PDA

View Full Version : Will Gasquet ever win a slam?


ESP#1
01-12-2009, 05:24 PM
Will Gasquet ever win a slam?

Explain why or why not

oneleggedcardinal
01-12-2009, 05:26 PM
I hope he does...

norbac
01-12-2009, 05:28 PM
Hopefully he does, he needs to believe he can win first though.

NickC
01-12-2009, 05:30 PM
Nope. He's in the category with Nalbandian, Brydch, etc... as players with the game to win a slam, but not the head. Gasquet is one of the biggest headcases on tour. He might win something big, but not a slam. Not a chance in hell.

Mansewerz
01-12-2009, 05:35 PM
He might pull out a Thomas Johansson type thing.

tacou
01-12-2009, 05:37 PM
well he's made it to a semi and he's still quite young, and he clearly has the talent, so I don't think it's impossible.

but he hasn't proven he can do it, not even close. this year will be big for Gasquet.

if he did, it would have to be W or USO.

Raiha
01-12-2009, 05:40 PM
i don't have a lot of faith in gasquet after last year, he absolutely tanked while he should be in the prime of his career. i agree that he doesn't have the head to win a slam. on a related note, does anyone else hate the way he wears his hat?

rubberduckies
01-12-2009, 05:51 PM
Why does everyone insist that Gasquet is much more talented than his results indicate? He has an inferior forehand, mediocre serve, and mediocre movement. Nalbandian has reached a slam final and the semis of every major. Nalbandian was robbed of a slam victory in the 2003 USO. Nalbandian had that spectacular TMC final with Federer in 2005. Nalbandian destroyed Fed and Nadal at the end of 2007. Nalbandian has the achievements to backup claims of his talent. Gasquet has done nothing of the sort since joining the tour. Having a flashy backhand and not much else doesn't make you talented.

matchmaker
01-12-2009, 05:54 PM
No, IMO he has neither the technique (though he has a great BH, the rest of his game isn't spectacular) neither the mentality for winning a GS.

tin
01-12-2009, 06:04 PM
i love gasquet so i hope he does win a slam....<3

tacou
01-12-2009, 06:08 PM
Having a flashy backhand and not much else doesn't make you talented.


oh but it doesss. his backhand, when he's playing well, is the best on tour when it comes to impossible angles-- that means he has talent. he also has beautiful touch.

his forehand is suspect, but when he's playing well he keeps it deep enough to work the point to a place where he can put the ball away easily or rips a BH winner out of nowhere.

I agree that he doesn't have the results of Nalby, but no one said he does.

It's hard to defend Gasquet's always elusive talent after his 08 season, but if you don't think he's an extremely talented player (albeit wasted talent) then I guess we just differ on what talent in tennis is.

veroniquem
01-12-2009, 06:09 PM
oh but it doesss. his backhand, when he's playing well, is the best on tour when it comes to impossible angles-- that means he has talent. he also has beautiful touch.

his forehand is suspect, but when he's playing well he keeps it deep enough to work the point to a place where he can put the ball away easily or rips a BH winner out of nowhere.

I agree that he doesn't have the results of Nalby, but no one said he does.

It's hard to defend Gasquet's always elusive talent after his 08 season, but if you don't think he's an extremely talented player (albeit wasted talent) then I guess we just differ on what talent in tennis is.
I don't think so. He has neither the stamina nor the mentality. (sorry, that wasn't an answer to tacou's post but to the OP's question)

lambielspins
01-12-2009, 06:14 PM
He will be lucky to ever make the semis of a slam again. He is being left in the dust by Tsonga, Monfils, and Simon who will IMO all have better careers than him. No he doesnt really have the game. His game is only a great backhand, and not much else. That is before even getting into his sucky mental game, his suspect physical strength and conditioning, and his general lack of strategic awareness.

It took by the match of his life to barely beat a choking/slightly off form Roddick one time in a slam quarterfinal on his best surface, which he was still very near losing in straight sets. That is pretty much the ceiling of his potential.

tacou
01-12-2009, 06:15 PM
welll even if you didn't mean to I agree, his stamina has always been questionable

and I don't know what would happen if he made a final, I could see him crumbling. I'd expect it, actually.

GameSampras
01-12-2009, 06:15 PM
Nope.. No way

lambielspins
01-12-2009, 06:17 PM
welll even if you didn't mean to I agree, his stamina has always been questionable

and I don't know what would happen if he made a final, I could see him crumbling. I'd expect it, actually.

If by some miracle he ever makes a slam final (and it would be a miracle) he will likely have had a great draw to get there and then get overpowered by whoever he plays in the final which will almost certainly be a much stronger player with a much bigger game than he has. He wont have the chance to crumble since he would likely be brutally overpowered and outplayed by someone expected to do so to him.

ESP#1
01-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Why does everyone insist that Gasquet is much more talented than his results indicate? He has an inferior forehand, mediocre serve, and mediocre movement. Nalbandian has reached a slam final and the semis of every major. Nalbandian was robbed of a slam victory in the 2003 USO. Nalbandian had that spectacular TMC final with Federer in 2005. Nalbandian destroyed Fed and Nadal at the end of 2007. Nalbandian has the achievements to backup claims of his talent. Gasquet has done nothing of the sort since joining the tour. Having a flashy backhand and not much else doesn't make you talented.

I mean if you want to start a poll about Nalbandian no one will stop you, i am huge Nalbandian fan and i agree he is one of the most talented guys on tour,but i didnt ask about nalbandian, i do however disagree when you say gasquet has mediocre movement, not only is he fast but his footwork is great, his serve is heavily underestimated also, he also has great touch at net, the forehand can be a liability i agree but it can improve, i would agree that his biggest issue would have to be his head, the question is can he get his head together for enough time to win him a slam

tacou
01-12-2009, 06:30 PM
If by some miracle he ever makes a slam final (and it would be a miracle) he will likely have had a great draw to get there and then get overpowered by whoever he plays in the final which will almost certainly be a much stronger player with a much bigger game than he has. He wont have the chance to crumble since he would likely be brutally overpowered and outplayed by someone expected to do so to him.

