PDA

View Full Version : best hardcourt player never to win a hardcourt slam???


manny pacquiao P4P king
05-23-2009, 09:38 AM
as above


10 char

R_Federer
05-23-2009, 09:40 AM
Did Rafter win one?

All-rounder
05-23-2009, 09:41 AM
David Nalbandian

joeri888
05-23-2009, 09:41 AM
Richard Krajicek ;)

xtrakewl
05-23-2009, 09:43 AM
Did Rafter win one?

he won the us open in 1997 and 1998

manny pacquiao P4P king
05-23-2009, 09:45 AM
David Nalbandian

ROFL....nalbandian only wins the big tournaments on carpet.

Nadal_Freak
05-23-2009, 10:09 AM
Nalbandian, Blake, Murray, Ivanisevic, and etc.

joeri888
05-23-2009, 10:10 AM
Nalbandian, Blake, Murray, Ivanisevic, and etc.

Blake? Why the hell would you go with Blake? He has achieved absolutely nothing to earn him that title. He's a good player, but nothing for the history books.

fps
05-23-2009, 10:10 AM
Murray. But he will.

joeri888
05-23-2009, 10:11 AM
ROFL....nalbandian only wins the big tournaments on carpet.

AND made the semifinal of all four Slams, a feature only Nadal, Federer and Djokovic also have achieved. And I forgot Safin of course, since last Wimbledon.
Besides that Nalbandian has been no. 3 in the world and has won the Masters Cup in the past, so.. he's done more than just carpet

R_Federer
05-23-2009, 10:12 AM
Murray wont win a Slam in his career...thats my prediction.

Nadal_Freak
05-23-2009, 10:13 AM
Blake? Why the hell would you go with Blake? He has achieved absolutely nothing to earn him that title. He's a good player, but nothing for the history books.
He was in the top 8 and hardcourt is by far his best surface. Davydenko is also very good though he is also good on clay. Not great on anything except maybe indoor carpet.

Cesc Fabregas
05-23-2009, 10:14 AM
Rios

10 char

Cesc Fabregas
05-23-2009, 10:15 AM
He was in the top 8 and hardcourt is by far his best surface. Davydenko is also very good though he is also good on clay. Not great on anything except maybe indoor carpet.

Blake has never even been to a slam semi so I don't see how he can be on the list.

joeri888
05-23-2009, 10:16 AM
He was in the top 8 and hardcourt is by far his best surface. Davydenko is also very good though he is also good on clay. Not great on anything except maybe indoor carpet.

You almost make it sound like Federer won his 8 hardcourt Slams in the strongest era ever:)

I disagree though, Blake has never even come close, and although he might have if it wasn't for Federer.. he was far too inconsistent. Davydenko's a little more valid pick to me, though in the past there must have been a lot of better hardcourt players that never won a hardcourt Slam.

How was Borg on hardcourts? 4 verloren US open finales zegt toch ook wel wat

Edit: sorry, last sentence was my native language which I switched to because I was doing too many things at the same time:oops:

How was Borg on hardcourts? 4 lost US Open finals should count for something

380pistol
05-23-2009, 12:00 PM
Oh my, since hardcourt tennis became prominent in the 70's, then the answer is Borg.

If there's a better player to play (a significant amount of time) without a hardcourt slam better than Borg, he remains to be seen.

Gugafan
05-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Tommy Haas.

egn
05-23-2009, 12:17 PM
Oh my, since hardcourt tennis became prominent in the 70's, then the answer is Borg.

If there's a better player to play (a significant amount of time) without a hardcourt slam better than Borg, he remains to be seen.

Amen to that. Borg not sure how you can make a claim for another answer..

Ivanisevic was good on hardcourts but definitely not that great, only 1 SF at the US Open and what 3 quarters in the Aussie. He has 3 hardcourt titles in his whole career...

If James Blake won a hardcourt slam it would be quite depressing what is his hardcourt claim to fame?

Nalbandian...ehh I guess if you want to stretch it but still no big titles on hardcourts, no hardcourt slam finals.

Rios..who go to his one hardcourt slam final by beating no seeded players.

Murray if he does not get a hardcourt slam in his career might be in contention for this we will see...

anointedone
05-23-2009, 12:22 PM
I agree with Pistol. Borg by far really. My second choice though would be:

Chang- really unlucky to not win a hard court slam. An excellent hard court player with many Masters titles and consistently excellent results on the surface. Kept running into Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, or Becker, and lost some incredible matches to them in hard court slams that that particular player went onto win.

