled, metered power like Hewitt either. He did it by simply crushing forehands and backhands, and putting Kiefer immediately on his heels. Certainly, his power that match was devastating as was his explosiveness around the court.

The guy's an explosive shotmaker and that's how he wins, it's just that more often than not he's misfiring or mistiming.

Come to think of it, I think what also maybe holding him back is his hand-eye coordination. Guys like Agassi and Hewitt are so gifted in terms of hand-eye coordination that they rarely have days where they're not striking the ball cleanly. Srichiphan, however, is absolute shank city when he's not on.

Obviously, on a good day, this won't come into play. Certainly, if he could play like he did in that Hamlet Cup against Blake and Kiefer, and in D.C. against Rios, and against Agassi at Wimbledon all the time, or at least more often, he'd be a legitimate top ten player.

!Tym
11-18-2004, 05:47 PM
The only other thing I'd add is that Srichiphan doesn't really seem to have an intuitive feel of how to construct points. He kind of just goes out there and hits. When he's on, he's on; when he's not, he looks pretty hapless and hopeless.

I think this is why he seems like such a heavy *confidence* reliant player, far more than most other players I feel. He can get on rolls, and then inexplicably go into the absolute dumpster.

NoBadMojo
11-18-2004, 05:59 PM
you're only speaking of a match here and a match there from the portions of your post i read. i wasnt comparing pan's style to that of hewitt, i was only suggesting their power levels are similar except hewitt has a bigger serve. bottom line is pan has no real and effective weapons and makes far too many errors and his serve should be far better..i would say that is a journeyman altho he is capable of treeing in a match here and there and taking someone down like a keifer

Kevin Patrick
11-18-2004, 06:01 PM
Daniel,
I've checked out your site, great stuff. I've always thought the ATP ranking was flawed (especially the fact that losses can't hurt your ranking, & playing a lot is rewarded more than quality finishes in lesser amounts of tournaments) your system makes more sense.
But I do have some questions, are Grand Slam events weighted more than wins at other events? It appears that this isn't the case.
I looked at your all time grasscourt rankings & they are a bit hard to swallow. Sampras at #9? I understand that your explanation is that there were less quality grasscourt players in his era(partly due to less events being held on grass), but how can you accept a system that ranks his best as lower than that of Stich or Wilander? Wilander never even reached the semis at Wimbledon. He won the Australian on grass twice with fields that were not top notch.

larrhall
11-18-2004, 06:02 PM
He does have very good power, but the windups are costly in terms of mishits and shanks. He does need a real coach; his father isn't. Also agree the serve is suspect; it's sort of concocted. When you see him from behind the court, as I did at IW (against Hewitt) several years ago, the motion is pretty awkward. It leaves a concerned spectator with about as much faith and confidence as a Hrbaty serve, not because of the toss height, though. He truly has Plan A and Plan A over again. Also in my view he rips the backhand too hard consistently. What my coach taught on backhand vs. forehand I am convinced holds also at the highest levels - use the forehand as the kill shot, be consistent with the backhand. Hit it 80%, especially the one-handers. As soon as you start thinking you can end points with a single-hander, pro level too, it's going to go off. I think Paradorn is too self-conscious when he plays, too aware of how the big shots look to spectators. But problem #1 is the coaching situation; change that and he's Top 20 and possibly Top 15. Canas, for example, for all his consistency has a 'smaller' game...then again, it's about consistency...

Azza
11-18-2004, 06:23 PM
Some how in all of this we seem to have missed the point about Paradorn and the fact that he comes from a nation known for Kickboxers. I've been to Thailand on several occassions and its hard to find a tennis court outside the Hilton hotel in Bangkok usually.

You got to give cred to the fact that he has developed his tennis a in country which probably up until recently (and I am making a educated guess), had no intensive junior programs ala those seen in Australia, US, Spain, France, Russia blah blah.

Good on him I say!

VictorS.
11-18-2004, 07:30 PM
Paradorn is certainly capable of being a top 10 player. His shot-making skills are without a doubt up there with the best. Every single one of his flaws, from his overzealousness to his lack of killer instinct, are IMO correctable with the right guidance.

But his inconsistency is his achilles heel. I've seen him play beautifully on a few occassions. For example, in his hometown of Bangkok, he lost to Federer in three hotly contested sets going shot for shot with perhaps tennis' greatest ever talent. However, I've also seen him tank a few matches against Roddick and Haas this year as well.

