PDA

View Full Version : Whats the future for Richard Gasquet?


ogruskie
04-17-2008, 07:10 PM
He's one of my favorite players, and I really enjoy watching him play. I believe he's #10 in the world right now, which I guess is a good rank (but I'm not sure what a "good rank" is defined as around here...)

What do you guys think is the future for this? Will he ever win any Grand Slams or go up the rankings?

Fedace
04-17-2008, 07:15 PM
^^Lets be fair to Gasquet. I know he is bit of a baby and all. but you just have to understand the man. He has grown up and was born with Silver spoon in his mouth. He has been pampered and worshiped all his life. People getting him things and catering to his every need and so on and so on. so how can he not be spoiled ?? Although, he lacks the will and toughness, he is a once in a lifetime talent with wonderous control of the racket head. So lets all enjoy his genius and hope one day, he will make a breakthru and win a slam. I think that is about all he is capable of.

flyer
04-17-2008, 07:37 PM
Who knows, certainly can't ignore his talent, if he grow a pair and a heart he could be quite scary

federerfanatic
04-17-2008, 07:47 PM
I suspect his future does not include a sustained stay in the top 10 and it certainly does not include a slam title. Most of the 1985-1987 brigade are overrate. Nadal and Djokovic have proven to be as good as advertised, actually in Djokovic's case especialy much better then predicted. Gasquet and Murray are both very overrated though, and both Berdych and Baghdatis are even moreso. Dont even get me started on Monfils, he is more likely to drop down to being a challenger circuit regular then to enter the top 10. Tsonga is underrated and could easily outshine this whole class of overrated players outside of Nadal and Djokovic in the future.

IvanAndreevich
04-17-2008, 07:56 PM
I suspect his future does not include a sustained stay in the top 10 and it certainly does not include a slam title. Most of the 1985-1987 brigade are overrate. Nadal and Djokovic have proven to be as good as advertised, actually in Djokovic's case especialy much better then predicted. Gasquet and Murray are both very overrated though, and both Berdych and Baghdatis are even moreso. Dont even get me started on Monfils, he is more likely to drop down to being a challenger circuit regular then to enter the top 10. Tsonga is underrated and could easily outshine this whole class of overrated players outside of Nadal and Djokovic in the future.

I think all the players you mentioned have talent to win a slam. Like Baghdatis, for example. It's other aspects of their personality / game that prevent them from getting through.

flyer
04-17-2008, 07:59 PM
I would be surprised if he didn't win a Wimbledon

ScovilleJenkins
04-17-2008, 08:04 PM
i would be surprised if he DID win a wimbledon

or any slam for that matter

federerfanatic
04-17-2008, 08:08 PM
i would be surprised if he DID win a wimbledon

or any slam for that matter

Ditto. Extremely surprised if he ever wins a slam.

ogruskie
04-17-2008, 08:24 PM
Who knows, certainly can't ignore his talent, if he grow a pair and a heart he could be quite scary

What do you mean by him "growing a pair"?

I don't mean to sound defensive, but I'm just curious why you guys are bashing him. :confused:

ScovilleJenkins
04-17-2008, 08:30 PM
What do you mean by him "growing a pair"?

I don't mean to sound defensive, but I'm just curious why you guys are bashing him. :confused:

because he's a pu$$y and wont play in Davis Cup when the tie is on the line, among other things

stormholloway
04-17-2008, 08:39 PM
I suspect his future does not include a sustained stay in the top 10 and it certainly does not include a slam title. Most of the 1985-1987 brigade are overrate. Nadal and Djokovic have proven to be as good as advertised, actually in Djokovic's case especialy much better then predicted. Gasquet and Murray are both very overrated though, and both Berdych and Baghdatis are even moreso. Dont even get me started on Monfils, he is more likely to drop down to being a challenger circuit regular then to enter the top 10. Tsonga is underrated and could easily outshine this whole class of overrated players outside of Nadal and Djokovic in the future.

I agree with this assessment for the most part. Murray and Gasquet aren't overrated in terms of talent but the expectations are too high for the moment because they don't necessarily have the fight in them.

It's a crap shoot as to who else will emerge from the bunch with big wins.

stormholloway
04-17-2008, 08:42 PM
What do you mean by him "growing a pair"?

I don't mean to sound defensive, but I'm just curious why you guys are bashing him. :confused:

An example of growing a pair would be to... I don't know, play Davis Cup when your team needs you rather than just showing up and playing a pointless rubber hours later instead? That would be an example off of the top of my head.

Cridal
04-17-2008, 08:48 PM
Gasquet does not have what it takes to win 7 straight matches. He might be brilliant on a given day, but for some reason he loses motivation, drive or interest over the course of a long tournament (like a slam). Than he rationalizes why it's OK not go all out and leave it all on the court.

However, a combination of 90% Gasquet and 10% Nadal (or Roddick for that matter) would would bring many a tournament win and a couple slams.

The question remains if he develops this ingredient by himself or do we need a possibly risky medical procedure...

maverick66
04-17-2008, 09:32 PM
one example that comes to mind was withdrawing from the us open when he was supposed to play donald young. i know he was sick but it was donald young. unless you are hospilitzed suck it up and go play. i dont care if you were sick. i can remember watching tiger woods crawl his way around a golf course having food poisining cause he was the leader going into the last day. thats what makes a champion. its when things arnt going your way that u find a way to compete.

the davis cup thing sucks but i really could care less. what gets me is why show up? if he hadnt shown up no one would even had cared. if hes that banged up why not head home and heal up before clay courts.

0range
04-17-2008, 09:36 PM
^^Lets be fair to Gasquet. I know he is bit of a baby and all. but you just have to understand the man. He has grown up and was born with Silver spoon in his mouth. He has been pampered and worshiped all his life. People getting him things and catering to his every need and so on and so on. so how can he not be spoiled ?? Although, he lacks the will and toughness, he is a once in a lifetime talent with wonderous control of the racket head. So lets all enjoy his genius and hope one day, he will make a breakthru and win a slam. I think that is about all he is capable of.