I am sure there are some others. I will post any added ones if they come to mind. I cant believe anyone is calling James Blake or Tommy Haas. Good grief. Nalbandian, Davydenko, Mecir, Todd Martin, Pioline, or Rios are even much better choices than either of them. James Blake would be a very weak slam winner on hard courts. Thank goodness he didnt win one.

anointedone
05-23-2009, 12:24 PM
Nalbandian...ehh I guess if you want to stretch it but still no big titles on hardcourts, no hardcourt slam finals.

Todays indoor events are indoor hard courts, not indoor carpet, so in a sense he has won some big hard court titles, just not on outdoor hard court.

tacou
05-23-2009, 12:27 PM
Blake has never even been to a slam semi so I don't see how he can be on the list.

Isn't that the point of the list? Good hard court players who haven't won the big one?

J Blake at his best on HC was pretty ridiculous.

I'd have to say Nalby or Borg (though I wouldn't call him a hard court player, per say,So I dont know...) and perhaps Tsonga. It's early in his career and I think he'll win one eventually.

anointedone
05-23-2009, 12:32 PM
Isn't that the point of the list? Good hard court players who haven't won the big one?

No more like excellent hard court players who havent won one. "Good" players are not supposed to win grand slams and when they do it is kind of ugh, like Johansson at the 2002 Australian Open. Heck Thomas Johansson is probably a better player and better hard court player than Blake. He has won a Masters title on hard court and been in a U.S Open semi and Wimbledon semi outside his Australian Open title, yet everyone acknowledges him as a very weak slam winner.

I can easily name atleast 30 better hard court players than Blake since 1978 who havent won a hard court slam.

Figjam
05-23-2009, 06:34 PM
id say chang

tennis-hero
05-23-2009, 06:37 PM
I can easily name atleast 30 better hard court players than Blake since 1978 who havent won a hard court slam.

go for it

bear in mind you are also naming 30 players who could blow Nadal away on a fast hard court ;)

i eagerly await your response

gj011
05-23-2009, 06:42 PM
Rod Laver.

GameSampras
05-23-2009, 06:57 PM
Corretja. Man was he dyanmo at the USO 1996. He would have beaten chang I think in the finals that year. He had a great great tactical plan that year against Pete and really took Pete to the edge and back again to the point where Pete could barely stand

tudwell
05-23-2009, 07:06 PM
Rod Laver's the only right answer.

anointedone
05-23-2009, 08:08 PM
go for it

bear in mind you are also naming 30 players who could blow Nadal away on a fast hard court ;)

i eagerly await your response

30 players superior to Blake on hard courts who havent won a hard court slam in no particular order:

Vitas Gerulaitis
Michael Chang
Goran Ivanisevic
Bjorn Borg
Richard Krajicek
Nikolay Davydenko
David Nalbandian
Todd Martin
Tommy Haas
Cedric Pioline
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Thomas Muster
Andy Murray (although he probably will)
Marcelo Rios
Jonas Bjorkman
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Fernando Gonzalez
Michael Stich
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Mark Philippoussis
Pat Cash
Roscoe Tanner
Guillermo Vilas
Alex Corretja
Wayne Ferreira

That is only counting since 1978. There are probably over a hundred others superior had there been more tournaments (there were some a anyway) and slams on hard courts before then, in fact there are a whole horde of others since 1978 that already are superior players to Blake on hard courts in addition to the atleast 30 in the last 30 years or so already. Also Blake's success vs pre prime Nadal means nothing. Look at how well Paul Haarhuis did in his several matches vs Pete Sampras. Also Blake has never beaten a prime Nadal on hard courts and he never will.

egn
05-23-2009, 08:59 PM
30 players superior to Blake on hard courts who havent won a hard court slam in no particular order:

Vitas Gerulaitis
Michael Chang
Goran Ivanisevic
Bjorn Borg
Richard Krajicek
Nikolay Davydenko
David Nalbandian
Todd Martin
Tommy Haas
Cedric Pioline
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Thomas Muster
Andy Murray (although he probably will)
Marcelo Rios
Jonas Bjorkman
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Fernando Gonzalez
Michael Stich
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Mark Philippoussis
Pat Cash
Roscoe Tanner
Guillermo Vilas
Alex Corretja
Wayne Ferreira

That is only counting since 1978. There are probably over a hundred others superior had there been more tournaments (there were some a anyway) and slams on hard courts before then, in fact there are a whole horde of others since 1978 that already are superior players to Blake on hard courts in addition to the atleast 30 in the last 30 years or so already. Also Blake's success vs pre prime Nadal means nothing. Look at how well Paul Haarhuis did in his several matches vs Pete Sampras. Also Blake has never beaten a prime Nadal on hard courts and he never will.