I love people like you who can tell the future.

Gasquet has tons of talent and all of his many faults have been listed, but he's so young still and could turn these parts of his game around.

though I personally think it's unlikely (though I am a fan) I know Gasquet has the game to win a slam.

lambielspins
01-12-2009, 06:47 PM
I love people like you who can tell the future.

Gasquet has tons of talent and all of his many faults have been listed, but he's so young still and could turn these parts of his game around.

though I personally think it's unlikely (though I am a fan) I know Gasquet has the game to win a slam.

I have been calling the future on Gasquet for 3 years now and have been dead on on pretty much everything. His making 1 slam semi isnt being wrong as I said back then he might make a semifinal or two in his career with a good draw and a spurt of form. He might be young in a sense but no longer so young in a sense. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, range in ages from a week older to 3 years younger than him so he isnt this young guy with all the time on his hands. His peers or even younger players have already left him in the dust and are still improving too even if he finally starts to improve again, with a horde of similiarly young players to Del Potro coming up from behind too. I certainly dont profess to know the future on everything, only the very obvious things such as Gasquet's limited (relatively to the hype by some) potential.

Gasquet does not have the "game" to do it. What does he have to win a slam except a great backhand. That isnt enough on its own. His forehand isnt even a top 50 forehand probably and that is the most important shot in the mens game. His serve and return of serve are not top 30 and those are the next most important shots in the current mens game. It is amazing he has been able to squeeze as much out of mostly just a great backhand as he has, even with a weak mental game and suspect physicality to boot.

Leublu tennis
01-12-2009, 06:52 PM
No, no, no, and no. Why? Because he does not have the mental fortitude.

lambielspins
01-12-2009, 06:54 PM
No, no, no, and no. Why? Because he does not have the mental fortitude.

nor the forehand, nor the serve, nor the fitness.

Beasty54
01-12-2009, 06:57 PM
What is his forehand grip? it almost looks contental(sp?). However I think its totally his mind that lets him down.

musicalmedic81
01-12-2009, 06:59 PM
I dont think so, I could be wrong, but the guy should be hitting full stride by this point in his career and so far has not shown the match toughness to win a slam.

ESP#1
01-12-2009, 07:04 PM
How can he not have the game? He wouldve beat andy murray at wimbledon had he not choked when serving for the match, when he lost in the semi to federer he had played a 5 setter against a rod the night before and he still gave fed all he could handle in that first set before fading out, he just beat tsonga a few days ago, he barely ever loses in straight sets, he finds a way to play a brilliant set or two then his level goes down, how can you explain this high level if it is not "game" or talent

I understand the argument of him not having the mental fortitude but to say he lacks talent is absurd

navratilovafan
01-12-2009, 07:17 PM
How can he not have the game? He wouldve beat andy murray at wimbledon had he not choked when serving for the match, when he lost in the semi to federer he had played a 5 setter against a rod the night before and he still gave fed all he could handle in that first set before fading out, he just beat tsonga a few days ago, he barely ever loses in straight sets, he finds a way to play a brilliant set or two then his level goes down, how can you explain this high level if it is not "game" or talent

I understand the argument of him not having the mental fortitude but to say he lacks talent is absurd

Murray up to now is not considered a formidable grass court player at all, and that Wimbledon meeting was before Murray took his game up another two levels from where it had been up to and including Wimbledon. Remember Nadal made Murray look like a junior player in the following round. I wouldnt say nearly beating Murray at Wimbledon at that point is anything to crow about.

In his loss to Federer in the Wimbledon semis he was outclassed like he has been outclassed everytime he played Federer since his lone win first time they ever played on clay. Since then if Roger plays decent he always wins in straight, if Gasquet is playing lights out and Roger is really off than Richard occasionaly sneaks out a set.

Tsonga is the most erratic player in the top 10 by a long ways. Do you want me to make a list of the players who have beaten him even worse than Gasquet. Extreme highs and extreme lows, can lose to anyone in the top 150 on many given days, and also beat anyone in the top 5 on a given day.

Nothing you say is proof of Gasquet having the extraodinary talent needed to win a slam. They just show he is a pretty good player who can have good moments. There are atleast 50 guys capable of the things you listed over a 3 year span, so as a usually top 20 player he should be able to as well in a 3 year span.

ESP#1
01-12-2009, 07:32 PM
Murray up to now is not considered a formidable grass court player at all, and that Wimbledon meeting was before Murray took his game up another two levels from where it had been up to and including Wimbledon. Remember Nadal made Murray look like a junior player in the following round. I wouldnt say nearly beating Murray at Wimbledon at that point is anything to crow about.

In his loss to Federer in the Wimbledon semis he was outclassed like he has been outclassed everytime he played Federer since his lone win first time they ever played on clay. Since then if Roger plays decent he always wins in straight, if Gasquet is playing lights out and Roger is really off than Richard occasionaly sneaks out a set.

Tsonga is the most erratic player in the top 10 by a long ways. Do you want me to make a list of the players who have beaten him even worse than Gasquet. Extreme highs and extreme lows, can lose to anyone in the top 150 on many given days, and also beat anyone in the top 5 on a given day.

Nothing you say is proof of Gasquet having the extraodinary talent needed to win a slam. They just show he is a pretty good player who can have good moments. There are atleast 50 guys capable of the things you listed over a 3 year span, so as a usually top 20 player he should be able to as well in a 3 year span.

