PDA

View Full Version : Blake is a modern day Petr Korda, and his backhand is technically Identical


BeHappy
01-20-2009, 06:17 PM
backhand of Petr Korda
http://www.vimeo.com/2877301

We all know what Blake's looks like. They are identical, similar pace, similar speed, yet Korda's is eulogised and Blake's is spat on. Is it because you are all racists?

MajinX
01-20-2009, 06:56 PM
dont see point of thread besides causing a bunch of members arguing.. not agreeing or disagreeing with it being the same as blakes or not.

Tempest344
01-20-2009, 07:27 PM
Can't really tell from that vid
All I know is Blake opens up on his left side when hitting his backhand which can mean he loses some balance in the shot

lambielspins
01-20-2009, 07:29 PM
Korda on his best day was far better and more dangerous than Blake on his best day IMO. I have watched Blake play many times and I have never seen him produce the quality of tennis as Korda did in the 97 Wimbledon vs Sampras, 97 U.S Open vs Sampras, 98 Australian Open vs Rios, 92 French Open until the final, many other matches he has played over the year.

BeHappy
01-20-2009, 08:06 PM
Blake's backhand IS identical to Korda's in terms of pace, spin and consistency His forehand is just as good as Korda's too, so what gives?

UncleRico.
01-20-2009, 08:48 PM
Yes, because we all know good strokes are all it takes to be a good player 8)

Fiercer
01-20-2009, 08:50 PM
They really do seem alike, except reversed. Probably why Petr had the edge. Also, it's not an compare of their achivements. Gee...

BeHappy
01-20-2009, 09:10 PM
Blakes problems have never been physical, so I don't see steroids helping. He was and remains one of the top 3-4 dumbest players I've ever watched. He has no variety, no real game plan and definitely no plan B. His whole plan is "Let me hit the ---- out of the ball and hope I get a short ball or winner." If that doesn't work, he's screwed.

As for the original post, Korda's back was also quite flat but that's the only similarity. Korda's strokes, all of them, were quite fluid. Korda was talented, had good hands and when everything was working, made many players look stupid. Blake on the other hand, makes every player look smart.

His tehnique on te backhand was identical, the ball the stroke produced was identical, so what was the difference?

BeHappy
01-20-2009, 09:10 PM
Blakes problems have never been physical, so I don't see steroids helping. He was and remains one of the top 3-4 dumbest players I've ever watched. He has no variety, no real game plan and definitely no plan B. His whole plan is "Let me hit the ---- out of the ball and hope I get a short ball or winner." If that doesn't work, he's screwed.

As for the original post, Korda's back was also quite flat but that's the only similarity. Korda's strokes, all of them, were quite fluid. Korda was talented, had good hands and when everything was working, made many players look stupid. Blake on the other hand, makes every player look smart.

His technique on the backhand was identical, the ball the stroke produced was identical, so what was the difference?

TheRed
01-20-2009, 09:24 PM
His technique on the backhand was identical, the ball the stroke produced was identical, so what was the difference?

Don't assume their technique was identical simply because the end result was. Korda had better footwork and better disguise on his backhand. He's far more balanced on his backhands. He takes the racquet back slightly later, in rhythm with his feet as opposed to Blake, who takes the racquet back earlier, then swings/muscles forward.

BeHappy
01-20-2009, 09:29 PM
Don't assume their technique was identical simply because the end result was. Korda had better footwork and better disguise on his backhand. He's far more balanced on his backhands. He takes the racquet back slightly later, in rhythm with his feet as opposed to Blake, who takes the racquet back earlier, then swings/muscles forward.

Nonsense.And you know it. Their technique is identical.

0d1n
01-20-2009, 09:38 PM
His technique on the backhand was identical, the ball the stroke produced was identical, so what was the difference?

Nonsense.And you know it. Their technique is identical.

You repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. Korda's technique AND results were miles ahead of Blake's on every shot except the serve...where he had a hitch (but still produced good serves...just that he tended to miss too many of them when a bit nervous).
His backhand is IMO one of the best 1handers I've seen (EVER).
Also, just because a take back MIGHT look similar (and I'm not saying they are...) doesn't mean that the shot produced is similar ...let alone identical. There is such a thing as proper contact point, there is such a thing as timing, hitting the sweet spot ...etc. You're just trying to create useless controversy, and apparently you've somewhat succeeded. But you still know you're full of it.
Try harder...you fail.

0d1n
01-20-2009, 09:50 PM
Korda on his best day was far better and more dangerous than Blake on his best day IMO. I have watched Blake play many times and I have never seen him produce the quality of tennis as Korda did in the 97 Wimbledon vs Sampras, 97 U.S Open vs Sampras, 98 Australian Open vs Rios, 92 French Open until the final, many other matches he has played over the year.

Oh God, be careful, telling it like it is might cause you problems either with the overly "politically correct" crowd, OR with unrealistic American tennis fans who might also believe Roddick is on the same level with Federer ;).
James Blake can't get close to Korda's level of play when "on".
James Blake probably gets beaten by "retired Sampras", he would never get close to beating that guy "when it matters", in the US Open for example.
He's a decent hard court player, with no real results in the big tournaments (majors). He can't play on clay, and I haven't seen him produce anything to talk about on grass either.
Korda could play on every surface, and when in form beat the best of the best on that surface. The difference in their "top level" is a quantum leap.

Morrissey
01-20-2009, 10:16 PM
Maybe Blake might have a slam to his name too if he took steroids.

Or better yet,, he might have one if he was good enough to win one. Or even get to a Slam SF first.

Morrissey
01-20-2009, 10:19 PM
All that's missing is a positive enhancement drug test.

James has a few more years, stop lumping him with that drug abuser.

You forgot to mention that he's also missing a Slam title (AO 1998 ) and a runner up performance (FO 1992). Other than those results, yeah, sure they're the same. Whatever gets you going.

Morrissey
01-20-2009, 10:23 PM
Oh God, be careful, telling it like it is might cause you problems either with the overly "politically correct" crowd, OR with unrealistic American tennis fans who might also believe Roddick is on the same level with Federer ;).
James Blake can't get close to Korda's level of play when "on".
James Blake probably gets beaten by "retired Sampras", he would never get close to beating that guy "when it matters", in the US Open for example.
He's a decent hard court player, with no real results in the big tournaments (majors). He can't play on clay, and I haven't seen him produce anything to talk about on grass either.
Korda could play on every surface, and when in form beat the best of the best on that surface. The difference in their "top level" is a quantum leap.

The ONLY things they have in common is they hit the ball flat. But Korda had a much better backhand (pure textbook style) and constructed points (Blake doesn't). Korda could play great on hardcourt and clay. Blake outside of a hardcourt is lost. But I should be careful to say all this because I might be racist. So if you don't like Blake, you're racist. Hmm, it's been a while since we've heard the race card pulled in here.

0d1n
01-20-2009, 11:33 PM
The ONLY things they have in common is they hit the ball flat. But Korda had a much better backhand (pure textbook style) and constructed points (Blake doesn't). Korda could play great on hardcourt and clay. Blake outside of a hardcourt is lost. But I should be careful to say all this because I might be racist. So if you don't like Blake, you're racist. Hmm, it's been a while since we've heard the race card pulled in here.

Yup, and indoors and sometimes (not that often ...) on grass.
He won on FAST indoor carpet at the Grand Slam Cup (can't remember the year) beating Stich and Sampras back to back. Stich and Sampras ... together with Becker are some of the (if not THE) best indoor carpet players of their generation. He also got to the final in Halle on grass (I think he lost to Kafelnikov), and made at least 1 quarter at Wimbledon. I remember a superb 5 setter he played against Sampras @ wimbledon ... in Sampras' back yard and he was like 1 inch away from beating him.