Ehh Villas, Corretja and Kureten are a bit of a stretch..though I am sure you could dig up 3 more players that are better than Blake on hardcourts too lazy to look into it though.

egn
05-23-2009, 09:04 PM
go for it

bear in mind you are also naming 30 players who could blow Nadal away on a fast hard court ;)

i eagerly await your response

Its a good thing than Nadal's claim to fame is not fast hardcourts unlike Blake who can easily get wrecked on it..besides Nadal has accomplished far more than Blake on hardcourts anyway hence the slam and master series titles on the surface..unless Blakes 10 dinky hardcourt titles and 3 slam QFs are going to be held with huge weight..oh yea and that masters cup final in which he got completely destroyed by Federer...and mind you Blake lost to Tommy Robredo in that very tournament.

anointedone
05-23-2009, 09:09 PM
Ehh Villas, Corretja and Kureten are a bit of a stretch..though I am sure you could dig up 3 more players that are better than Blake on hardcourts too lazy to look into it though.

Vilas, it is hard to say I guess. In the 5 years he played the U.S Open on hard courts when he wasnt 31 years old or older his results were 1 semifinal and 4 4th rounds. Had it been on hard courts in 1977, his best year of tennis ever, I am sure he would done very well, atleast another semifinal. Quite possibly reached atleast the quarters in 1975 and 1976 as well.

Corretja has won Indian Wells, and the 1998 year end World Championships on indoor hard court (still a hard court) beating Sampras in the semis. He had match point vs prime Sampras in the U.S Open quarterfinals of 1996, and the previous year he took Agassi in perhaps his greatest year of tennis ever to 5 sets in the 2nd round at the U.S Open. Corretja won 2 of his smaller hard court titles by beating Agassi in the final, 1998 and 2000, both years Agassi was in the top 10.

Kuerten won the 2000 year end Masters Cup by beating Sampras and Agassi back to back in another year it was on indoor hard courts. Kuerten has reached the U.S Open quarterfinals twice, same # of times as Blake. Kuerten has won Cincinnati, a Masters title on hard courts, something Blake has never won. He destroyed a prime Chang in the semis of the Canadian Open in 1997 to make the final. He also reached the Miami final in 2000, beating then #1 ranked and reigning holder of 3 of the 4 slams Andre Agassi in the semis, then losing a great 4 set final to Sampras.

Blake has 0 slam semifinals on hard courts and 0 Masters titles on hard courts. What is his biggest fame on the surface. Reaching the year end Masters final only to get embarassed by Federer in one of the events histories dullest finals? Finishing 4th at the Olympics, where after breaking a long losing streak to Federer he then went on to take his 4th straight loss on hard courts (6th overall) to Gonzalez in the semis. Losing an epic U.S Open quarterfinal to 35 year old Agassi? His success vs baby Nadal a few times on the surface? I see no reason he should be rated over either Corretja or Kuerten especialy.

jamesblakefan#1
05-23-2009, 09:52 PM
I agree w/ the James naysayers, unfortunately. If we're going by most talented not to win a HC GS, than I'd say Gasquet, for one, ahead of James in the talent dept. Even though some of the names on that list are a stretch

Richard Kraijicek
Nikolay Davydenko
Tommy Haas
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Jonas Bjorkman
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Wayne Ferreira

Those were the only stretches, IMO, you had as better HC players than Blake.

anointedone
05-23-2009, 10:34 PM
I agree w/ the James naysayers, unfortunately. If we're going by most talented not to win a HC GS, than I'd say Gasquet, for one, ahead of James in the talent dept. Even though some of the names on that list are a stretch

Richard Kraijicek
Nikolay Davydenko
Tommy Haas
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Jonas Bjorkman
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Wayne Ferreira

Those were the only stretches, IMO, you had as better HC players than Blake.

Sorry but how on earth are most of those names a stretch to be put above Blake on hard courts. It would be a huge stretch to ever put Blake above them. Just because Blake does well vs Davydenko for example doesnt mean he is a better hard court player or better player on any surface. Blake even beat Davydenko on clay, does that mean he is even the better clay court player, obviously just a good matchup for Blake. Davydenko posts far better results and is far more successful than Blake playing vs the same field.

Mecir- U.S Open finalist in 1986 beating Becker in the semis. Australian Open finalist in 1989. How can Blake who has never reached a slam semi on hard courts, and never even won a Masters title on hard courts, ever rate over a guy who was a finalist at both hard court slams.