!Tym
11-18-2004, 07:33 PM
Hmm, actually, Srichiphan I remember took Hewitt to the brink at the Lipton a few years ago and I distinctly remember Hewitt saying it was really tough to play him and get any rhythm because he's such a flashy shotmaker.

Srichiphan to my mind definitely has more power than Hewitt, and his forehand is his weapon in terms of power and explosiveness, but it's not consistent. His backhand can hit screaming winners or shanks left and right. As stated, he's shank prone. When Srichiphan wins, it's not because he's a great retriever or consistent or players fear that they'll eventually end points in errors against him; he wins because he overpowers, out shotmakes other players. He did it to Rios and Agassi, two guys who are exceptionally clean ball strikers and hard to overpower. That's his game plan. If he were at approximately the same power level as Hewitt, I do not believe he would be able to even survive as a journeyman level player on tour. True, I referenced matches here or there but what else am I to reference? In any case, I can't recall ever seeing Hewitt win by overpowering anybody of decent tour standing. He wins with tremendous passing shots, retrieving, mental tenacity, will power, superlative timing on the return of, taking the ball early when the opportunity is there, attacking the net at just the right time, etc. In short, he wins by minimizing errors and going for the percentage shots and executing cleanly and constructing points cleanly and with intuition. He does not win by power though. That's why even though he's unbelievably consistent, he has trouble being a real force on clay. He just doesn't have enough *natural* oomph/weight behind his groundies to force errors on clay. On clay, he can get bullied around. On hard courts and faster surfaces, he's exceptionally good at using your power and the speed of the court against you.

Srichiphan doesn't play the same style as Hewitt, because he'd never win if he did. Given his attributes...not the cleanest ball striker, somewhat sloppy footwork, questionable concentration and mental tenacity...he can't really be successful unless he's overpowering/out shotmaking his opponents.

Is he the most powerful player on tour? No, but he's certainly in the top tier in terms of explosiveness and that is what he's known for, even Hewitt himself has confirmed that with his own observations. Guys like Gonzales, Roddick, Philipoussis, Safin, Kuerten, Johansson, etc. are the elite tier in terms of raw power I feel; but just below that tier are guys like Moya, Ferrero, Hrbaty, Srichiphan, Agassi, Grosjean, Federer I feel. Below that tier, then you have guys like Nalbandian, Clement, Hewitt, and Coria guys who can certainly finish off a point when needed, but certainly don't and can't rely on that to win matches.

Below that tier, you might be talking about Henman like power. I think there is a clear distinction between each group. Srichiphan's not the most powerful, but he's definitely up there, and I think kind of a tweener. A little more power than Agassi, but not quite as much as Roddick. Obviosly subtle differences, but I think clear distinctions can be made between each grouping. I.e. Canas might not be in the second tier of power, but he's close and slightly more than that of the third tier of power compared to guys like Hewitt.

Also as far as windups go, I do not think Srichiphan's take backs are actually that long. Rather, I think it's more a case of his windups not being very smooth or fluid...unlike Moya. I think this is why Srichiphan can look like he has no rhythm at all in matches sometimes, and start shanking balls left and right.

Again, I've never seen Hewitt really overpower anybody with the exception of someone like Cecil Mammit. Even though, I referenced only a few matches, I believe the general tour consensus on Srichiphan's game is how I described from what I've read and heard.

To me, he's kind of like this generation's Petr Korda, a very *unrefined* Petr Korda, without the same drive to win and without the exquisite timing. When Srichiphan's on, however, that's how Srichiphan plays...like Korda. Not quite the most pure power, but a flashy, freewheeling, shotmaker nonetheless...with quite a bit of snappy power nonetheless.

I think Srichiphan has the raw tools, but as stated I think his stroking technique is a bit unrefined and full of hitches as others have noted. Ultimately, I think this is why he's prone to so many off days.

And really when he's off, he really does look hapless and gives up and *goes through the motions* pretty quickly. No plan B, when plan A (bang away like you're from bangkok and be flashy) is misfiring.

NoBadMojo
11-18-2004, 07:53 PM
right..thats what i said..he's flashy and has all the shots. he just doesnt have a weapon or weapons which you kinda need out there these days, his serve is suspect, and he is very inconsistent and makes far too many ue's. also his power off the ground isnt all that..it's in the middle as you agree....sometimess it is far tougher for a player when they have so many options out there....it leads to indecisiveness which leads to errors..sometimes it's better to have less of an arsenal so you your choices are far simplier..thats just guessing on my part of course, but i've seen that alot w. gifted athletes like Pan. anywho, i wish he would do better..he's alot of fun to watch and we need more all courters.