Watch Blake taking Federer (current Sampras equivalent) to 5 sets at Wimbledon.
bwhahaha, good joke :twisted:.

Gorecki
01-21-2009, 02:00 AM
is blake in the sauce?

did Korda have dreadlocks?

edberg505
01-21-2009, 03:53 AM
Hey, you are right. Blake is terrible he sucks big time. Kinda makes you wonder how such a terrible tennis player owns a winning record over the #1 player in the world.

(Now let the excuses begin.)

lambielspins
01-21-2009, 04:03 AM
Hey, you are right. Blake is terrible he sucks big time. Kinda makes you wonder how such a terrible tennis player owns a winning record over the #1 player in the world.

(Now let the excuses begin.)

Doubles great and merely solid singles player Haarhuis has a 3-1 head to head with Sampras which is even better than Blake's 3-2 head to head with Nadal. So you fail. You will have to do better than come up with one good head to head to prove any point.

edberg505
01-21-2009, 04:28 AM
Doubles great and merely solid singles player Haarhuis has a 3-1 head to head with Sampras which is even better than Blake's 3-2 head to head with Nadal. So you fail. You will have to do better than come up with one good head to head to prove any point.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I guess we've all established that James Blake is a terrible player. I think I mentioned that in my last post.

Morrissey
01-21-2009, 04:32 AM
Hey, you are right. Blake is terrible he sucks big time. Kinda makes you wonder how such a terrible tennis player owns a winning record over the #1 player in the world.

(Now let the excuses begin.)

That's the best you can come up with? Hell, even Wayne Ferreira has a winning record over Sampras. Doesn't mean anything other than that he was a good matchup for Pete. But he wasn't great or very good. Just solid. Blake doesn't suck big time, but he's hugely overrated. And if he weren't American he would hardly get any mention from US tv or commentators (outside of 2006).

Just to go back on the h2h, if Blake plays Nadal from now on on any surface Nadal will turn the h2h in his favor soon enough. So that little tidbit you popped out to save Blake's case won't be valid any longer.

edberg505
01-21-2009, 04:36 AM
That's the best you can come up with? Hell, even Wayne Ferreira has a winning record over Sampras. Doesn't mean anything other than that he was a good matchup for Pete. But he wasn't great or very good. Just solid. Blake doesn't suck big time, but he's hugely overrated. And if he weren't American he would hardly get any mention from US tv or commentators (outside of 2006).

Just to go back on the h2h, if Blake plays Nadal from now on on any surface Nadal will turn the h2h in his favor soon enough. So that little tidbit you popped out to save Blake's case won't be valid any longer.

And yet you guys are quick to throw out a H2H when it comes to Nadal vs. Federer. Loving the double standards on this board.

Morrissey
01-21-2009, 04:41 AM
And yet you guys are quick to throw out a H2H when it comes to Nadal vs. Federer. Loving the double standards on this board.

Double standards? Nadal is #1 in the world and multiple slam champion, while having had to beat Federer in order to win all 5 of those slams. I think the h2h with Nadal & Federer holds more than enough validity. Blake has done NOTHING in the slams compared to Nadal. I don't see how throwing out the h2h in that case is inappropriate. At least he beats Fed in slam finals on more than one surface.

edberg505
01-21-2009, 04:48 AM
Double standards? Nadal is #1 in the world and multiple slam champion, while having had to beat Federer in order to win all 5 of those slams. Blake has done NOTHING in the slams compared to Nadal. I don't see how throwing out the h2h in that case is inappropriate. At least he beats Fed in slam finals on more than one surface.

LOL, yeah once. I swear you guys make it really hard to like Nadal. I'm wondering if you will be around if Nadal starts to drop like a rock. Same for Federer fans. Well I know "zagor" will. It will be interesting to see who people latch on to after those two guys start their fall in the rankings. I'm guessing who ever starts to win more slams.