Richard Krajicek- Won Miami, the biggest non slam hard court event, in 2000, beating Sampras along the way. Reached the Australian Open semis in 1992 and had to default with injury. Reached the U.S Open quarters 3 times in 4 years from 1997-2000. Lifetime 4-2 record vs Sampras on hard courts.

Tommy Haas- Australian Open semifinalist three times, Olympic silver medalist. At U.S Open lost 4th round to eventual champions in 2001, 2002, quarterfinalist in 2004, 2006, 2007.

Yannick Noah- 3 time U.S Open quarterfinalist. Australian Open semifinalist and quarterfinalist in 1987 and 1990 when it was a fully attened slam.

Nikolay Davydenko- Australian Open quarters from 2005-2007. U.S Open semis in 2006, 2007. Miami winner in 2008, beating Roddick in the semis, and spanking Nadal in the final. Matching Blake's feat of the year end Masters final in 2009.

Tomas Enqvist- Australian Open finalist in 1999, beating Philippoussis and Rafter along the way. Has atleast multiples wins over Sampras, Agassi, and everyone of note on hard courts. Won Cincinnati Masters in 2000 on outdoor hard court, Stuttgart Masters in 1999 on indoor hard court. Was also finalist of Indian Wells in 2000, beating Sampras in the semis. Many other semis of Masters events, including Canadian Open in 1995 where he beat Ivanisevic and Chang and had a match point vs Sampras in the semis.

Jonas Bjorkman- U.S Open semifinalist in 1997. 4 other quarterfinals of hard court slams.

Carlos Moya- U.S Open semifinalist, Australian Open quarterfinalist, two other hard court slam quarterfinals. Won Masters title in Cincinnati on hard courts in 2002, beating then #1 Lleyton Hewitt in the final. Lost 1998 year end Championships final to Corretja in 5 sets on indoor hard court. Went 3-0 in RR including win over then #1 Hewitt of 2002 Masters Cup, before falling in a 3 set semi to career nemisis Ferrero.

Juan Carlos Ferrero- year end Masters final on indoor hard courts in 2002, taking World #1 Lleyton Hewitt to 5 sets. U.S Open final in 2003, beating Hewitt and Agassi to reach final. Australian Open semis in 2004.

Sebastien Grosjean- Australian Open semis in 2001, was 2 points away from the final a bunch of times. Australian Open quarters in 2003, 2004 and 2006. Matched Blake's feat of reaching the year end Masters final on indoor hard court in 2002, unlike Blake did so by beating such opponents as Agassi, Kafelnikov, and Rafter along the way.

Gustavo Kuerten- U.S Open quarters twice, same as Blake. Won year end Masters in 2000, beating Sampras and Agassi back to back. Cincinnati Masters title in 2001. Miami runner up in 2000, defeating #1 Agassi in quarters and losing incredible final to Sampras. Canadian Open runner up in 1997, crushing World #2 Chang in the semis.

Wayne Ferreira- semifinalist of the Australian Open twice, including second time as a 31 year old in 2003 (gives you some idea the kind of field Blake had his golden years against). Another quarterfinal of Australia, another quarterfinal of the U.S Open. 9 other round of 16s at the two hard court slams. Masters title on outdoor hard courts at the Canadian Open in 1996. Masters title on indoor hard courts in Stuttgart in 2000, beating Hewitt in 5 set final.

OK Grosjean, Bjorkman, and Noah you could argue if you really wanted to, although it would have to be based completely on very small tournament titles on hard courts, and general opinions of his hard court game. The rest no. Blake has nothing on any of these guys on hard courts really. His biggest feat by far is the year end Masters final on indoor hard court, and that is atleast matched by nearly everyone as well.

As for watching those guys play I have seen them all play and I would take any of those over Blake on a hard court, except for Davydenko because of the matchup issues.

By the way the only surface the overrated Gasquet's game is suited to contend for a slam is on grass at Wimbledon, and that would only be if he avoids the really big guns or catches them on an off day. On hard courts no way, there are many more powerful, solid, and cleaner ball strikers who are too much for him there. Heck I would even take the overrated Blake over him on hard courts in a fair one.

jamesblakefan#1
05-23-2009, 10:49 PM
I don't disagree with your statements. I just don't think you can penalize Blake so heavily b/c he didn't make a SF or Final. He ran into Fed QF of USO 06, QF of AO 08, Cincy final 07, IW final 06 and TMC final 06. So, it's not like Blake hasn't had his hard share of hard luck. The same "too bad there was a Federer" argument often used for Roddick can easily be used for Blake, to a lesser degree.