!Tym
11-18-2004, 11:49 PM
Actually, I don't think his power's in the middle. That's where we disagree. I think it's clearly above Agassi at this point, and just a slight notch below the Roddick, Gonzales, and the Johnasson's of the world. To me, he's second tier, borderline first tier...a far cry from middle of the pack power for me. To me, he wouldn't be able to win any matches at all if he didn't have that kind of power. Again, not quite Roddick forehand level power, but he's just a notch below and that power runs consistent through both his backhand and forehand I feel.

And the thing is, I think he does have weapons, he can clearly dictate off the ground when he's on, he's just not consistent from match to match. So I think it's a question of *consistent* weapons...his games either there or its not for him on any given day. But when it's on, he has some of the most explosive weapons out there...you have to to be able to take it to Federer and Hewitt as he has proved he can do when playing well.

To me, Kiefer and Arazi are middle of the pack power...Srichiphan is not. He's clearly more powerful than Kiefer and Arazi in my opinion.

Arazi, in my opinion, has never been able to quite break through to the top, because he doesn't have enough raw horsepower in my opinion. Fabulous all-court wizard, but just not enough power to consistently pressure the upper echelon.

To me, I think Arazi's more talented than Srichiphan, but Srichiphan has more bludgeoning power. I don't really view him as necessarily that gifted. Like I said, his hand-eye coordination is suspect. And while he can volley fairly well, he's not a wizard up there. From the ground, when he's at his best, he dictates with explosive shots, because he has a hair-trigger mentality. But it's not like he's a wizard in the angles and spins and different trajectories and placement he can create. Not that he's bad in these aspects, but is he on Arazi's level? I don't think so.

But in terms of career, he'll probably end up having a similar one to Arazi, some spurts here and there and shinging moments, but ultimately no defining moments. I think Arazi makes up for his lack of size/power with his great hands and facility with manipulating the ball at will. Srichiphan on the other hand doesn't have this kind of wizardry, so he relies more on bludgeoning the ball from improbable places. When he's on, he makes those crazy winners, because players don't generally go for full power when 10 feet behind the baseline and on the run...but Srichiphan will. Still, this to me isn't the same as being able to manipulate the ball at will with spins and angles and pin point placement, which is why I don't really think he'd be successful at all on tour without his power.

Oh well, we obviously view this slightly differently. No harm, no foul...just different opinions is all.

Anonymous
11-19-2004, 05:46 AM
Can he ever win majors or not? On his best days can he win them?

larrhall
11-19-2004, 07:12 AM
Definitely Paradorn has weapons. The forehand is immense, and the serve when working is powerful. He stings some beautiful shots on the backhand when not overhitting.

SpecialK, the Arazi comparison/contrast is a good one. Arazi is underpowered. What do you get when you cross P-Dorn's best stuff with Arazi's top qualities - Roger Federer.

No, in response to the last post, he's not going to win any Majors unless he develops more finesse, plays more patiently and learns better defense. And not unless he has a fitness regimen on the level of Roddick's or Agassi's. Basically his game is too much weighted towards power only. When Agassi learned patience and fitness, he became a consistent threat in Majors - of course Andre had won Majors even when on his Cheeseburger Plan, and Paradorn hasn't come close, so...

NoBadMojo
11-19-2004, 08:00 AM
a weapon is only a weapon if you can make the shot.....14 year old bollitierri pure drive juniors have big forehands these days.

helloworld400
10-30-2006, 10:32 AM
Having watched the spectacular match between Federer and PDorn at Basel, I was inspired to search the archives for a discussion of PDorn's talents.

I have always been keeping an eye out for Paradorn as he had (has?) great potential. Blake and Paradorn have a similar game. What accounts for Blake's break through over Paradorn. Has Pdorn's game been stagnant over all these years, has he made conspicuous improvements?

I think Tym's analysis below 2 years ago is right on point. I do feel Pdorn has slightly curbed some trigger-happy tendencies ... his mental tenacity is still somewhat questionable ...


Hits big, explosive, agile, shot maker from anywhere on the court, splendid tennis physique, blinding racket head speed, good feel at the net, big serve... In short, he's either an all-around player or he's just plain all-erratic.