0d1n
01-21-2009, 04:51 AM
Hey, you are right. Blake is terrible he sucks big time. Kinda makes you wonder how such a terrible tennis player owns a winning record over the #1 player in the world.

(Now let the excuses begin.)

Nobody said Blake "sucks" (at least I didn't). Nobody in the top 100 - 150 "sucks", they are all crazy good tennis players. This means that somebody who's been in the top 10 for a while can't "suck".
However, some of the posters in this thread were trying to put an "=" sign between Blake and Korda, and that's simply forced and untrue. Korda was simply in a different league...both with regards to talent AND results. He was FEARED by the very best in the world when healthy and playing good tennis. If he wouldn't have been plagued by horrible groin problems throughout his career he might have been in a different position results wise (i.e ..slams).
This is just the way it is. This thread was NOT about how nice a guy Blake is, how he also had problems which he overcomed ... etc, it was about their "backhand" and about their talent/value as tennis players, and there isn't much to compare there. Korda was the superior player however you look at it (yes...shockingly that includes his backhand ...).

Morrissey
01-21-2009, 05:11 AM
LOL, yeah once. I swear you guys make it really hard to like Nadal. I'm wondering if you will be around if Nadal starts to drop like a rock. Same for Federer fans. Well I know "zagor" will. It will be interesting to see who people latch on to after those two guys start their fall in the rankings. I'm guessing who ever starts to win more slams.

Well I can't speak for fairweather fans or people like Nadal Freak, but I've been a Nadal fan since 2004. I also saw him win Sopot 2004 in Poland so I witnessed his first ever tournament win. It helps also they're we're both from the same country. I will surely go down with the ship in Nadal's case. I never had the impression you ever rooted for Nadal in the first place since you're so quick to put him down a notch in here. As for Blake I never said he sucked, but he gets more attention than deserved here. Mainly because US tennis is in such a sad state that they have to hype up a guy who's best slam results are 2 QF's in hardcourt slams. When in the 90's Courier was less talked about in the media and he won 4 slams along with a year end #1 ranking to boot. But it was because Agassi and Sampras had won so much they overshadowed him and Chang. Blake is getting all this coverage and attention. He's lucky he didn't play in the 90's. Now that I think of it, even Mal Washington did better in slams with his Wimby final. He was rarely talked about.

edberg505
01-21-2009, 05:36 AM
Well I can't speak for fairweather fans or people like Nadal Freak, but I've been a Nadal fan since 2004. I also saw him win Sopot 2004 in Poland so I witnessed his first ever tournament win. It helps also they're we're both from the same country. I will surely go down with the ship in Nadal's case. I never had the impression you ever rooted for Nadal in the first place since you're so quick to put him down a notch in here. As for Blake I never said he sucked, but he gets more attention than deserved here. Mainly because US tennis is in such a sad state that they have to hype up a guy who's best slam results are 2 QF's in hardcourt slams. When in the 90's Courier was less talked about in the media and he won 4 slams along with a year end #1 ranking to boot. But it was because Agassi and Sampras had won so much they overshadowed him and Chang. Blake is getting all this coverage and attention. He's lucky he didn't play in the 90's. Now that I think of it, even Mal Washington did better in slams with his Wimby final. He was rarely talked about.

When have you ever seen me put him down? I've made it pretty clear that I don't care for his style of tennis. If anything I try to bring people back down to reality.

thalivest
01-21-2009, 05:49 AM
I am with Morrissey on this one. Of course Blake isnt a bad player but he is so overhyped here in the U.S that it is almost comical at times. So much hype and attention on a guy who is mostly just an ok top 20 player with close to zero shot of ever making a slam semi, ever beating Federer or any of the other biggest guns in a grand slam, or ever even winning a Masters title. If he were American he would be almost completely ignored. You rarely hear talk of players like Nalbandian, Gonzalez, or Davydenko in the U.S, and all those players have achieved more than Blake, so imagine if Blake were a European or Argentine. They take a result like his win over Federer at the Olympics and mold it into how he can take down anyone at his best, how scared the top players are of him, etc....rather than take it for what it was, a monstrous fluke (and I am not a Federer fan either). Yet you would think it was the equivalent of how Safin beat Sampras and Federer in those huge slam semis or finals the way some talk about it.