I'm not arguing that Blake is deserving of a slam. Who knows if he'd have won one or not. But to discount him b/c he hasn't won a MS title or made a slam Semi, you have to take into account who he lost to at these events.

05 USO-lost in 5 to Agassi, a match he should have won, but still a classic loss in 5th set tiebreak.
06 USO-lost to Fed in 4 in QF
07 AO-ran into red-hot Gonzo
08 AO-lost to Fed in QF

Albeit, he has some bad losses too, but he also had some tough luck drawing Fed all those times, instead of say Nadal, who's a better matchup for him on HC. If he'd won these matches, maybe not all of them, he'd definetly be in the league with the guys you mentioned as ahead of him. You have to take the draws into account for all those slam Semis and finals you mentioned.

So yes, he definetly has a place in the conversation.

flying24
05-23-2009, 11:35 PM
Federer cannot be used as a valid excuse for Blake not doing better in hard court slams. Blake has only lost to Federer twice in hard court slams. At the 2005 U.S Open he had his golden chance to reach the final, only needing to beat 35 year old Agassi and Robby Ginepri, yet could not hold onto a 2 sets to 0 lead over 35 year old Agassi. When you cant do that you dont deserve to reach a hard court slam final or even semi. Using 35 year old Agassi as an excuse for not advancing further is really bizarre. "If he had won all those matches"? One could say that for everyone else on anointedone's list. However he wasnt even remotedly close to winning any of the 2006 U.S Open quarterfinal, 2007 Australian Open 4th round, or 2008 Australian Open quarterfinal, so not sure where the "if he had won" comes into play for any of those as he wasnt close to winning any of them. The only match he was close enough he could have won was the 2005 U.S Open quarterfinal, which yes he totally should have finished off a 35 year old Agassi but failed to do so.

Given Blake's overall history and record vs top players on hard courts other than Davydenko and 2005-2006 version of Nadal, there is no reason to assume Blake would have ever done better than a hard court slam quarterfinal without Federer. One must also note that the overall mens field during Blake's peak which was during Federer' complete dominance was nothing like quality of field many times in the 80s and 90s. If anything the strength of competition argument works against Blake, not for him, despite his more limited achievements.

Blake as part of this topic at all is an embarassment. As anointedone said there are atleast 30 superior hard court players who didnt win a hard court slam in the last 30 years alone.

380pistol
05-24-2009, 12:12 AM
Rod Laver's the only right answer.

No he's not. When the first slam on hardcourt was played (1978 US Open), Laver was 40. He didn't play a significant amount of time on hardcourts, or he would have gotten a few.

If we go that route take anyone pre 1970's then. I took it to mean players who actually played slams on hardcourts. So until shown different, it remains the Angelic Assassin.




And all this Blake nonsense is absolutely absurd and I'll tell you why......

......16 appearances in hardcourt slams, and 3 QF to his name?!?

APPALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

grafselesfan
05-24-2009, 12:17 AM
No he's not. When the first slam on hardcourt was played (1978 US Open), Laver was 40. He didn't play a significant amount of time on hardcourts, or he would have gotten a few.

If we go that route take anyone pre 1970's then. I took it to mean players who actually played slams on hardcourts. So until shown different, it remains the Angelic Assassin.

I agree with that. It is Borg by a long ways. Incredible he never won a hard court slam. He really is so much better a hard court player than that. There are a variety of reasons it didnt happen, from the limited # of hard court slams he even played, to some bad timing/bad luck of certain occurences, to the competition he faced with Connors on his home turf and a peak McEnroe.

I agree with the poster who said Chang was a strong second though. So much great hard court tennis from him in the 90s, sad it wasnt ever rewarded with a hard court slam. I guess that says something about all the competition he had.

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2009, 12:23 AM
The question isn't best HC resume not to win a slam, it's best HC player not to win a slam. You cannot sit here and say that at their best, Gustavo Kuerten and Sebastien Grosjean are better hardcourt players than James Blake at his best. Better HC resumes yes, but players than Blake, no.

grafselesfan
05-24-2009, 12:27 AM
Kuerten at his best would spank Blake at his best on any surface. You must be another young poster who has never seen someone like Kuerten play. Kuerten lacked consistency on hard courts, as does Blake also. Kuerten at his best straight setted a reasonably in form Agassi in the year end final of 2000 in an immaculate display. Kuerten at his best has played some incredible big hard court matches in 2000 with Sampras, Miami final (which he lost) and year end semis (which he won). Kuerten at his best has destroyed the likes of Rafter and Chang in Masters semis and finals on hard courts. Blake's best has beaten a pre-prime Nadal who was sucking always on hard courts vs flat hitters then, beat a horrible 40% Federer at the Olympics in one of his worst matches ever, and took grandpa Agassi to 5 sets at the U.S Open. Big whoop.