Wow Fedace I completely agree with what you say here.

Also he wasn't just pampered... he's also under a lot of pressure from the french people... sort of a weird combination.

Vision84
04-17-2008, 09:47 PM
he's also under a lot of pressure from the french people... sort of a weird combination.

Sounds like Murray with the brits.

tacou
04-17-2008, 09:58 PM
gasquet is so talented and I'd be surprised if he doesnt win a slam, he's so young, but I'd be more surprised if he's a consistent threat for the next few years. he's too flaky.

flyer
04-17-2008, 11:32 PM
What do you mean by him "growing a pair"?

I don't mean to sound defensive, but I'm just curious why you guys are bashing him. :confused:

hmm, im not really sure where to start, Davis Cup for one, he pleaded not to play, pulling out of his USO match against Young w/ like a fever or something, winning a tourny that actually remotely matters, he just doesnt seem to be all that hungry to be honest

Ross K
04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Who knows, certainly can't ignore his talent, if he grow a pair and a heart he could be quite scary

If he grew a pair?!:wink:... I agree that would be quite scary!

AlpineCadet
04-18-2008, 12:16 AM
Does he still use the LM Instinct Tour with the MG Extreme paint job? Been wondering if he'll stay with that frame.

shwetty[tennis]balls
04-18-2008, 07:43 AM
I didn't know he had much of a future.

roddick89
04-18-2008, 07:47 AM
I think hell be like nalbandian, make a few impressions at grand slams (maybe even get to a final like nalb.), but never win one. He'll be one of those players that will have a good career but not good enough considering his mind blowing level of talent.

mrmo1115
04-18-2008, 09:49 AM
i believe gasquet will be up there in the class of "most wasted talent"

i believe he will end up with 0 grand slams and everyone will look back and say "he was a waste of talent"

yourmom08
04-18-2008, 10:13 AM
just imagine what a grand slam winning machine you would have if gasquet had half the fight in him nadal does. No doubt he has the game to win slams, it is how much heart he has that is holding him back. Just doesn't seem to have a champion's spirit.

BNK
04-18-2008, 05:56 PM
Talent: Yes
Passion: Not so much
Future: ??? it's up to him really

I definitely enjoy watching Richard Gasquet playin his best tennis but with his attitude and also pressures since he's a kid, I don't think the 'Prodigy' can make any big statement in the future sadly. Although it is still possible, it is up to him to step up and play his best game before it's all too late.

zagor
04-18-2008, 06:14 PM
If he is going to win a slam it would definitely have to be Wimbledon as he had his best results on grass so far.So far he doesn't have a mental toughness of a champion but you never know he may mature and toughen up in the future,he is still young and developing.

kabob
04-18-2008, 06:39 PM
Does he still use the LM Instinct Tour with the MG Extreme paint job? Been wondering if he'll stay with that frame.

As of last week's Davis Cup dead rubber, yes.

stormholloway
04-18-2008, 06:46 PM
Right now he's relegated to being that guy we're wowed by when he's playing his best. I just don't see the competitive intensity.

He needs a good coach.

anointedone
04-18-2008, 07:16 PM
His entire game is overrated besides his backhand. People who talk about how talented he is just so look at all the amazing shots he hits which you cant really dispute but they all come from the backhand. There are many guys with better forehands and better serves, the two most important shots in mens tennis these days. Compare his forehand or serve to Federer at his best for example and they are light years apart. He is pretty quick, but there are quite a few who still cover the court better. He volleys pretty well, but again there are quite a few still better in that area. His return doesnt seem to be that good, certainly not close to one of the best. So what weapons does he have to take down any of the best other then a backhand. It takes more then that. I never feel when he plays a top dog he is capable of actually winning the match, they have to lose the match, you can only hit so many backhand winners in a match.

The one exception might be when he plays Roddick who he beat at Wimbledon, but lots of good players are capable of outplaying Roddick if they can just get a few of his serves back and keep concentration on their own serve games. Despite that even Roddick has owned him outside of that match and could have easily won that match in straight sets.

So ok people who dispute this, start talking about what is so great about his game outside of his backhand.

Tempest344
04-18-2008, 07:24 PM
^
I would say he is a very capable vollyer

serve and Forehand are really average at best

If Gasquet wants to do better he needs to stand further in
(except on Clay)

anointedone
04-18-2008, 07:30 PM
^I would say he is a very capable vollyer


I would agree with that, but you need to be better then "very capable" in something other then just your best shot.

serve and Forehand are really average at best

I agree here too, huge huge problem in todays mens game.

If Gasquet wants to do better he needs to stand further in
(except on Clay)

Definitely.

Gasquetrules
04-18-2008, 07:58 PM
All you guys are like typical white American males with strongly authoritarian personalities... the kind who vote for Bush and McCain and believe "The Surge" will work if we just keep pouring the money and the troops into it.

Gasquet did the sensible thing and put his own interests first for a change -- ahead of the tennis system that represents authority. He's worked his butt off for French Davis Cup, and then when he loses a close match to a worthy opponent he only gets the kinda crap from the French press that you guys are ladling out here.

Gasquet knew he couldn't beat Roddick on that court -- just like Nadal knew he couldn't beat him. And even if either player had, his team would probably lose. That outcome was pretty certain after Tsonga messed up his knee. The French had no chance. And the odds were still against them even with Tsonga. So why should Gasquet play two tough five-set Davis Cup matches -- for nothing? USA was still going to win, and Gasquet goes into the clay-court season exhausted, emotionally drained and with no preperation.

Doing well in Monte Carlo, Rome and the French Open are much more important than winning perhaps one Davis Cup match in a losing effort.

I don't know how many Davis Cup matches Pete Sampras or John McEnroe or Andy Roddick won, but I know how many GS titles they all won. Roddick will be remembered as a wasted talent if he only wins that one US Open title -- regardless how many Davis Cup matches he wins.