Like Morrissey said it is a sad reflection on the state of American tennis that James Blake is getting so much attention here. In the past he would barely be a fly on the radar, even in the U.S. It is amazing to think he gets more attention than say Jim Courier did, just shows how light years apart American tennis then and now is. Blake would be about the 7th best American in many other eras.

I dont give a damn either if I am accused of making excuses but I am going to put Blakes' head to head with Nadal in perspective. It is 3-2 in Blake's favor with all 5 matches on hard courts. Blake never had a prayer of beating Nadal if they played on clay, and since 2006 not a prayer if they played on grass. So lets say they played 5 times on hard courts, 3 times on grass, and 3 times on clay, it would 8-3 in Nadal's favor gauranteed. What is wrong with me saying that when Federer fanatics act as if Federer really owns Nadal just because 10 of 18 matches were on clay, despite that Nadal is a respectable 3-5 on other surfaces as well. Yet when Blake and Nadal have played all 5 matches on hard courts that is somehow ignored by these same people. As well some of these Federer fanatics like to mock that Nadal isnt getting far enough on hard courts to play Nadal. Well if that is considered the case by some when Nadal has gotten far enough at age 22 to play Federer 5 times on hard courts, including 2 Masters Cup semis, a Masters final, and a gold tournament final, than what would we say of Blake who has never once gotten far enough to play Nadal on clay or grass.

Blake is just too useless on those surfaces to ever play Nadal and get his certain *** whooping. As well Blake's wins were all before Nadal is as great as he is now on hard courts. Blake has very little chance to beat Nadal in the future anywhere, even on hard courts. Nadal is virtually certain to take the head to head lead over Blake even with all their matches being on hard courts, Blake's only surface he could pray to beat Nadal on anyway. That is assuming Blake even remains the pretty good hard court player he is now without going in further really sharp decline due to age, and ends up coming across Nadal in the draw a couple of times or more.

larry10s
01-21-2009, 06:11 AM
behappy in view of obamas election ,bringing up the race card is insulting and gives your posts little credibility imho

mental midget
01-21-2009, 06:33 AM
i remember the AO final with Rios v. Korda. Thought Rios was going to crush him; instead, Korda put on an insane clinic of flat winners from every angle imaginable. it was pretty crazy.

Korda and Blake might both hit flattish balls, but i don't think of them as playing similarly. Korda, imo, played more like a tall, skinny connors with a 1hbh.

veroniquem
01-21-2009, 08:30 AM
When have you ever seen me put him down? I've made it pretty clear that I don't care for his style of tennis. If anything I try to bring people back down to reality.
You ask the question and then put him down in the next sentence. Isn't that a little dumb? What I can't understand is people pretending to be objective when they're obviously very biassed.

edberg505
01-21-2009, 08:58 AM
You ask the question and then put him down in the next sentence. Isn't that a little dumb? What I can't understand is people pretending to be objective when they're obviously very biassed.