I disagree, its the way he loses matches, he doesnt "sneak out" a set, he plays at a high level and then seems to drop off, then his whole body language seems negative. I also wouldnt say hes been outclassed in every match theyve played(federer), off the top of my head i remember halle and toronto were very close matches,

beckham
01-12-2009, 07:36 PM
no, guys these days are overpowering him and are bringing there best tennis. Fed is fighting, but there is a slew of younger guys coming that will be competators. I think his time to shine is gone.-sorry

JeMar
01-12-2009, 07:42 PM
http://www.codeodor.com/images/magic_8ball_outlook_not_so_good.jpg

ESP#1
01-12-2009, 07:45 PM
no, guys these days are overpowering him and are bringing there best tennis. Fed is fighting, but there is a slew of younger guys coming that will be competators. I think his time to shine is gone.-sorry

Good point, he is gonna have to show alot of heart to have a chance to hang with this new blood, something he might not have

World Beater
01-12-2009, 07:57 PM
gasquet's talent is kind of overrated imo.

he has a nice bh for slower surfaces but on faster surfaces, his longwind up makes him retreat 20ft behind the baseline and forces him to moonball.
gasquet has a nice bh but its not a lethal match winning shot like federer's fh or nadal's fh...nalbandian's bh roddick's serve etc

klementine79
01-12-2009, 08:49 PM
No. And neither will his hitting/training partner tsonga, as long as they're spending their off-time in romanian strip clubs... NO.

http://deadspin.com/357443/romanian-strip-clubs-disturbingly-full-of-male-french-tennis-players

Vlad
01-12-2009, 10:08 PM
No. And neither will his hitting/training partner tsonga, as long as they're spending their off-time in romanian strip clubs... NO.

http://deadspin.com/357443/romanian-strip-clubs-disturbingly-full-of-male-french-tennis-players



Dude, wth, that was almost a year ago.

Vlad
01-12-2009, 10:11 PM
gasquet's talent is kind of overrated imo.

he has a nice bh for slower surfaces but on faster surfaces, his longwind up makes him retreat 20ft behind the baseline and forces him to moonball.
gasquet has a nice bh but its not a lethal match winning shot like federer's fh or nadal's fh...nalbandian's bh roddick's serve etc


Funny you say that because his backhand clearly works best on grass. No other player in the world hits as many bh winners on grass as he does.

grafrules
01-12-2009, 10:19 PM
Funny you say that because his backhand clearly works best on grass. No other player in the world hits as many bh winners on grass as he does.

Do you have overall stats to prove this? Yeah he hit a ton of backhand winners vs Roddick who EVERYONE hits a ton of baseline winners against, even very low ranked players in lopsided losses do this vs Roddick most times. In his first round loss to Federer at Wimbledon a few years ago he had 5 winners the whole match, so obviously not much on anything, including the backhand.

Vlad
01-12-2009, 10:23 PM
Do you have overall stats to prove this? Yeah he hit a ton of backhand winners vs Roddick who EVERYONE hits a ton of baseline winners against, even very low ranked players in lopsided losses do this vs Roddick most times. In his first round loss to Federer at Wimbledon a few years ago he had 5 winners the whole match, so obviously not much on anything, including the backhand.



dude, he had 4 aces alone. 5 winners overall? What are you smoking sir?

I have seen everyone of his matches from both 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon's and on average he hits most backhand winners of any player including Federer, Murray, etc.

ESP#1
01-12-2009, 10:28 PM
Do you have overall stats to prove this? Yeah he hit a ton of backhand winners vs Roddick who EVERYONE hits a ton of baseline winners against, even very low ranked players in lopsided losses do this vs Roddick most times. In his first round loss to Federer at Wimbledon a few years ago he had 5 winners the whole match, so obviously not much on anything, including the backhand.

He also hit alot of winners against andy murray last year, and against federer in halle and toronto in 06 (same year of that wimbe you refered to) and he also hit alot of winners indoors which is also a fast surface, point being the man has a backhand on any surface, is his backhand better than feds forehand? no way but you cant deny the man has a great backhand

grafrules
01-12-2009, 10:48 PM
In the Canadian Open final with Federer, Roger had almost double the unforced errors of Gasquet and still won pretty easily despite it being 3 sets so it is obvious who was dictating player and had by far more winners. Anyway I am not going to keep arguing since I know Gasquet fans will never be convinced. Go ahead and continue your delusions while Gasquet continues to remain outside the top 10, slamless, and dropping down the pecking order even among French players.

yellowoctopus
01-12-2009, 10:53 PM
Gasquet does not have the "game" to do it. What does he have to win a slam except a great backhand. That isnt enough on its own. His forehand isnt even a top 50 forehand probably and that is the most important shot in the mens game. His serve and return of serve are not top 30 and those are the next most important shots in the current mens game. It is amazing he has been able to squeeze as much out of mostly just a great backhand as he has, even with a weak mental game and suspect physicality to boot.

Agree. Gasquet have much to improve to even have a chance at a slam, how unfortunate :-|

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 10:57 PM
I say no. Stands to far back and doesn't have the grinder mentality. He's like a shot-maker that got confused about where to stand on the court. Tremendous all-court game, he just doesn't utilize it. If he continues to play the way he does, I say he has a 1 in 20 chance of winning a slam. If he learns to step in and take the ball earlier, 1 in 5.

jazar
01-12-2009, 11:01 PM
he has already won a slam: the french open mixed doubles. what more could he possibly want

Vlad
01-12-2009, 11:06 PM
I have been calling the future on Gasquet for 3 years now and have been dead on on pretty much everything. His making 1 slam semi isnt being wrong as I said back then he might make a semifinal or two in his career with a good draw and a spurt of form. He might be young in a sense but no longer so young in a sense. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, range in ages from a week older to 3 years younger than him so he isnt this young guy with all the time on his hands. His peers or even younger players have already left him in the dust and are still improving too even if he finally starts to improve again, with a horde of similiarly young players to Del Potro coming up from behind too. I certainly dont profess to know the future on everything, only the very obvious things such as Gasquet's limited (relatively to the hype by some) potential.

Gasquet does not have the "game" to do it. What does he have to win a slam except a great backhand. That isnt enough on its own. His forehand isnt even a top 50 forehand probably and that is the most important shot in the mens game. His serve and return of serve are not top 30 and those are the next most important shots in the current mens game. It is amazing he has been able to squeeze as much out of mostly just a great backhand as he has, even with a weak mental game and suspect physicality to boot.