His biggest problem to me is that when his high-octane game's not firing on all cylinders he bows out of matches too gracefully, almost seemingly accepting defeat sitting down like a monk...this as opposed to going out kicking and screaming regardless of how well he's playing on the day (i.e. Chang/Muster/Connors types).

To me, he seems to lack the intangibles in a match, that knack for willing yourself to victory, of winning the key points, really hunkering down when needed, having that intuitive sense of knowing when you must be all there mentally, etc.

This intuition/intangible quality for example is something I feel Roddick has over say Moya, Coria, and Safin.

That intuition/intangible quality of sensing when the right time to put your foot to the gas peddle is, is something Roddick has always had to my mind. Sampras is a guy who CLEARLY had this natural mental toughness/intuition...it's not simply a matter of trying as Srichiphan does, it's a sixth sense that some guys cleary are just born with, i.e. Jordon/Bird/Reggie Miller, and others like Karl Malone are not.

Safin has this "it" factor in spurts, but he didn't today and that's why he lost and made some dumbounding errors when it counted most.

Roddick, on the other hand, you always feel like he's ready to cross the finish-line...whereas so many other top players you just know they have a way of getting side-tracked, distracted, in a daze, etc.

With that said, Safin to me isn't like Srichiphan in that with Srichiphan I can't really ever recalling him digging deep to win a tight match...he kind of just goes away when it matters most. He's like steaming hot rice that simply just loses steam when it matters most, a la the 5th set vs. Rusedski at the U.S. Open.

Safin on the other hand, he's not always much of an inspirational, dig deep kind of player; but you know deep down that on any occasion he is capable of digging deep. It's not easy to coax it out of him, but once in a blue moon and if you're life were on the line and he was playing for it and he actually liked you...you'd have faith that he would be able to dig deep, look within, and pull out an old play from the book of Rudy Tomjonavich, "Never underestimate the heart of a champion...whose friends life is on the line."

I think Coria lacks this dig-deep and gutting matches out quality. Everyone can win when they're on-fire, but what about when it's just another ordinary day? Coria had Roddick on the ropes last year in the Masters Cup, but when it really mattered Roddick was the one who stepped up and raced to the finish line, IN SPITE of looking mentally and physically out of it by that point, whereas the Coria simply shriveled up. In this year's French Open we saw the penultimate of this trait played out for all the world to see in a most unforgettable or forgettable way, depending on how you look at it and who you were rooting for.

Moya is much the same way. He's got an A game, but I just do not really feel like he has the intangibles to win the guts and glory matches when it's gut check time. Canas outdid him at the French by out-gutting him and digging deeper in the trenches, not by out talenting him. Agassi beat him at the French not because he was playing better, but because he had the intangibles on his side. At last year's Masters Cup, Moya gave Roddick all he could handle, but he predictably couldn't close the deal. Bottom-line, when guys like Moya, Srichiphan, or Coria get in close matches in nerve-wracking situations, I expect them to find a way to lose, to fumble the ball out of bounds with two seconds on the shot clock like Chris Webber...when someone like Mike Bibby and Kobe Bryant might just say give me the ball and get out of my way, I'm shooting it. They miss it or make it, but they're not afraid of ending the game one way or another. Certainly, it's better to take destiny into your own hands than to fumble a mere *chance* at victory away....illusive.

This to me is what so often separates guys who merely have shots, but can't trust themselves to apply them when it matters most.

alan-n
10-30-2006, 11:31 AM
Here's Paradorn's recent match highlights against Federer from Basel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ9ZgENI7Yo

pDorn has much a bit more power off the ground than Hewitt. Give him credit, he grew up in a non-tennis country with no pro idols to mentor him and coach him on playing against the top players and he's still made a good living from Tennis. Definitely one of the few players on tour that will amaze you with his shot-making ability when playing well... and dumb found you with poor shot selection when not. Otherwise he's still an awesome talent that never had the foundation to realize all of it. One of the few players on tour that can do to Federer what Federer does to everyone else.

ericsson
10-30-2006, 12:02 PM
pretty impressive to me, i wouldnt say he doenst have a wapon. :cool:

BabolatFan
10-30-2006, 12:13 PM
The only other thing I'd add is that Srichiphan doesn't really seem to have an intuitive feel of how to construct points. He kind of just goes out there and hits. When he's on, he's on; when he's not, he looks pretty hapless and hopeless.