Gasquet joined the team with Tsonga because he believed they had a shot at going all the way. When Tsonga was lost, there was no reason to waste himself on pointless quest. Try it again next year.

To win the Davis Cup takes a good draw, getting the home court advantage at the right times and having a good enough team. Look how long it's taken the US to get all the pieces in place to win another one.

Gasquet is showing the same realism about Davis Cup that Federer and Nadal do. Davis Cup is kinda like the Olympics: some feel good for the guys who can't win the majors.

I believe Gasquet will win Wimbledon. His forehand is highly underrated, and so is his court movement. After Federer, he has perhaps the most complete game on the men's tour, and he is a brillian shotmaker -- perfect for grass.

lambielspins
04-18-2008, 08:04 PM
I believe Gasquet will win Wimbledon. His forehand is highly underrated, and so is his court movement. After Federer, he has perhaps the most complete game on the men's tour, and he is a brillian shotmaker -- perfect for grass.

Haha, your name fits. I guess love for your favorites can really be blinding. Gasquet is not even close to as complete a player as Nadal or Djokovic who dont get the same love from people since they bore people by very rarely veering off their own extremely high standards, and consistently coming up with incredible shots.

Compared to Djokovic it isnt clear Gasquet does even one thing better. Djokovic has a far better serve and forehand, arguably just as great a backhand, a much better return of serve, is a bit quicker, volleys atleast equally well, and is mentally far tougher.

As a Federer fan I can say I would be extremely happy if Gasquet really did not have the next most complete game on tour other then Federer. Since if that were really true it would mean Federer would dominate on all surfaces for another 10 years probably. It is a shame that you are actually far from correct and there are far more rounded players then Gasquet like Nadal and Djokovic there who make Federer's life much more difficult.

The only Wimbledon title Gasquet will ever win is the 35 and over doubles someday.

crawl4
04-19-2008, 03:34 AM
i agree with Gasquetrules when he says how much slack gasguet has been getting for pulling out of the davis cup. Its unfair for a guy like that to be seen as unpatriotic, even federer seems to think so with his interview in estoril a few days back about how tennis is mainly an individual game.

With his game however, how can you think he is the second most complete player?? He's been past the 4th round once, his serve and mental game are the parts where he struggles the most . The only area which he is exceptional in is his backhand and to lesser extent his volleys which are great but not up there with the best (fed..even hewitt)

He has more potential and talent then a couple of top 10 people like berdych, blake and ferrer but i just cant see him in the top 10 in the future. But his potential is hyped to an unreachable level which is sad.

Richie Rich
04-19-2008, 04:01 AM
Gasquet did the sensible thing and put his own interests first for a change -- ahead of the tennis system that represents authority. He's worked his butt off for French Davis Cup, and then when he loses a close match to a worthy opponent he only gets the kinda crap from the French press that you guys are ladling out here.

Gasquet knew he couldn't beat Roddick on that court -- just like Nadal knew he couldn't beat him. And even if either player had, his team would probably lose. That outcome was pretty certain after Tsonga messed up his knee. The French had no chance. And the odds were still against them even with Tsonga. So why should Gasquet play two tough five-set Davis Cup matches -- for nothing? USA was still going to win, and Gasquet goes into the clay-court season exhausted, emotionally drained and with no preperation.

Doing well in Monte Carlo, Rome and the French Open are much more important than winning perhaps one Davis Cup match in a losing effort.


this is where you are totally off base. when you play for your country you are expected to give your all regardless of the possible outcome. the point of davis cup is that you put aside personal results for the benefit of the team.

saving himself for clay - bullocks. he wasn't and isn't going to win the french anyway. i hope the fans at the french let him know that what he pulled was really stupid. somehow i have a feeling they will.

pound cat
04-19-2008, 05:16 AM
Like Safin, but not with as much talent, he doesn't have the killer instinct. So he'll keep playing tennis until he loses interest in the sport & will occasonally have a really great win until then.

unjugon
04-19-2008, 05:28 AM
Compared to Djokovic it isnt clear Gasquet does even one thing better. Djokovic has a far better serve and forehand, arguably just as great a backhand, a much better return of serve, is a bit quicker, volleys atleast equally well, and is mentally far tougher.

Come on, Gasquet volleys significantly better than Djokovic.

Gugafan
04-19-2008, 07:10 AM
His entire game is overrated besides his backhand. People who talk about how talented he is just so look at all the amazing shots he hits which you cant really dispute but they all come from the backhand. There are many guys with better forehands and better serves, the two most important shots in mens tennis these days. Compare his forehand or serve to Federer at his best for example and they are light years apart. He is pretty quick, but there are quite a few who still cover the court better. He volleys pretty well, but again there are quite a few still better in that area. His return doesnt seem to be that good, certainly not close to one of the best. So what weapons does he have to take down any of the best other then a backhand. It takes more then that. I never feel when he plays a top dog he is capable of actually winning the match, they have to lose the match, you can only hit so many backhand winners in a match.

The one exception might be when he plays Roddick who he beat at Wimbledon, but lots of good players are capable of outplaying Roddick if they can just get a few of his serves back and keep concentration on their own serve games. Despite that even Roddick has owned him outside of that match and could have easily won that match in straight sets.

So ok people who dispute this, start talking about what is so great about his game outside of his backhand.

Excellent post. Gasquet has no weapons outside hes backhand to hurt opponents. In addition, he looks timid when playing against big hitters like James Blake. He does not really have that grit and determination to grind a match out and win ugly, something Murray does well.

miniRafa386
04-19-2008, 07:21 AM
one example that comes to mind was withdrawing from the us open when he was supposed to play donald young. i know he was sick but it was donald young. unless you are hospilitzed suck it up and go play. i dont care if you were sick. i can remember watching tiger woods crawl his way around a golf course having food poisining cause he was the leader going into the last day. thats what makes a champion. its when things arnt going your way that u find a way to compete.

the davis cup thing sucks but i really could care less. what gets me is why show up? if he hadnt shown up no one would even had cared. if hes that banged up why not head home and heal up before clay courts.

i agree, but golf takes less strength to play than tennis. tennis has a harder physical bearing on the body than golf. but what you are saying is 110% correct. if he really, REALLY wanted to be good, he wouls have at least walked onto the court.

stormholloway
04-19-2008, 12:01 PM
All you guys are like typical white American males with strongly authoritarian personalities... the kind who vote for Bush and McCain and believe "The Surge" will work if we just keep pouring the money and the troops into it.