You clearly are just pulling some of these numbers out of you arse. His serve is not top 30? Then why the heck he was in top 10 in most categories on serve the last two years? Do you even check match facts on atp website? Last year he averaged something like 9 or 10 aces per match and that was far more than players like Djokovic, Murray, etc. His first serve win percentage was higher last year than Murray had (even though Murray had far far better year overall)

Most of his return of serve stats were top 10 in 2007 and top 20 in 2008.


Seriously, you should really check facts before making stupid and biased opinion of yours public. It is one thing to say you don't think he will ever win a slam and it is another to make things up and post here.

ESP#1
01-12-2009, 11:11 PM
In the Canadian Open final with Federer, Roger had almost double the unforced errors of Gasquet and still won pretty easily despite it being 3 sets so it is obvious who was dictating player and had by far more winners. Anyway I am not going to keep arguing since I know Gasquet fans will never be convinced. Go ahead and continue your delusions while Gasquet continues to remain outside the top 10, slamless, and dropping down the pecking order even among French players.

Have you seen that match? Many of those unforced errors by fed had alot to do with fed not being able to handle gasquet spin off both wings and that was mainly in the first set, second set fed changed his game plan and started attcking the net putting pressure on gasquet.

The momentum changed when gasquet blew 3 break points the first game of the second set and lost his head and stop doing what was working so the man has the talent, i also dont think fed had more winners than gasquet, one more thing how do you win pretty easily when you lose the first set 6-2 and in the second and third set your forced to save numerous break points? doesnt really seem like any easy match ive ever had

ESP#1
01-12-2009, 11:14 PM
You clearly are just pulling some of these numbers out of you arse. His serve is not top 30? Then why the heck he was in top 10 in most categories on serve the last two years? Do you even check match facts on atp website? Last year he averaged something like 9 or 10 aces per match and that was far more than players like Djokovic, Murray, etc. His first serve win percentage was higher last year than Murray had (even though Murray had far far better year overall)

Most of his return of serve stats were top 10 in 2007 and top 20 in 2008.


Seriously, you should really check facts before making stupid and biased opinion of yours public. It is one thing to say you don't think he will ever win a slam and it is another to make things up and post here.

pay that dude no mind, he is the same guy who said that donald young was going to be number 1 in the world this year,:oops:

enough said

thalivest
01-12-2009, 11:45 PM
Gasquet is a huge bust. He will never come close to winning a slam. Funny to read a few of the Gasquet fanatics come to his defense. Makes for good entertainment value.

mrDamien
01-13-2009, 12:00 AM
Surprisingly NO. Mentality and physically weak than his strong opponent.

Tempest344
01-13-2009, 12:40 AM
His best chance would be WImbledon
although watching him at the medibank international today he looks as if he's beefed up his serve a bit...lot of aces and higher speeds

MarrratSafin
01-13-2009, 01:34 AM
He is talented, but I don't think he'll ever win a slam.

martini1
01-13-2009, 06:16 AM
He's got a shot if he stays in the top 20. I'll give him that. Any player in the top 20 would have a shot in a slam. AO for example, is one slam that a lot of things could happen.

oranges
01-13-2009, 10:24 AM
No, no, no, and no. Why? Because he does not have the mental fortitude.
Yes, yes and yes, Why? Because he certainly has the weapons needed and he wants it.

norbac
01-13-2009, 10:37 AM
he has already won a slam: the french open mixed doubles. what more could he possibly want

Yup, a lot of people forget his 2004(2005?) victory in mixed doubles.

oneleggedcardinal
01-13-2009, 10:38 AM
Gasquet is a huge bust. He will never come close to winning a slam. Funny to read a few of the Gasquet fanatics come to his defense. Makes for good entertainment value.

Gross. GTFO.

Motherwasp
01-13-2009, 10:43 AM
***********************************Thread Title Change*****************************************


...Will Gasquet ever win a Masters Shield?









(p.s it's a joke, i like Gasquet and i realise he did get to a couple of master series finals)

oranges
01-13-2009, 11:06 AM
Gasquet is a huge bust. He will never come close to winning a slam. Funny to read a few of the Gasquet fanatics come to his defense. Makes for good entertainment value.

A wild guess here, if we were to have a poll whether Safin would ever win another slam in say 2003, you'd be making statements like this. You'd backtrack quickly come 2004 and forgot you ever said anything by 2005 and hoped no one bumped those those threads from a couple of years ago. While people obviously differ in their opinions whether he would step it up enough in the years to come for something like that, it's not particularly smart or entertaining for that matter to make "as sure as as the fact the Sun will rise in the morning" predictions based on your perception of the current moment.
ps LOL at Gasquet fanatics, obsessive players tend to attract obsessive fans much more, apparently not only in their support for their idol, but also in offering indisputable eternal wisdom all around

Breaker
01-13-2009, 11:53 AM
You clearly are just pulling some of these numbers out of you arse. His serve is not top 30? Then why the heck he was in top 10 in most categories on serve the last two years? Do you even check match facts on atp website? Last year he averaged something like 9 or 10 aces per match and that was far more than players like Djokovic, Murray, etc. His first serve win percentage was higher last year than Murray had (even though Murray had far far better year overall)

Most of his return of serve stats were top 10 in 2007 and top 20 in 2008.


Seriously, you should really check facts before making stupid and biased opinion of yours public. It is one thing to say you don't think he will ever win a slam and it is another to make things up and post here.

Don't worry, that guy was saying the same crap about Monfils a few weeks ago and now that he has a win over Nadal he says that Gasquet is being left in the dust. Hilarious.