Ok, I'll bite. Just exactly how did I do that? And by the way, come up with a post where I put him down. I can't wait to see this.

alfa164164
01-21-2009, 09:17 AM
Back to the original post - "Blake's backhand IS identical to Korda's in terms of pace, spin and consistency His forehand is just as good as Korda's too, so what gives?"
Having watched both Korda and Blake play LIVE numerous times, I feel qualified to say that only someone who has never seen both play in person could make that statement.
Korda's backhand is an amazing shot (just ask Pete Sampras), while Blake's is pretty average (although granted, Blake's backhand has improved markedly over the years). Korda's backhand has more variety and his flat one is more penetrating than Blake's. It is simply a better shot, it has nothing to do with skin color (absolutely no reason to throw race into this). Their forehands are quite a bit different as well, Petr's is much flatter, totally different mechanics. In general, Korda's strokes are flatter and more fluid while Blake's is more raw power and athleticism.
Regardless, Blake has not won a really big match at a Slam, better known for losing close ones (the Agassi match at the USOpen). When he gets better results, his game will be more respected.

veroniquem
01-21-2009, 09:21 AM
Ok, I'll bite. Just exactly how did I do that? And by the way, come up with a post where I put him down. I can't wait to see this.
Posts about how you and your friends find Nadal boring and comparing him to a "rented grand canyon mule". It's ok, you're entitled to your opinion but don't claim afterward you have nothing against him.

harryz
01-21-2009, 09:40 AM
I've seen both live. Korda's strokes were longer and more fluid than Blake's. He cocked his left elbow and took his raqcuet back higher on both sides than Blake, and did not hit open stance topspin or flat backhands, like Blake. Korda crossed his left leg over his right and stepped in on the diagonal on his 1H topspin backhand, and cocked his elbow over his shoulder when hitting a slice, unlike Blake. Shot production for the two could not have been more different. There are players today with similar backhands to Kordas, such as Kohlshreiber, Federer, and maybe Haas. But none of them has a takeback like Korda's and none is as "old school" with the exeption of Federer. BeHappy, if you saw the two strokes side by side in freeze frame, you'd see that Korda and Blake prepare differently and execute the stroke differently.

Notice the high take back and pronounced shoulder turn:

http://www.tennisserver.com/turbo/images/pilotpen97/Korda6.JPG

Now notice the cocked wrist on the approach:

http://www.tennisserver.com/turbo/images/pilotpen97/Korda3.JPG

Korda played a more "textbook" classic style on both wings and Blake's shot production is more "modern" with more extreme grips and greater racquet speed. Korda had more variety, and could also hit hard. Blake has one speed. There is no point in getting into who is/was the better player. From my observation of both, there is little in common between the two other than that they hit one handed shots.

NamRanger
01-21-2009, 09:47 AM
I think you all completely missed the point why BeHappy posted this thread. Steroids anyone? Geez.

harryz
01-21-2009, 09:49 AM
Notice that he does not bring the racquet up as high as Korda, does not **** the racquet at the elbow or shoulder in such a pronounced way, doesn't turn his shoulders so that his back is visible to his opponent, does not stay down as long through the shot, and does not finish as high as Korda. Other than that, the shots are IDENTICAL... Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTyyITw-fyo

Fedace
01-21-2009, 09:52 AM
backhand of Petr Korda
http://www.vimeo.com/2877301

We all know what Blake's looks like. They are identical, similar pace, similar speed, yet Korda's is eulogised and Blake's is spat on. Is it because you are all racists?

NO offense but LOL........ If James had Petr Korda backhand, he would have won at least 1 grand slam by now..... Petr had a Great backhand, just ask Pete Sampras..

edberg505
01-21-2009, 10:06 AM
Posts about how you and your friends find Nadal boring and comparing him to a "rented grand canyon mule". It's ok, you're entitled to your opinion but don't claim afterward you have nothing against him.