Gasquet did the sensible thing and put his own interests first for a change -- ahead of the tennis system that represents authority. He's worked his butt off for French Davis Cup, and then when he loses a close match to a worthy opponent he only gets the kinda crap from the French press that you guys are ladling out here.

Gasquet knew he couldn't beat Roddick on that court -- just like Nadal knew he couldn't beat him. And even if either player had, his team would probably lose. That outcome was pretty certain after Tsonga messed up his knee. The French had no chance. And the odds were still against them even with Tsonga. So why should Gasquet play two tough five-set Davis Cup matches -- for nothing? USA was still going to win, and Gasquet goes into the clay-court season exhausted, emotionally drained and with no preperation.

He beat Roddick on grass, so is it so impossible that he could beat Roddick on a faster indoor court? It's not such a stretch. And since when do players just decide not to play because they think they might lose? This is tennis!

Answer the simple question: why did he play the dead rubber and not the live one?

maverick66
04-19-2008, 11:07 PM
He beat Roddick on grass, so is it so impossible that he could beat Roddick on a faster indoor court? It's not such a stretch. And since when do players just decide not to play because they think they might lose? This is tennis!

Answer the simple question: why did he play the dead rubber and not the live one?

cause there was no pressure to play the dead rubber. he didnt want to put anything on the line when it mattered. problem with him is he has little heart. isay little cause that was a gutsy performance against Roddick at wimbledon but then he pulls this crap plus the us open where he pulls out with an ailment.

Gasquetrules
04-20-2008, 08:57 AM
He beat Roddick on grass, so is it so impossible that he could beat Roddick on a faster indoor court? It's not such a stretch. And since when do players just decide not to play because they think they might lose? This is tennis!

Answer the simple question: why did he play the dead rubber and not the live one?


I don't believe Gasquet could have beaten Roddick on that fast surface, and I don't think Gasquet believed he could, either. So if he plays and loses, he gets all the hyper-nationalistic French tennis fans trash-talking him again for the next year about losing another Davis Cup for France. He's obviously a senstiive young man, and the unjust criticism stings.

And again, if he had played both singles rubbers the physical toll would have delayed his preperation for Monte Carlo, a place where he needs to do well and that is important for his professional career.

Both Llodra and Mathieu have better singles records than Gasquet does this year (which has all been on hardcourts so far) and their games are probably better suited to a fast surface than Gasquet's is, so why not let them play? They've earned the right. They are the hot singles players on the French team. Why deny them just because Gasquet is Gasquet?

So looking at the situation on the final Sunday, If Gasquet had gone out and played the first rubber, who would have played Blake? Llodra? Clemment? Llodra had already played two matches. I don't think Clemment could have beaten Blake. Mathieu had played Blake in the first rubber, so he couldn't play him again. If Llodra was physically up to the challenge, after his single and doubles play, he would have had to beaten Blake in the fifth match. Perhaps Forget should have played Llodra against Blake on day one. Llodra might have won that match fresh, considering how well he played against Roddick.

So basically, even if Gasquet could have pulled off the upset of Roddick in the fourth match, the French team was out of bullets for the fifth. So what is the point of Gasquet going onto the court? It's kinda like all those French and British lads who were ordered "over the top" in Wordl War I in a pointless attempt to gain a few hundred yards of ground, only to be cut down by German machine gun fire. Patriotic? Yes. Worthwhile? No. A waste? Yes.

Tennis isn't like trench warfare, but when it becomes driven by nationalistic pride and the players are pawns much like footsoldiers, then it can get stupid and ugly. I personally don't like all the hyper-nationalism that has attached itself to US tennis over the last several years. The huge flag and military honor guards and stuff at the US Open are a good example. Such excessive displays of militaristic nationalism nauseate me. And when Davis Cup becomes as politicized and nationalistic as the Olympics, I don't like it, either. Most of the knowledegable tennis fans at the Davis Cup matches are there to see the tennis and appreciate it. They don't get into the excessive cheering and "U.S.A." chanting. But the yahoos do, the ones who would probably be just as happy at a stock car race or monstor truck show.

I personally think Gasquet should skip French Davis Cup for a year or two and focus on winning tournaments and doing well in the Masters-level events and the Slams. If he wins Wimbledon, then the French yahoos will still love him. But right now Davis Cup has become a huge burden for Gasquet, one that has hurt his development much more than it has helped him.

Next year the ATP will begin awarding ranking points for Davis Cup play. If the points are generous and commensurate with the time and effort that the players have to put into Davis Cup, then Gasquet can approach it with a different attitude.

But being sent "over the top" each year by the French Davis Cup establishment is getting old for Gasquet. I think he let them know it in Winston-Salem.

lambielspins
04-20-2008, 09:00 AM
That is all nice all Gasquetrules but you have yet to address the universal question alot of us are still waiting for someone to give an answer to. Exactly what is so great about Gasquet's game apart from his backhand?

lambielspins
04-20-2008, 09:01 AM
He beat Roddick on grass, so is it so impossible that he could beat Roddick on a faster indoor court? It's not such a stretch. And since when do players just decide not to play because they think they might lose? This is tennis!

Answer the simple question: why did he play the dead rubber and not the live one?

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. There was no excuse for pulling out of that match since "he didnt think he could win." This is the future star his fanboys want us to believe will be lifting slam trophies in the future amidst the world of sharks like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Please.

laurie
04-20-2008, 11:49 AM
I don't know enough about the Davis cup situation to make a comment.