I think this is why he seems like such a heavy *confidence* reliant player, far more than most other players I feel. He can get on rolls, and then inexplicably go into the absolute dumpster.
Yeah he's a mysterious talent. When he's up against top guys like Federer, he's pushed beyond the limits to play incredible tennis...then he tanks. He needs to work on his mental strategy to keep pushing and be more consistent.

tennisboy87
10-30-2006, 12:16 PM
Thanks for the video. It was very entertaining tennis.

tennisfreak
10-30-2006, 12:47 PM
I can't say I wholly agree Paradorn's power is below first tier. In my opinion, his power is definitely solidly in the first tier with guys like Safin, Gonzales, etc.

Whoever said Paradorn and Hewitt hits with similar power has never seen Paradorn play, obviously.

Federer can get pushed to the brink by guys who can overpower him. Ie. Safin, Roddick (when they are on).
Paradorn, when on, has played Federer tight in many occasions, most recently in Basel. That match could have went either way. Paradorn doesn't do that by getting the ball back and not making errors. He does that buy blasting winners left and right.

Another thing Paradorn has is the mental tenacity of a pea. Which probably explains his erratic play.

However, it seems like he has gotten a new coach. He's been playing well of late. Hopefully he can make some nice runs soon, hopefully at a grand slam. He is 27, after all.

DashaandSafin
10-30-2006, 12:58 PM
That highlight reel made me belive that Paradorn does indeed have the power to hit with the big boys. And he certainly has more power than Hewitt...cmon NoBadMojo...

tennisfreak
10-30-2006, 01:01 PM
I just saw the highlights of the Basel match on youtube. Both players were playing extremely well. Wish Paradorn could have taken that one. Paradorn was up 5-3 in the final set tie-break, but Federer takes the last four points. It seemed like Federer turned it on at the end, and Paradorn might have tightened up a little. But the point is, very few players on the tour can hang with Federer like that. Why does Paradorn play so well against the top players, only to lose, yet against inferior players, mentally tanks and still loses?

vive le beau jeu !
10-30-2006, 01:33 PM
srichaphan has the tools... he can do a lot better than what he's done so far !
(but let's forget about the clay)

anyway, he's always a very entertaining player to see...
allez paradorn... prove me right !!! ;)

BreakPoint
10-30-2006, 02:52 PM
Here's Paradorn's recent match highlights against Federer from Basel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ9ZgENI7Yo

pDorn has much a bit more power off the ground than Hewitt. ..... One of the few players on tour that can do to Federer what Federer does to everyone else.

Yeah, after viewing that video I don't see how anyone can compare Srichaphan to Hewitt. I'd compare him more to like some of the other big hitters on the tour, like Federer, Berdych, Gonzales, Safin, and Roddick.

On many of those points, PDorn had Federer on a string and was just toying with him, running him all over the place. :eek:

Baghdatis72
10-30-2006, 03:08 PM
I watched the game live and Srichaphan was the only one in Basel to stare into Federer's eyes without fear and he was in the game until the last point. He can play really well and he deserves to be higher in the rankings than 49.

sypl
10-30-2006, 03:10 PM
Srichipan can blat the ball with the best of them. I remember a match between him and Roddick at Wimbledon when they were just crushing the ball back and forth to each other. Kinda fun to see an absolute lack of strategy beyond trying to hit it so hard that the other player can't handle it.

ericsson
10-31-2006, 12:16 AM
does anyone know for sure now what racket he plays with, some say ti 40, then its ti 80. anyone know for sure? jura maybe...

ericsson
10-31-2006, 01:06 AM
I think this is an mistake. If you look at old pics of him from 2001 he uses a URD Ti-70. I think there never was a RD-40.


jura is just read your post, would that be the standard or the long version?

helloworld400
10-31-2006, 10:59 AM
I watched the game live and Srichaphan was the only one in Basel to stare into Federer's eyes without fear and he was in the game until the last point. He can play really well and he deserves to be higher in the rankings than 49.

Do you live in Switzerland then? Awesome that you got to see the matches live!

BabolatFan
10-31-2006, 01:39 PM
Yeah he's a mysterious talent. When he's up against top guys like Federer, he's pushed beyond the limits to play incredible tennis...then he tanks. He needs to work on his mental strategy to keep pushing and be more consistent.

Ok I'd like to recant what I've said abt the guy. He sucks in 68% of the matches played. Yeah he's just a flashy player and styler.