I think Gasquet can win a slam as all that talent eventually leads to good things, still has some time to make his move.

nn
01-13-2009, 12:13 PM
Big No For Sure

(FEDERER)vs(NADAL)
01-13-2009, 12:36 PM
just doesn't have the consistancy

thalivest
01-13-2009, 01:40 PM
A wild guess here, if we were to have a poll whether Safin would ever win another slam in say 2003, you'd be making statements like this. You'd backtrack quickly come 2004 and forgot you ever said anything by 2005 and hoped no one bumped those those threads from a couple of years ago. While people obviously differ in their opinions whether he would step it up enough in the years to come for something like that, it's not particularly smart or entertaining for that matter to make "as sure as as the fact the Sun will rise in the morning" predictions based on your perception of the current moment.
ps LOL at Gasquet fanatics, obsessive players tend to attract obsessive fans much more, apparently not only in their support for their idol, but also in offering indisputable eternal wisdom all around

Blah blah, more of the useless crap you have contributed to these forums since you joined.
Safin was already a champion by 2003. He had won a grand slam and reached two other slam finals. He had won multiple Masters titles. He had beaten all the best in the game multiple times over on their best surfaces. There is no comparision between him and Gasquet. No contrary to your blind accusations I would not have said Safin was finished for sure winning slams as early as 2003. He had a year of injuries and it was impossible to judge him based on that. He was young enough, had already shown enough talent, to ever discount. None of this has ever been true of Gasquet. The end.

ESP#1
01-13-2009, 01:59 PM
Alot of good arguments from both sides, some bias ones as well:) I myself am a really big Gasquet fan i think he plays with alot of style. the poll numbers could reflect his chances of winning a slam:)

keep it up

oranges
01-13-2009, 02:55 PM
Blah blah, more of the useless crap you have contributed to these forums since you joined.
Safin was already a champion by 2003. He had won a grand slam and reached two other slam finals. He had won multiple Masters titles. He had beaten all the best in the game multiple times over on their best surfaces. There is no comparision between him and Gasquet. No contrary to your blind accusations I would not have said Safin was finished for sure winning slams as early as 2003. He had a year of injuries and it was impossible to judge him based on that. He was young enough, had already shown enough talent, to ever discount. None of this has ever been true of Gasquet. The end.

Hahaha, the only thing you contribute are useless posts like that one. It's irrelevant whether he was already a champion or not, would you or would you not have denied any possibility of him winning a GS after he dropped down to 70 or so in the rankings and would you not have used the 2002 final as undeniable proof that he doesn't have what it takes and the first one was a fluke that would not be repeated? You can of course lie, but we both know the answer to that. How did Simon stand in your eyes six months ago and how are his chances now? Any more examples needed to prove a point?
You're not the only pundit around who has all the answers and Gasquet is hardly the only one the omniscience is applied to. What can I say, the pundits irritate me whether it's one of the players I like or not. You might not be able to see the difference, but there is a huge one between merely stating one's opinion and shoving that opinion down everyone's throat as a wisdom of the one that knows best. As an illustrative example, I don't think Nadal will ever win a HC slam, there are simply too many guys who are way better on hard and one of those he encounters is bound to play well enough to kick him out vs You guys who think he has any chance of winning one should join some comedy club, what a joke. Needless to say, those not desperate to appear as the source of all wisdom on Earth, will not resort to the second and might even add something like, but you never know, perhaps he'll develop more of a HC game, with some real weapons on hard to replace the topspins that often fall short and don't have the bite they have on clay or even grass, but that's just me, sorry I commented on your self-gratifying monologue.

Katlion
01-13-2009, 03:07 PM
I'm sorry to all those Gasquet fans out there, but somehow I highly doubt it. My reason for thinking like this is because there are too many good players out there, and Gasquet just can't keep up with them, mentally.

World Beater
01-13-2009, 04:28 PM
I say no. Stands to far back and doesn't have the grinder mentality. He's like a shot-maker that got confused about where to stand on the court. Tremendous all-court game, he just doesn't utilize it. If he continues to play the way he does, I say he has a 1 in 20 chance of winning a slam. If he learns to step in and take the ball earlier, 1 in 5.

somebody gets it.

also many of the bh winners he hit past roddick were passing shots where he was behind the baseline. He is not a player that can take the bh early...that doesn't mean he cannot hit winner but to be successful on fast surfaces, you have to be able to take the ball early consistently...these days.

see the way federer takes the ball early on the fh.

Tennis360
01-13-2009, 05:09 PM
I'm proud to be a supporter of this talented guy for quite sometime now so Yes - for me, he can at least win one Wimbledon or even USO in his career. he's still young at 22, and I don't understand when most people write him off so easily. while it is a common knowledge at the moment he has no mental fortitude of a Federer or a Nadal, still, he is young! and he's beginning to regain confidence and i see he's physically stronger now, and with it comes mental strength (I believe) - just look at how he stepped up against Tsonga last week, and overcoming one of his old nemesis in Tursunov.....I'm still optimistic for better results in 2009, and Yes - he can GS one day....

paulorenzo
01-13-2009, 05:27 PM
Gross. GTFO.

haha, your choice of words impresses me every time.

fastdunn
01-13-2009, 05:34 PM
his shotmaking ability seems to be multi-slam worthy but his will to win and fitness level are questionable.

he is so typical french player. they don't want to just win. they still want to win but it has to be exactly the way they have in theor mind, if you know what i mean...

paulorenzo
01-13-2009, 05:41 PM
as fond as i am of gasquet's style of play, i don't really see it happening.

unless of course he:

flatten's out his forehand more often.
works on his fitness.
finds mental fortitude.
builds consistent, non-streaky type play.

that's arguably all he needs to do.

crazylevity
01-13-2009, 08:31 PM
^^^ Just 3 and 4 is already a heck of a lot to do. And very difficult to do.

NickC
01-13-2009, 09:29 PM
pay that dude no mind, he is the same guy who said that donald young was going to be number 1 in the world this year,:oops:

enough said

Low blow, my friend. Brilliant, but very low.

Dilettante
01-14-2009, 12:03 AM
I remember that few years ago the main trend in these boards consisted in talking about Gasquet as the imminent new Federer.