To answer the question posed about Gasquet, i agree with most people's assessments - I like Federerfanatic's comments - they sound a bit harsh but mainly correct.

As we know Gasquet has one of the best backhands around, on a par with someone like Kuerten. his forehand is not underarated - it's not the best. He's not able to dominate with it , I don't remember him consistently hitting winners or setting up the point to hit a forehand winner. On hardcourts, Sampras liked to serve a kicker to the backhand, get the return, run around the backhand and hit the forehand down the line for a winner - a quick effective play that is quite satisfying to perform. Gasquet doesn't really do plays like this - I would have thought it's easier to run around the backhand to hit forehands than to run around the forehands to hit backhands - so already Gasquet is at a disadvantage as in the modern game you cannot be a great player without a world class forehand.

On hardcourts as has been mentioned, Gasquet has a terrible issue with the return of serve and rallies - he stands too far back especially when recieving the second serve, he's not able to put any pressure on his opponent - this brings us too another problem - yes Gaquet has a magnificent topspin backhand - but whatever happened to the slice backhand return off a kicker serve? Gasquet does not use this return because he's not prepared to stand on the line to receive, so his return is very predicable and he's not able to take time away from his opponent. A slice return into the corners or deep on grass and hardcourts is as effective as drive returns.

So it seems almost bizarre for a player like Gasquet to be so talented yet so limited in his options when on a Tennis court - either through his lack of thought processes or coaching or bad habits and an unwillingness to experiment. All of these factors along with his seeming lack od desire to get to the very top is preventing him from becomming a great player.

Gasquetrules
04-21-2008, 07:10 PM
That was a very thoughtful post, laurie, but like so many other people you seem to keep repeating cliches and opinions which aren't exactly true.

I've seen quite a few of Gasquet's matches where he hits more forehand winners than backhand winners. Gasquet has a good forehand, and he is able to pull off some stunning winners with it.

Regarding his service return, he can indeed hit the sliced backhand -- and often does. I've watched a lot of his matches where he stands inside the baseline on the first serve return, and then actually backs up to take a big swing on the second serve. It depends on the surface and the opponent. Yes, Gasquet is known for taking the return deep at times, but not always. He very often moves well inside the court to chip and charge -- or just crush and charge.

I think you are like most of the other Gasquet critics. You spend a lot more time reading what the Gasquet haters write about Gasquet -- and then repeat it -- than actually watching him play his matches.

Gasquetrules
04-21-2008, 07:19 PM
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. There was no excuse for pulling out of that match since "he didnt think he could win." This is the future star his fanboys want us to believe will be lifting slam trophies in the future amidst the world of sharks like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Please.

Gasquet didn't play the fourth rubber because there was no logical reason to play it -- other than to make the yahoos happy.

Monte Carlo was coming up... something much more important than a losing Davis Cup effort.

If Roddick and Blake are so brave, why aren't they playing Monte Carlo right now? It's a Masters tournament. Lots of money and ranking points. Where are they? Why aren't they playing? Are they cowards? Or have they just made the very logical decision that they aren't competitive on that surface and don't want to waste their time and effort on a pointless quest that will gain them very little?

Why the double standard?

Oh, they don't get to wave the Stars and Stripes and be big heroes before a stadium full of yahoos, so they don't play. Instead, they get their butts whipped by some guy outside the top 50 in their first match and are brought back down to their true level.

Cowards... I think.

stormholloway
04-21-2008, 07:28 PM
The future for Richard Gasquet?

A dystopian one, where giant caterpillars with cone-shaped silver hats control the planet, and humans are their food. Only one man can stop them...

Gasquetrules
04-30-2008, 07:45 PM
Richard Gasquet!!!

flyer
04-30-2008, 07:49 PM
We'll see, he really only has one huge weapon, people say hes so talented but that really only applies to his backhand, everything else in his game is pretty mediocre in conparisson to the other top players, taking nothing away from his backhand which i think is the best in the game I think he might be overrated just from a talent standpoint

Vision84
04-30-2008, 07:56 PM
For all those who say Gasquet lacks heart.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kAHCy5WkZzw&feature=related

And flyer he also has excellent touch at the net. ;)

flyer
04-30-2008, 07:58 PM
For all those who say Gasquet lacks heart.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kAHCy5WkZzw&feature=related

And flyer he also has excellent touch at the net. ;)

he does have great touch at the net but in todays game that really doesnt matter a whole lot, its by far the least needed of any of the basic tennis fundamentals

Tempest344
04-30-2008, 08:08 PM
he does have great touch at the net but in todays game that really doesnt matter a whole lot, its by far the least needed of any of the basic tennis fundamentals

it does actually especially against Top Players
Fed wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't great at the net

FedForGOAT
04-30-2008, 08:18 PM
Part of the reason people see him as so talented is his down the line shots. Most times when people rally, they go crosscourt. Many flashy winners are hit down the line, and they are often riskier shots. People seem to associate shotmaking with hitting down the line. Gasquet has a great down the line backhand and even his idiosyncratic forehand is great down the line; you often see him hit running dtl fh winners. I think that's part of why he is rather inconsistent, as the down the line shots are risky.

Buchhalter
05-01-2008, 04:32 AM
I was at the US Open before that match, and saw him practice for a few minutes. He looked pale to me. Later I waited as they announced he was ill and would not play. He did a similar thing at the French in 2006,

As far as Davis Cup, allegedly he asked Forget to forget about it, but came anyway. That said he wimped out when it mattered.

Lastly, he is under huge pressure from the Baget crowd (the whole nation). When he was very young he was predicted as the next No. 1 in France and maybe the world. Nice pressure for a young boy.

I am not sure if his parents were very well off, they were both tennis coaches ( I think.)

Bjorn99
05-01-2008, 07:53 AM
He has two huge strengths, one perhaps overrated(the backhand) and one vastly underrated. His court movement is UNBELIEVABLE. Whose is better,next to Nadal? And Fed?

His backhand is very, very good, but it is a backhand STILL.