LMAO, are you serious? What freinds and what post were these? I want to see the post. And I've used the expression "Getting beat like a rented mule" several times and not just with him when someone is getting beat badly. I want you to come up with some post where I have put him down. Surely it cannot be that hard since I do it all the time. How about this, how about I post some of the past stuff that I've said about Nadal.

alfa164164
01-21-2009, 10:13 AM
Yeah, Korda's backhand was a thing of beauty, while James has developed into a solid and functional stroke. It says something about the improved consistency in Blake's backhand that he has been able to beat Nadal with it. But it is hardly the strength that Korda's was. I believe Sampras once said that most players' forehands are better than their backhands, but Korda and Rios were exceptions to that rule.

larry10s
01-21-2009, 10:14 AM
Now notice the cocked wrist on the approach:

http://www.tennisserver.com/turbo/im...n97/Korda3.JPG this probably a SLICE backhand approach

harryz
01-21-2009, 11:23 AM
I left out volleys and lobs since they are more abbreviated strokes with shorter swings. Approach shots are also abbreviated, but not nearly so much. The OP did not specifically note that Blake and Korda have similar slice, topspin or flat backhands-- only that their backhands are "identical." So including a picture of Korda's slice BH approach isn't out of line IMO since it still shows his shoulder turn and cocked wrist, both of which distinguish his shot from Blake's BH, which I find less relaxed and flowing, more straight armed and stiffer.

morten
01-21-2009, 11:34 AM
Korda was amazing technically, a beauty to watch, well Blake is certainly not, can`t believe someone actually dare to compare the two..Blake, well i hate watching that unforced error machine...

harryz
01-21-2009, 11:49 AM
The other photo I included of Korda hitting a BH groundstroke clearly shows a cocked wrist as well as the sliced approach shot...

I agree with Morten, overall. Korda was wonderful to watch. Blake, for all of his speed and athleticism, has little variety or imagination in his game. Not many players do these days, though.

Chauvalito
01-21-2009, 12:00 PM
Korda in his day and age challenged the best of the best as in Sampras and Rios.

Blake has rarely challenged those in the top 3.

Korda has been referred to as a shot maker for a long time, while that moniker has never been associated with Blake.

Yes, Blake is aggressive...but I would not call him a shot maker in the creative sense as Korda was.

hoosierbr
01-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Korda was a Grand Slam champion at the Aussie in '98, a finalist at the French in '92, reached #2 in the world, had many chances to be #1, beat th best consistently on his day, etc.

It's too bad his career ended the way it did now that we know all the circumstances and it's unfortunate that for him, who always maintained his innocence, the proper testing didn't exist back then to prove or disprove his guilt.

My point is as much as I like James and think he's a helluva player on his day, Korda is in a different league in my opinion.

BeHappy
01-21-2009, 01:16 PM
to say that Korda had a flatter forehand than Blake is ludicrous. Blake's backhand is just as powerful, has just as much spin and just as much consistency as Korda's, never mind his incredible record against Nadal doing exactly what Korda did at Wimby 1997.

alfa164164
01-21-2009, 02:06 PM
Every pro "flattens" out their forehand when going for an outright winner, James just happens to try that on way too many balls, hence all the unforced errors and the general disdain regarding his consistency and strategy.
Personally I don't think you can make your assertions based on youtube videos or TV. LIVE TENNIS - there is no substitute. I do think I would take Blake in a boxing match over Korda, there he would definitely "out-flatten" the Czech!

Morrissey
01-22-2009, 03:13 PM
Ok, I'll bite. Just exactly how did I do that? And by the way, come up with a post where I put him down. I can't wait to see this.

Dude, you know we'll find one.

Morrissey
01-22-2009, 03:20 PM
I am with Morrissey on this one. Of course Blake isnt a bad player but he is so overhyped here in the U.S that it is almost comical at times. So much hype and attention on a guy who is mostly just an ok top 20 player with close to zero shot of ever making a slam semi, ever beating Federer or any of the other biggest guns in a grand slam, or ever even winning a Masters title. If he were American he would be almost completely ignored. You rarely hear talk of players like Nalbandian, Gonzalez, or Davydenko in the U.S, and all those players have achieved more than Blake, so imagine if Blake were a European or Argentine. They take a result like his win over Federer at the Olympics and mold it into how he can take down anyone at his best, how scared the top players are of him, etc....rather than take it for what it was, a monstrous fluke (and I am not a Federer fan either). Yet you would think it was the equivalent of how Safin beat Sampras and Federer in those huge slam semis or finals the way some talk about it.