6rump
01-14-2009, 04:46 AM
Gasquet always do well on grass court season expecially Wimbledon hopefully he can win this title because you don't have to have power to win the Wimbledon but you have to play "smart" here, like gasquet did in last two years..... Another thing people always talk about his forehand as a weaker shots, thats not a really big problem! now he serve well, always has a good tactic on court, and i think his forehand is better that federer backhand....hahaha

Turning Pro
01-14-2009, 04:48 AM
I think so. Even just one sometime in his career is probable.

oneleggedcardinal
01-14-2009, 11:38 AM
haha, your choice of words impresses me every time.

Is this good or bad? :twisted:


As to the general topic:

Gasquet is one of my favorite players, and, as I posted before, I hope he can win a slam...that's very different from me saying that he can. I agree with oranges in that Gasquet has the weapons to achieve something more...and I don't see why some posters can categorically say that some one as young and talented as he is will never win a slam or that he has no chance. That's ridiculous. 'Unlikely' is an okay word to use IMO. But, as I'm not in the business of predicting the future (at least not on weekdays), this is as much as I can say on this subject.

aceroberts13
01-14-2009, 03:36 PM
He definitley has the talent to win 2-3 slams, but talent means squat when you dont have the mental sturdiness or commitment and work ethic to get better. I hope he pulls one out one day. But his days are numbered (young or not) and the younger talent never stops coming.

TheMusicLover
01-14-2009, 03:45 PM
I remember that few years ago the main trend in these boards consisted in talking about Gasquet as the imminent new Federer.

The 'funny' thing about this comparison is that both Gasquet and Federer were heralded as insanely talented players, but as true head-cases as well, in their youths.

Fed was said to be a "complete GS-failure" before he finally managed to capture his first in 2003, at the age of 22 - which identified him as a relative late bloomer.

The same thing could still happen to Gasquet, if he, just like Fed managed to do, finally finds controll on his choking habits. I still think it's too early to write the guy off like many seem to do.

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 03:52 PM
Low blow, my friend. Brilliant, but very low.

Man I had to do it, dude was bragging about having some great insight, I know you wouldve done the same:)

tennis-hero
01-14-2009, 04:27 PM
Yes

he will win the grand slam without dropping a set at any of the 4 majors :roll:

thalivest
01-14-2009, 04:38 PM
The 'funny' thing about this comparison is that both Gasquet and Federer were heralded as insanely talented players, but as true head-cases as well, in their youths.

Fed was said to be a "complete GS-failure" before he finally managed to capture his first in 2003, at the age of 22 - which identified him as a relative late bloomer.

The same thing could still happen to Gasquet, if he, just like Fed managed to do, finally finds controll on his choking habits. I still think it's too early to write the guy off like many seem to do.

Federer's first slam was at the age of 21. His first Masters title, something Gasquet is yet to achieve, was at the age of 20. At the age of 21 he was already ranked #3 in the World. The year Federer turned 22 in the summer he ended #2 in the World as opposed to Gasquet ending that same year at #24 in the world. No comparision.

TheMusicLover
01-14-2009, 04:41 PM
Federer's first slam was at the age of 21. His first Masters title, something Gasquet is yet to achieve, was at the age of 20. At the age of 21 he was already ranked #3 in the World. The year Federer turned 22 in the summer he ended #2 in the World as opposed to Gasquet ending that same year at #24 in the world. No comparision.

I stand corrected. Fed's first GS was indeed at the age of 21, but just scarce of his 22nd birthday two months later, btw.
Still, I think that it's too soon to completely write off Gasquet. He still has time on his side - IF - he manages to get his head together, that is, indeed.

thalivest
01-14-2009, 04:47 PM
I stand corrected. Fed's first GS was indeed at the age of 21, but just scarce of his 22nd birthday two months later, btw.
Still, I think that it's too soon to completely write off Gasquet. He still has time on his side - IF - he manages to get his head together, that is, indeed.

Perhaps but he is running short on time. You even concede Federer as a late bloomer but as I have shown Gasquet is already well behind his pace. Granted even the biggest Gasquet believers would never think he could be on pace for being a double digit slam winner like Federer. However still when Federer arrived as this late bloomer, not only was he starting to win younger than Gasquet already is but there were not young guys his age or younger of exceptional talent already there. That is very different now with Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro. If he doesnt make the move in the next year or two it is never going to happen. You are not going to breakthrough in your mid 20s if you havent already when you have the young talent that is starting to crowd the upper ranks of mens tennis now. Mental issues aside Gasquet's game, while some may like it alot, is not improving at the rate of his peers of late.

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 04:57 PM
Agassi was 22 when he won his first slam and he was being passed up by all his compatriots such as jim, pete and chang, he actually didnt peak until till 28 or so, not saying this is the case for gasquet but its something to think about

thalivest
01-14-2009, 04:58 PM
Agassi had made 3 slam finals already before he even turned 22. He had won multiple Masters titles, the year end World Championships, and been ranked as high as #3 in the World. He had been in 6 slam semis already. Again I dont see any comparision.

Being passed by Tsonga, Simon, and Monfils is a much bigger worry than being bypassed by the likes of Sampras, Courier, and Chang. Sampras was pretty much always above Agassi his whole career, 2001 when Sampras really fell apart was the first time Agassi was ever truly better than Sampras as it was only Sampras's injury at the Open that put Agassi ahead in 1999. Courier was just an amazing player in the early 90s, he was arguably playing at atleast an equal higher level than Agassi ever would during those few years of his peak. I dont really believe Chang was above Agassi in the early 90s, he had a grand slam yeah but his overall results in slams especialy were below Agassi's. The only time Chang truly passed Agassi for awhile was during Agassi's most massive slump from 96-98. He was never really considered above him any other time, even while being a 1-time slam winner and Agassi a 0-time.

Gasquet also isnt part tanking like Agassi was in many early years. Also while Gasquet may be very talented in his own way he does play something that would be depicted the modern game anywhere near what Agassi does.