His serve is better than mine, but that isn't that good.

His forehand is NOT better than mine, and that isn't good either.


He makes me think a bit of Edberg and Rosewall. Massive strengths coupled with some horrid other parts. Forehands for those two guys, and serve for Rosewall. But he has run into an era of complete players, so for him to win a Slam, well, a lot of guys would have to stay up late for that to happen.

Vlad
05-01-2008, 09:19 AM
He has two huge strengths, one perhaps overrated(the backhand) and one vastly underrated. His court movement is UNBELIEVABLE. Whose is better,next to Nadal? And Fed?

His backhand is very, very good, but it is a backhand STILL.

His serve is better than mine, but that isn't that good.

His forehand is NOT better than mine, and that isn't good either.


He makes me think a bit of Edberg and Rosewall. Massive strengths coupled with some horrid other parts. Forehands for those two guys, and serve for Rosewall. But he has run into an era of complete players, so for him to win a Slam, well, a lot of guys would have to stay up late for that to happen.



Can you do that with your forehand?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hnZz7W4HQGE&feature=related

Shaolin
05-01-2008, 09:21 AM
The future for Richard Gasquet?

A dystopian one, where giant caterpillars with cone-shaped silver hats control the planet, and humans are their food. Only one man can stop them...

This is exactly correct.

CEvertFan
05-01-2008, 09:57 AM
Gasquet - A very talented guy but a major head case as well. Much like Safin (but not quite as bad), when you watch Gasquet you never know what you're gonna get.

Bobble
05-01-2008, 10:09 AM
The only thing i think he has a chance at doing someday is Wimbledon. Grass is his favorite, and it actually seems like he desires to win there

flyer
05-01-2008, 11:00 AM
it does actually especially against Top Players
Fed wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't great at the net

Fed didnt get there by being great at the net, trust me that was the least of very well rounded game that got him to the top, nadal is good at the net now but was not when he got to number two....
let me present to you exhibits "A, B, C, D, and, E "

A-Djokovic
B-Davydenko
C-Ferrer
D-Roddick
E-Blake

and they are firmly in the top ten...the volley is by far the least important fundemental of tennis, as the evidence indicated

fastdunn
05-01-2008, 11:09 AM
Gasquet has it. He is a sleeper now. But when the time is right, it will happen, I think, and I hope. If it indeed happens, the impact has potential to be the biggest among the current young guns, IMHO.

flyer
05-01-2008, 11:11 AM
^^^I actually do think hes a great grass court player and will prolly win a Wimby or two other than that though I don't think he will have that great an impact on the game

lambielspins
05-01-2008, 11:12 AM
Gasquet will never be even close to as good as Nadal and Djokovic are right now. Murray and Tsonga in the long run will be better then Gasquet also. Berdych and Haase might end up a bit better then Gasquet, or they might end up about the same. Only Baghdatis and Monfils will be the onlye ones who end up as worse players then Gasquet among that group.

lambielspins
05-01-2008, 11:13 AM
^^^I actually do think hes a great grass court player and will prolly win a Wimby or two other than that though I don't think he will have that great an impact on the game

I would bet on him never winning Wimbledon, or any other slam for that matter.

flyer
05-01-2008, 11:18 AM
I would bet on him never winning Wimbledon, or any other slam for that matter.

Yeah I mean its far from certain, hes got about 10 more years though and I think if the cards fall right one year or another he could win there more than at any other slam

tennisdad65
05-01-2008, 11:19 AM
What do you mean by him "growing a pair"?

I don't mean to sound defensive, but I'm just curious why you guys are bashing him. :confused:

His best chance to win a grand slam depends on what type of pair he grows :). Gasquet could win a female grand slam title ;)

lambielspins
05-01-2008, 11:20 AM
Yeah I mean its far from certain, hes got about 10 more years though and I think if the cards fall right one year or another he could win there more than at any other slam

I guess it would depend alot on the strength of the field. You are right though, Wimbledon would be his best chance of the 4. I laugh at the thought of him ever winning the French or a hard court slam.

The biggest problem I see for him no matter what though is Nadal and Djokovic are so much better then him on any surface IMO, or if Djokovic is not yet clearly better on grass he will be soon with his improvement rate, and they will always be so much better then him on any surface in the future, and they are almost exactly his age.

flyer
05-01-2008, 11:23 AM
I guess it would depend alot on the strength of the field. The biggest problem I see for him no matter what though is Nadal and Djokovic are so much better then him on any surface IMO, and will always be so much better then him on any surface, and they are almost exactly his age.

Yeah I think if he plays them hes def the underdog but if they get beat by someone else or they are injured hes good enough then, also I think on grass he would have a good chance at beating them, hes still the underdog but there more than anyother surface hes dangerous

Vlad
05-01-2008, 11:35 AM
Gasquet will never be even close to as good as Nadal and Djokovic are right now. Murray and Tsonga in the long run will be better then Gasquet also. Berdych and Haase might end up a bit better then Gasquet, or they might end up about the same. Only Baghdatis and Monfils will be the onlye ones who end up as worse players then Gasquet among that group.



Haase? You joking right?

Djokovicfan4life
05-01-2008, 12:04 PM
What do you mean by him "growing a pair"?

I don't mean to sound defensive, but I'm just curious why you guys are bashing him. :confused:

Because some people are still bitter about the Davis Cup for some reason. Meanwhile the American Fed Cup team's best players were Asha Rolle and Vania King, just where were the Williams sisters? After all, "there's no questioning their heart", at least according to Cliffy.

Casey10s
05-01-2008, 12:37 PM
Gasquet will bounce between #10 and #50 for a few years and then just start to fade away. He just doesn't appear to have the mental capacity.