Grosjean at his best would even be tough for Blake on hard courts, and would beat Blake easily on either clay or grass. Grosjean was doing well vs Agassi in 2001 when he was still near his best, whereas Blake couldnt even beat grandpa Agassi in 2005 at the U.S Open. Grosjean made the semis of slams of 3 different surfaces at his peak, he was a very versatile and talented player. He should have been in the 2001 Australian Open final vs Agassi, he totally blew that semifinal with Clement which he had won. Grosjean's game is similar to Blake's in that he relies on speed and forehand, pretty good backhand and serve but not great. Grosjean is more creative, versatile, and a smarter player though.

380pistol
05-24-2009, 12:29 AM
The question isn't best HC resume not to win a slam, it's best HC player not to win a slam. You cannot sit here and say that at their best, Gustavo Kuerten and Sebastien Grosjean are better hardcourt players than James Blake at his best. Better HC resumes yes, but players than Blake, no.

Kuerten > Blake on hard, grass, carpet, red clay, green clay, rebound ace, plexicushion, water, sand, wood, dirt, mud, glass, ice, etc., etc., etc.

grafselesfan
05-24-2009, 12:32 AM
Kuerten > Blake on hard, grass, carpet, red clay, green clay, rebound ace, plexicushion, water, sand, wood, dirt, mud, glass, ice, etc., etc. etc.

I 110% agree. I cant believe there is anyone who thinks Blake is a superior player to Kuerten on any surface. Blake is an overrated chump, a really nice guy but a third rate player, who we would have never heard from if we werent in such an unfortunate era for American tennis. In another era he would be about the 7th best American, but today he is the #2 American (ugh), and for brief times even the #1 American over Roddick. I am not sure whether to burst out in a hysteria of laughter or gag seeing his name come up in the best to not win a big title.

P8ntballa
05-24-2009, 12:35 AM
ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL :wink:
For real tho, Murray. He will get 1, thats for sure.

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2009, 12:37 AM
Well, I am "jamesblakefan#1" so obviously my opinion is a little jaded. But hey, I'm not gonna argue about who's better, Blake or Guga, both good players, Guga a cc great.

I'm not gonna pollute the thread by saying the same thing over and over, so let's just agree to disagree, ok? Fair enough?

Man, if only everyone else thought like this...

380pistol
05-24-2009, 12:40 AM
Well, I am "jamesblakefan#1" so obviously my opinion is a little jaded. But hey, I'm not gonna argue about who's better, Blake or Guga, both good players, Guga a cc great.

I'm not gonna pollute the thread by saying the same thing over and over, so let's just agree to disagree, ok? Fair enough?

Man, if only everyone else thought like this...

Why don't you just accept.....

Kuerten > Blake on hard, grass, carpet, red clay, green clay, rebound ace, plexicushion, water, sand, wood, dirt, mud, glass, ice, etc., etc., etc.

... and we can move on. GrafSeles has already given us all we ever need to know about Blake.

prosealster
05-24-2009, 12:49 AM
rafa nadal (the one he won in aust should be counted as blue clay) ;P

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2009, 12:54 AM
Why don't you just accept.....

Kuerten > Blake on hard, grass, carpet, red clay, green clay, rebound ace, plexicushion, water, sand, wood, dirt, mud, glass, ice, etc., etc., etc.

... and we can move on. GrafSeles has already given us all we ever need to know about Blake.

What do you want me to do? Do you want me to cry? Am I gonna have to change my user name to gustavokuertenfan#1? God, man, get off of my back. This isn't a thread a/b Kuerten vs. Blake, let's not make it that ok?

prosealster
05-24-2009, 01:05 AM
What do you want me to do? Do you want me to cry? Am I gonna have to change my user name to gustavokuertenfan#1? God, man, get off of my back. This isn't a thread a/b Kuerten vs. Blake, let's not make it that ok?

mate...i think some of the guys are a bit harsh to ur fav player...i think if it wasnt for fed (whom a lot of people consider GOAT)...he might have had a couple of master series and a EOY championship..not to mention he was unlucky to be in fed's quarter in usopen 2006 as he was playing the best tennis out of everyone in that tournment (apart from fed) IMO ...plus he would be a handful with his style if he played in the 90s

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2009, 01:15 AM
I agree. He's not as bad as everyone's making him out to be. I don't think he's overrated. No one's said he's an all time American great, TBH. But people forget he was top 10 for 3 yrs basically (2006-2008)

P_Agony
05-24-2009, 02:05 AM
Nalbandian and Davydenko come to mind...