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 05:07 PM
Agassi was 22 not saying this is the case for gasquet but its something to think about

just saying its to early to write em off, not saying hes the next agassi or federer, although he could be great if he used his head during matches dude has no strategy

thalivest
01-14-2009, 05:41 PM
I dont write him off from winning a slam just because of his age. He has just too many issues and obstacles to overcome at this point:

1. He is a bit "soft" for todays standards in every respect, not enough firepower overall in his game, not enough physical strength and physical fitness, obviously mental fragility.

2. Rafael Nadal who also owns him head to head btw

3. His forehand is not a weapon and is pretty mediocre for todays standards. That is the most important shot in mens tennis today.

4. Novak Djokovic

5. He has not really improved from the level of tennis he showed in the spring of 2005. His tennis at Monte Carlo in 2005 was still the best tennis I ever saw him play including 2007 Wimbledon. When you havent improved for almost 4 years it is not a good sign.

6. Andy Murray

7. His serve isnt really enough of a weapon for todays game either, and the serve is the second most important shot today after the forehand. His serve is better than Nadal's, but unless you have the insane foot speed, defensive skills, will to win, and other attributes of Nadal (which nobody today has to the same degree) he does not apply. His serve doesnt even compare to remaining guys at the very top like Federer, Murray, or Djokovic.

8. The even younger guys like Del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic, maybe even Nishikori.

9. His best surfaces seem to be grass and indoor type courts and there are only 1 slam event played there these days, and it also happens to be the slam that Federer and Nadal are most jointly dominating of all 4. Not a great situation for someone looking to win a slam.

10. Like I said he doesnt really play the modern style game. He plays an interesting game but it isnt the type of game that is most effective today.

Serve_Ace
01-14-2009, 05:54 PM
I think Gasquet is trying his best to live up to the standard of this fourm

ESP#1
01-14-2009, 06:18 PM
I dont write him off from winning a slam just because of his age. He has just too many issues and obstacles to overcome at this point:

1. He is a bit "soft" for todays standards in every respect, not enough firepower overall in his game, not enough physical strength and physical fitness, obviously mental fragility.

2. Rafael Nadal who also owns him head to head btw

3. His forehand is not a weapon and is pretty mediocre for todays standards. That is the most important shot in mens tennis today.

4. Novak Djokovic

5. He has not really improved from the level of tennis he showed in the spring of 2005. His tennis at Monte Carlo in 2005 was still the best tennis I ever saw him play including 2007 Wimbledon. When you havent improved for almost 4 years it is not a good sign.

6. Andy Murray

7. His serve isnt really enough of a weapon for todays game either, and the serve is the second most important shot today after the forehand. His serve is better than Nadal's, but unless you have the insane foot speed, defensive skills, will to win, and other attributes of Nadal (which nobody today has to the same degree) he does not apply. His serve doesnt even compare to remaining guys at the very top like Federer, Murray, or Djokovic.

8. The even younger guys like Del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic, maybe even Nishikori.

9. His best surfaces seem to be grass and indoor type courts and there are only 1 slam event played there these days, and it also happens to be the slam that Federer and Nadal are most jointly dominating of all 4. Not a great situation for someone looking to win a slam.

10. Like I said he doesnt really play the modern style game. He plays an interesting game but it isnt the type of game that is most effective today.

See i disagree with this, i think he does have weapons, hes a better vollyer than any of these guys with "the modern game" alot more touch than any of them besides maybe murray( which he has a winning record against, and who himself a great returner said gasquets serve is deceptively big) i think he has better footwork than alot of the names mentioned above,i think he strikes the ball as well as anyone the forehand i do agree is an issue and it could be his other downfall besides his head, to me when i watch his matches i noticed a lack of strategy, dumb errors on key points, unnecessary shots trying to be flashy to please the crowd, immaturaty in his game, not willing to make adjustments,

btw i cant believe you mentioned Nishikori, even Gulbis as big as his game is is not a a contender at least yet, way too erratic

TennisLover17
01-15-2009, 01:59 PM
No. I know that everyone thought he'd get like 2 before he hangs his racket, but with these young guns and fed still in the game, i dont think RG will get one.

gflyer
01-15-2009, 02:07 PM
I wish, but I voted no.
I see Gasquet a little bit like Henri Leconte. Beautiful technique, fun to watch but missing that "somehting" to make the difference.
I hope he will find that something before he hangs the stick.

West Coast Ace
01-15-2009, 03:16 PM
No. As others have mentioned, not even in the top 3 in his own country - which hasn't won a major in a while. And his head, serve, and forehand woes don't appear to be improving.

And those who thought he could pull a Thomas Johannson - not likely. The draw that year was very weak - the men's depth now precludes that from happening. He'd have to rely on too many people taking out too many guys he can't beat in 3 out of 5 matches. Nice career - I'd kill a roomful of kindergartners with their Lab puppies to have it - and decent guy - but not a major winner. Sorry.

anointedone
01-15-2009, 04:42 PM
No. As others have mentioned, not even in the top 3 in his own country - which hasn't won a major in a while. And his head, serve, and forehand woes don't appear to be improving.

And those who thought he could pull a Thomas Johannson - not likely. The draw that year was very weak - the men's depth now precludes that from happening. He'd have to rely on too many people taking out too many guys he can't beat in 3 out of 5 matches. Nice career - I'd kill a roomful of kindergartners with their Lab puppies to have it - and decent guy - but not a major winner. Sorry.

Good summary.

ESP#1
01-16-2009, 01:45 PM
well this is gasquet against the top guy in his country, i myself am uncertain of his chances but you cant deny the talent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-T4KfgNjwU

Element54
01-16-2009, 03:38 PM
RIP Grand Slam.

Nadal-GOAT
01-16-2009, 03:40 PM
The only slam Gasquet will ever win is a butt slam from another man.