I think that the top 100 or so players are from the physical side very close. Someone may have a better serve than someone but the other person has a better backhand. Another one is more fit than someone else but doesn't have great shots as someone else and so forth. What basically really separates the No.1 player from the No. 100 player is their mental approach. What makes Federer a great player is to be mentally tougher than just about anyone else. What makes Gasquet and other players like Safin, Blake, Monfils, Murray, etc. who different people think should be up there is that they don't have the makeup to bring their best mental toughness to every match. If Federer or Nadal didn't have their mental toughness, they would be a lot lower in the rankings and there would be people who would be stating that should be at the top because of their physical skills. Also mental toughness IMO includes being able to adjust your game to meet the conditions and the player.

To sum up, there is not much difference between being ranked No. 1 or No. 100 except what you bring to the court mentally. Gasquet does not bring the consistent mental approach to every match.

edmondsm
05-01-2008, 12:37 PM
I think hell be like nalbandian, make a few impressions at grand slams (maybe even get to a final like nalb.), but never win one. He'll be one of those players that will have a good career but not good enough considering his mind blowing level of talent.

If he has half the career Nalbandian has had then he would be a huge success. Do you see Gasquet making the semis of all 4 slams and winning the masters cup? I don't. Not even remotely close.

ClubHoUno
05-01-2008, 12:44 PM
He has a great talent for tennis, but lacks courage and guts.

I think, when he matures more in a couple of years time, he will settle in the Top 5 in the world and go on to win 2 slams, the French Open and the Australian Open.

fastdunn
05-01-2008, 12:47 PM
Well, Federer was that way before he turned 22. Then a break-thru. Then again Safin is pretty much acting similarly all his career...

edmondsm
05-01-2008, 01:06 PM
Federer is a big exception in the modern game. If you look at most multi-slam winners they all won something big before they turned 20.

Bjorn99
05-01-2008, 01:44 PM
But, I will say, he is a very enjoyable player to watch. I just love his mobility, and of course what he can do with the backhand. I just wish he could step in, and crowd the forehand and take it early and put it away. That would really help his game. But alas. So far..... Tant pis.

Bjorn99
05-01-2008, 01:49 PM
I was watching his forehand carefully and he does :twisted:two things that are complete no no's. He has his thumb higher than his index finger, which explains why his backhand is soooooo good and the forehand is soooooooooooo bad. And secondly and just as bad, he straightens his arm out completely on the backswing. BIG<no no.

And that running passing shot looked very fragile, lucky and unrepeatable. Unlike Federer, who technically looks like he can do it as often as a bunny.

r2473
05-01-2008, 01:51 PM
I suspect his future does not include a sustained stay in the top 10 and it certainly does not include a slam title. Most of the 1985-1987 brigade are overrate. Nadal and Djokovic have proven to be as good as advertised, actually in Djokovic's case especialy much better then predicted. Gasquet and Murray are both very overrated though, and both Berdych and Baghdatis are even moreso. Dont even get me started on Monfils, he is more likely to drop down to being a challenger circuit regular then to enter the top 10. Tsonga is underrated and could easily outshine this whole class of overrated players outside of Nadal and Djokovic in the future.

What would these guys (Gasquet, Murray, Berdych, Baghadatis, Monfils) have to do to not be "overrated"? Win a slam? There have been exactly 4 slam champions since Wimbledon '04 (was only 3 until AO this year). If this is the requirement, then almost everyone (by definition) MUST be overrated (well, except Safin, because he is 1 of the 4).

Maybe increase their ranking.

Gasquet = 9
Berdych = 10
Baghadatis = 12
Murray = 19 (injuries)
Monfils = 53

With Monfils you have a case.

By the way, did you know that Federer was ranked around 13 or 14 for most of 2002 when he was 21?

Murray is 21 this year.

Gasquet and Monfils are 22 this year.

Berdych and Baghadatis are 23 this year

I suppose it all depends on how high your expectation was as to whether they have fulfilled it. Personally, I would say much depends on their FUTURE performance.

I still remember people talking in '99, '00, '01, '02 that Federer was overrated, etc. (In fact, 12 slams and 222 consecutive weeks at number 1 later, people still say he is overrated).

r2473
05-01-2008, 01:57 PM
To sum up, there is not much difference between being ranked No. 1 or No. 100 except what you bring to the court mentally. Gasquet does not bring the consistent mental approach to every match.


Can you tie your own shoes?

Fries-N-Gravy
05-01-2008, 05:45 PM
gasquet needs some lessons on his forehand, maybe then he can win a slam. he's certainly got the backhand. his serve is good enough.

coloskier
05-02-2008, 07:38 AM
His best chance to win a grand slam depends on what type of pair he grows :). Gasquet could win a female grand slam title ;)

Maybe Gasquet and Djokovic should play doubles together, and you could call them 'Blades of Glory".

kungfusmkim
05-02-2008, 08:01 AM
i say he needs a better serve and forehand. His backahnd is a beauty but his first serve and his foreahnd lack pace and placement. I noticed when he was palying tsonga in AO this year.

tacou
05-13-2008, 02:20 PM
what will happen when Gasquet goes out in the 2nd or 3rd round of wimbledon and drops nearly out of the top 20? will that be the wake up call he needs or will it completely kill what little spirit he has left?

grafrules
05-13-2008, 02:25 PM
gasquet needs some lessons on his forehand, maybe then he can win a slam. he's certainly got the backhand. his serve is good enough.

His serve nor his forehand is good enough to win a slam in todays game. What makes you think his serve is good enough. Every player that has won a grand slam in recent memory has a better serve then him, other then maybe Nadal but Nadal is a different beast, and all his slams have been on clay so far.

Cup8489
05-13-2008, 02:27 PM
His serve nor his forehand is good enough to win a slam in todays game. What makes you think his serve is good enough. Every player that has won a grand slam in recent memory has a better serve then him, other then maybe Nadal but Nadal is a different beast, and all his slams have been on clay so far.

and almost grass. but gasquet will never grind like nadal, nor have the groundstrokes. (possibly backhand, but never the consistency)

stormholloway
05-13-2008, 02:28 PM
Gasquet's problems are mental. It's just like with Federer: as soon as he starts losing, people start criticizing his technique or his racquet or his one handed backhand etc. That's all nonsense. Once you're at the top echelon in tennis, 90% of your struggle is mental.