Cyan
05-24-2009, 02:28 PM
Has to be someone who lost a lot of finals on HC slams and never won a slam on HC but was good enough to reach several finals on HC slams. Borg, of course.

thejoe
05-24-2009, 02:35 PM
I 110% agree. I cant believe there is anyone who thinks Blake is a superior player to Kuerten on any surface. Blake is an overrated chump, a really nice guy but a third rate player, who we would have never heard from if we werent in such an unfortunate era for American tennis. In another era he would be about the 7th best American, but today he is the #2 American (ugh), and for brief times even the #1 American over Roddick. I am not sure whether to burst out in a hysteria of laughter or gag seeing his name come up in the best to not win a big title.

He reached number 4 in the world. Why exactly is he such a disgrace to American tennis?

Giggs The Red Devil
05-24-2009, 03:16 PM
Has to be someone who lost a lot of finals on HC slams and never won a slam on HC but was good enough to reach several finals on HC slams. Borg, of course.

And Michael Chang and Todd Martin.

Dilettante
05-24-2009, 03:19 PM
Has to be Borg.

380pistol
05-24-2009, 11:10 PM
I agree. He's not as bad as everyone's making him out to be. I don't think he's overrated. No one's said he's an all time American great, TBH. But people forget he was top 10 for 3 yrs basically (2006-2008)


James Blake, 16 hardcourt slam appearances... 3 QF?!?

So no, it's NOT Federer, and YES, they speak for themself. Top 10 putting up these #'s, and his grass and clay results are even worse, doesn't say much for tennis 2006-08 when Blake was a top 10 player.

And the answer to this thread is still Borg.

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2009, 11:36 PM
You just have to get the last word, don't you. My answer wasn't Blake, first of all. And I didn't bring him up, I was just defending his credentials to all the people who were burying him. The answer is Borg, and for the purposes of this thread, that is all that matters. You can make a whole thread about Blake, if you feel that he is overrated, and we can debate that there.

380pistol
05-24-2009, 11:42 PM
You just have to get the last word, don't you. My answer wasn't Blake, first of all. And I didn't bring him up, I was just defending his credentials to all the people who were burying him. The answer is Borg, and for the purposes of this thread, that is all that matters. You can make a whole thread about Blake, if you feel that he is overrated, and we can debate that there.

I'm sorry, but is this not you.....
I agree. He's not as bad as everyone's making him out to be. I don't think he's overrated.


OK then. I disagree, he is that bad. When hardcourts are his best surface, and he has 3 QF in 16 hardcourt slam appearances..... it's bad!!!!!!!! What's good about it??? That's 8 years of hardcourt slams. And I didn't even talk about his early rd flameouts.

I do feel he's overrated. And remember I never brought him up, just responded to those who did.

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2009, 11:48 PM
James Blake sucks. I support a loser. He should never have ever picked up a tennis racket. He should retire. He is a failure in life. His kids (even though he doesn't have kids) should be ashamed of him. I walk around with a bag over my head everyday, just because I'm a fan of his. There, does that make you happy? ;)

380pistol
05-24-2009, 11:52 PM
James Blake sucks. I support a loser. He should never have ever picked up a tennis racket. He should retire. He is a failure in life. His kids (even though he doesn't have kids) should be ashamed of him. I walk around with a bag over my head everyday, just because I'm a fan of his. There, does that make you happy? ;)

Actually yeah, cuz it's funny seeing you get so riled up. What I siad he's overrated and he's not that good of player. NYou take that as he should have never picked up a racquet. Insecure much.

I say what I believe. When the discussion about the best hardcourt player never to win a hardcourt slam is asked, Blake's name should not even enter the conversation. It should be in a different time zone. Frankly it's disrespectful to players like Borg who are in the discussion.

And if that bother's I suggest you get over it......
Cry me river, build a bridge and get over it!!!!

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2009, 11:59 PM
And all I'm saying is, it's not like he's a trash player. He's beaten guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Hewitt,Davydenko on hard courts, so he's shown that when he's on his game he's capable of beating anyone on hard courts. I don't think that just because people brought him up it's a disservice, b/c he did beat the guys mentioned and was top 5 in the world at once. Though he's not consistent enough, he's shown he's talented enough that when on his game he can beat pretty much anyone. That's why people brought him up, not because he's one of the 10 greatest HC of all time or something.