Mansewerz
01-16-2009, 03:42 PM
I think he may win the AO or Wimby. Maybe not this year, but he'll hopefully climb back into the top 10 and make a splash soon.

tacou
01-16-2009, 04:01 PM
The only slam Gasquet will ever win is a butt slam from another man.

come on now

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
01-16-2009, 04:05 PM
I choose the "maybe" option, the crystal ball is in the shop.

Things has to fall in place for him in terms of the draw and his game catching fire. Even then it would still be touch and go for the Frenchman.

Gugafan
01-16-2009, 04:09 PM
He looked good in Sydney, he was bombing some first serves over 200km/h consistently.

The fundamental problem is his court positioning. Far to often, he is caught way behind the baseline having to produce wonder shots to win the point. In addition, Gasquet seems to be pushed back on his forehand side. He needs to learn to step in more and take the ball early.

Despite some of the flaws, I dont think its fair to count him out since he does possess skills alien to many of the ATP ball bashers. Notably, the sublime backhand and fluid transition into the net.

ESP#1
01-16-2009, 04:36 PM
He looked good in Sydney, he was bombing some first serves over 200km/h consistently.

The fundamental problem is his court positioning. Far to often, he is caught way behind the baseline having to produce wonder shots to win the point. In addition, Gasquet seems to be pushed back on his forehand side. He needs to learn to step in more and take the ball early.

Despite some of the flaws, I dont think its fair to count him out since he does possess skills alien to many of the ATP ball bashers. Notably, the sublime backhand and fluid transition into the net.

Well put I agree, if he wants to have any chance he needs to correct his forehand and court positioning, as has been mentioned he still makes alot of the same mistakes he made when he first got on tour, nadal, djoko and murray have raised their games immensely

Tempest344
01-16-2009, 06:23 PM
He needs to chip more on the backhand rather than jumping and stepping back to hit a topspin backhand on heavy balls or serves

paulorenzo
01-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Is this good or bad? :twisted:


As to the general topic:

Gasquet is one of my favorite players, and, as I posted before, I hope he can win a slam...that's very different from me saying that he can. I agree with oranges in that Gasquet has the weapons to achieve something more...and I don't see why some posters can categorically say that some one as young and talented as he is will never win a slam or that he has no chance. That's ridiculous. 'Unlikely' is an okay word to use IMO. But, as I'm not in the business of predicting the future (at least not on weekdays), this is as much as I can say on this subject.

agreed 1000 char.

oneleggedcardinal
01-16-2009, 06:55 PM
The only slam Gasquet will ever win is a butt slam from another man.

That's almost as funny as your user name.

TennisNinja
01-16-2009, 10:36 PM
Doubt it. He needs to work on his mental game.

Mick
01-16-2009, 10:48 PM
unlikely unless there's a big change because he has never got passed the 4th round of any grand slam tournament.

oranges
01-16-2009, 11:11 PM
unlikely unless there's a big change because he has never got passed the 4th round of any grand slam tournament.

Wimbedon semi was a collective hallucination?

Mick
01-16-2009, 11:14 PM
Wimbedon semi was a collective hallucination?
forgot about that one.
but beside that one time in 2007, he never got passed the 4th round.

oranges
01-16-2009, 11:24 PM
forgot about that one.
but beside that one time in 2007, he never got passed the 4th round.

Alternatively, you could look at it as having one semi and 4th round in most of his appearances since 2005, including the otherwise dreadful 2008

ESP#1
01-24-2009, 04:35 AM
I think even though he lost today, Gasquet showed some maturity and some guts in the fifth, i think if he can build on what happen today he might be able to pull something off

Argento full
01-24-2009, 03:23 PM
Maybe in ten years............

TheMusicLover
01-24-2009, 03:35 PM
I think even though he lost today, Gasquet showed some maturity and some guts in the fifth, i think if he can build on what happen today he might be able to pull something off

Well said. Gasquet played very well, showed some awesome shots, but best of all - he DID NOT CHOKE like he did so often before, which - imho - shows that he's still working on improving the mental bit of his game.

I felt very sorry for him losing that match, and I hope it doesn't cause a throwback in his mental department, because he must have felt seriously disappointed after playing so well.

If there's any one of the young guns of whom I seriously hope that he'll win a GS one day, it must be Gasquet.
And all's not lost yet - I well remember what was said about Federer when he was in his low-twenties: a 'complete GS failure', 'talented but a total headcase', etc. I see some resemblances to what is said about Gasquet, here... hopefully all will pan out well for him one day, too.

Tennis360
01-24-2009, 05:24 PM
Well said. Gasquet played very well, showed some awesome shots, but best of all - he DID NOT CHOKE like he did so often before, which - imho - shows that he's still working on improving the mental bit of his game.

I felt very sorry for him losing that match, and I hope it doesn't cause a throwback in his mental department, because he must have felt seriously disappointed after playing so well.

If there's any one of the young guns of whom I seriously hope that he'll win a GS one day, it must be Gasquet.
And all's not lost yet - I well remember what was said about Federer when he was in his low-twenties: a 'complete GS failure', 'talented but a total headcase', etc. I see some resemblances to what is said about Gasquet, here... hopefully all will pan out well for him one day, too.

AGREE. It will come altogether for him one day. this year might just be the year....this match might just be the start in turning things around.

TheMusicLover
01-24-2009, 05:34 PM
AGREE. It will come altogether for him one day. this year might just be the year....this match might just be the start in turning things around.

:)
I can only hope for it to happen. Sad losses as Gasquet had to enjure yesterday might well have an impact that could go either way - either he really picks up his guns right now and makes him feel encouraged to get *there* whatever it takes (like Federer did some 7 years ago), or it may completely destroy him mentally because of the harsh disappointment.

I'm hoping for the first to happen, but that seems obvious.

stician
01-24-2009, 05:39 PM
I vote no because of his forehand... the rest of his game is world class. I don't think he lacks mental toughness because he showed quite a bit of it in the 5th set against Gonzo.