AlpineCadet
05-13-2008, 02:30 PM
Gasquet's problems are mental. It's just like with Federer: as soon as he starts losing, people start criticizing his technique or his racquet or his one handed backhand etc. That's all nonsense. Once you're at the top echelon in tennis, 90% of your struggle is mental.
Great post, though you do realize that you've just killed this thread by saying all that, right? :)

Cup8489
05-13-2008, 02:32 PM
i'm not criticizing his backhand, i'm saying nadal's is one of the most consistent, period. gasquet's serve could be better, but you're right, it's his mental game that keeps him from winning.

BeHappy
05-13-2008, 02:55 PM
the way he's playing now, I'm gonna say rent boy.

stormholloway
05-13-2008, 03:04 PM
Great post, though you do realize that you've just killed this thread by saying all that, right? :)

Can't say it was an accident, but something tells me this thread, and others like, it, will continue in the future.

BeHappy
05-13-2008, 03:07 PM
Can't say it was an accident, but something tells me this thread, and others like, it, will continue in the future.


Gasquet needs to stop rolling the ball into the court like Patty Shnyder.He has the ability to CONSISTENTLY hit the crap out of the ball, he doesn't need to play like this, it doesn't make SENSE.

Every once in awhile he pops his head above the parapet and absolutely blitzes someone in an avalanche of winners, most of the time he just plays like Roddick from the back of the court though.

stormholloway
05-13-2008, 03:10 PM
Right, and Federer used to hit winners off of his back foot while reading the New York Times. It's not that he can't anymore. It's just that he isn't confident.

BeHappy
05-13-2008, 03:11 PM
Right, and Federer used to hit winners off of his back foot while reading the New York Times. It's not that he can't anymore. It's just that he isn't confident.

I don't think so, I think he's being convinced by people around him that he needs to just roll the ball in and be consistant.It really is incredible just how slowly he's been hitting the ball lately, and just how far back he's been standing.

Moose Malloy
05-14-2008, 08:51 AM
HAMBURG, GERMANY (TICKER) —Richard Gasquet may withdraw from the upcoming French Open after claiming he is “not fit to play tennis.”

The 21-year-old, who is ninth in the world rankings and the French No. 1, has endured a wretched 2008 as he has not progressed past the round of 16 in any event this year.

Gasquet followed up his first round exit at the hands of Luis Horna in Rome last week by losing, 6-3, 6-2, to Andreas Seppi in his opening match at this week’s Masters Series tournament in Hamburg.

Gasquet said he is now contemplating missing his home country’s Grand Slam event.

“I am completely burned out,” he said. “I haven’t fully recovered from the efforts I made last year. And I am paying for it at the moment. I am not fit to play tennis - running, moving, everything is becoming difficult.

“I am going to cut myself off for the week. Forgetting about my racquet can’t do me any harm. For Roland Garros, we will see. Don’t expect a big tournament from me if I take part in it.”

The French Open begins May 25 and Gasquet fears it could be embarrassing for him if he does take part in the tournament, given his current form.

“It is nearly two years since I have had a break. I miss that,” Gasquet said. “Imagine what I would do at Roland Garros, it would not be nice for anyone.”

Gasquet won a career-high 49 matches in 2007, claiming a fifth career ATP title and reaching two other finals.

He also reached the semifinals at Wimbledon, the first time he had gone that deep into in a major.



http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=txgasquetfrenchopen&prov=st&type=lgns

danb
05-14-2008, 09:18 AM
Who knows, certainly can't ignore his talent, if he grow a pair and a heart he could be quite scary

IF he grow a pair and a heart ???? That's not even much to ask for - a pair and a heart...

fastdunn
05-14-2008, 10:05 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=txgasquetfrenchopen&prov=st&type=lgns

This is almost unbelievable.

I believe this is probably more of mental issue than physical. All child prodigy goes thru it. Agassi went thru some early in his career. Expectations from everyone is a great pressure to deal with. Lots of child prodigy never makes it. Mischelle Wie probably going thru similar thing. If everybody starts writing off Gasquet as a joke, he might be able to be free from this pressure...

Fee
05-14-2008, 10:36 AM
Yahoo did some interesting editing on that interview. When asked the follow-up question about RG, Gasquet said the possibility was 'teeny tiny' according to the translation that I saw (done by a fan, not a reporter). He's just burned out and he needs time off, so he is not playing next week. He's putting the racquest down and he'll come back when he feels like it. That is serious burn out and I hope he gets over it. He plays awesome tennis when he feels like it.

fastdunn
05-14-2008, 10:50 AM
Lots of people are expecting this year would be a break-thru year for Gasquet. Lots of media talked about that possiblity. That probably is getting to his mind....

anointedone
05-14-2008, 11:13 AM
His future is the 27th ranked player in the world.

Enlightened Coelacanth
05-14-2008, 12:27 PM
At this rate his future is on a public court somewhere in Paris, absent mindedly feeding balls out of a hopper to some kid that couldn't find the court with a GPS device, mumbling "bon...bon" while staring somewhere off in the distance.

Eastern Technifibre
05-14-2008, 12:35 PM
He lacks footwork and mental toughness. he will never win a grand slam and he is at his highest ranking as of now

ipwnfed
05-14-2008, 04:29 PM
i think his time is just coming, it is just a matter of when, i dont think he wants it enough, he needs something to make him hungry. He needs to get a mindset of hating to lose just as sampras did back in the day. He has the game, one of the best shot makers i have ever seen, his endurance can be improved, and his mental toughness needs to get there. with age hopefully he grows in confidence. if he has confidence in his game, it will be scary.

orangettecoleman
05-14-2008, 04:44 PM
He's already burned out and ready for retirement. He won't be on the tour when he's 25.

AlpineCadet
05-14-2008, 09:41 PM
ipwnfed:

rofl, that's a great user id.