Like Morrissey said it is a sad reflection on the state of American tennis that James Blake is getting so much attention here. In the past he would barely be a fly on the radar, even in the U.S. It is amazing to think he gets more attention than say Jim Courier did, just shows how light years apart American tennis then and now is. Blake would be about the 7th best American in many other eras.

I dont give a damn either if I am accused of making excuses but I am going to put Blakes' head to head with Nadal in perspective. It is 3-2 in Blake's favor with all 5 matches on hard courts. Blake never had a prayer of beating Nadal if they played on clay, and since 2006 not a prayer if they played on grass. So lets say they played 5 times on hard courts, 3 times on grass, and 3 times on clay, it would 8-3 in Nadal's favor gauranteed. What is wrong with me saying that when Federer fanatics act as if Federer really owns Nadal just because 10 of 18 matches were on clay, despite that Nadal is a respectable 3-5 on other surfaces as well. Yet when Blake and Nadal have played all 5 matches on hard courts that is somehow ignored by these same people. As well some of these Federer fanatics like to mock that Nadal isnt getting far enough on hard courts to play Nadal. Well if that is considered the case by some when Nadal has gotten far enough at age 22 to play Federer 5 times on hard courts, including 2 Masters Cup semis, a Masters final, and a gold tournament final, than what would we say of Blake who has never once gotten far enough to play Nadal on clay or grass.

Blake is just too useless on those surfaces to ever play Nadal and get his certain *** whooping. As well Blake's wins were all before Nadal is as great as he is now on hard courts. Blake has very little chance to beat Nadal in the future anywhere, even on hard courts. Nadal is virtually certain to take the head to head lead over Blake even with all their matches being on hard courts, Blake's only surface he could pray to beat Nadal on anyway. That is assuming Blake even remains the pretty good hard court player he is now without going in further really sharp decline due to age, and ends up coming across Nadal in the draw a couple of times or more.

Man, I LOVE this post. I have to copy and save in my file because it's that good. All valid points. And I can't wait for Nadal to play Blake in future matchups on any surface. Just to have those Nadal haters have one less thing to put him down with.

edberg505
01-22-2009, 03:52 PM
Man, I LOVE this post. I have to copy and save in my file because it's that good. All valid points. And I can't wait for Nadal to play Blake in future matchups on any surface. Just to have those Nadal haters have one less thing to put him down with.

Just curious, what will you do if James Blake smashes him in this AO (should they meet each other of course)? I do remember you talking a lot of trash last year only to be silenced by the red hot Tsonga.

Dude, you know we'll find one.

Go for it!

Morrissey
01-22-2009, 04:28 PM
Just curious, what will you do if James Blake smashes him in this AO (should they meet each other of course)? I do remember you talking a lot of trash last year only to be silenced by the red hot Tsonga.

If it were to somehow happen I would take my licks in here like I always do when Nadal loses. But I doubt Blake will even make it far enough to face Nadal. That's too bad because I feel Nadal would beat him again to even the record. As for Tsonga, he came back and beat him in INdian Wells. So I was satisfied with that. As for the destruction, hey, it happens to everyone. Most noticeably the 2008 French Open Men's Final. :-P


Go for it!

I will. :-D (you understand we're having fun with this right?)

edberg505
01-22-2009, 07:02 PM
If it were to somehow happen I would take my licks in here like I always do when Nadal loses. But I doubt Blake will even make it far enough to face Nadal. That's too bad because I feel Nadal would beat him again to even the record. As for Tsonga, he came back and beat him in INdian Wells. So I was satisfied with that. As for the destruction, hey, it happens to everyone. Most noticeably the 2008 French Open Men's Final. :-P



I will. :-D (you understand we're having fun with this right?)

Hey, nothing wrong with fun.

Yup, that was a serious beatdown.