I said 18 guys on your original list were better w/ Blake, I just had qualms w/ 12 who I felt Blake was just as good or better than. Is that so much?

Datacipher
05-25-2009, 12:18 AM
mate...i think some of the guys are a bit harsh to ur fav player...i think if it wasnt for fed (whom a lot of people consider GOAT)...he might have had a couple of master series and a EOY championship..not to mention he was unlucky to be in fed's quarter in usopen 2006 as he was playing the best tennis out of everyone in that tournment (apart from fed) IMO ...plus he would be a handful with his style if he played in the 90s

Oh now even I have to weight in. How stupid was this post? First, it's not "unlucky" to run into a better player or the #1 player. EVERY player has to deal with this. Second, JAMES BLAKE WOULD HAVE A HANFUL WITH HIS STYLE IN THE 90'S???!! LOL

James' brain dead, hitting would have no greater success against Courier, Chang, Agassi, SAMPRAS, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, (insert name here), than it does now.

Against the fab American 4:

Chang: WAY too consistent and versatile from all over the court for Blakers. As fast as Blake and anticipated better. The most mentally tough player ever vs one of the flakiest. Blake is toast the majority of the time.

Courier: as much firepower as Blake, plus better fitness, and much, much more mental toughness. Not quite as fast, but still covered the court very well. Way too much champ for little Blakey

Sampras: please....we'd be saying the same thing as federer...gee, if only Jamesey didn't have to play him....

Agassi: even old man Agassi was better than Blake. No comparison off the backhand side.

BLAKE IS NOT A CHAMPION FOR ANY ERA PERIOD.

Cenc
05-25-2009, 12:37 AM
borg, chang, ivanisevic, rios, few more were great
but borg should have won several hard court slams

380pistol
05-25-2009, 12:57 AM
And all I'm saying is, it's not like he's a trash player. He's beaten guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Hewitt,Davydenko on hard courts, so he's shown that when he's on his game he's capable of beating anyone on hard courts. I don't think that just because people brought him up it's a disservice, b/c he did beat the guys mentioned and was top 5 in the world at once. Though he's not consistent enough, he's shown he's talented enough that when on his game he can beat pretty much anyone. That's why people brought him up, not because he's one of the 10 greatest HC of all time or something.

I said 18 guys on your original list were better w/ Blake, I just had qualms w/ 12 who I felt Blake was just as good or better than. Is that so much?

First of all anyone can beat anyone on any given day what does it really mean??? Secondly he got Federer (once!!), Nadal (before he blossomed on hardcousts), Agassi (in the twilight of his career), and Hewitt (who's been fading for how long??). Nalbandian, Davydenko don't get me started on them.

Talent I don't see. I see bash the ball, and when things go bad, bash it harder. And if all else fails..... beat the hell out of the ball!!! I also see tremendous speed, but terrible footwork. I never said he's trash, but he's certainly not something special.

18 guys on "my" original list, what list was that?? I just said Borg, I had no list. I didn't say anything until you had Blake over Kuerten on hardcourts.

grafselesfan
05-25-2009, 02:05 AM
And all I'm saying is, it's not like he's a trash player. He's beaten guys like Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Hewitt,Davydenko on hard courts

Federer- Blake did not beat him until their 9th match. Did you see the match? Look how terribly Federer had to play for Blake to finally get a first win. This match came in the midst of Federer's hangover from his most heartbreaking loss ever- the epic Wimbledon final to Nadal, and during this funk he lost to Simon and Karlovic as well. I dont even like Federer btw.

Nadal- Yeah Blake had some wins over Nadal which is impressive for a good third tier player like him I concede. However these wins were all pre-prime Nadal and only on hard courts. Basically the only way he would have any shot vs Nadal is a pre-prime Nadal and only on hard courts, any other surface no matter how young Nadal is, or close to prime Nadal even on hard courts, forget it. Blake never got far enough to have to face Nadal on either clay or grass. Since 2007 when Nadal began improving on non clay surfaces Blake has hardly ever gotten far enough to face him even on hard courts, and those few times he has he has lost.

Roddick- Roddick is a good second tier player amongst this generations overall weak mens field, the tier up from Blake. Blake still lost their first 6 meetings. He got his only 2 wins in mid 2006 when Roddick, flaws aside a very consistent performer over the years, was coachless and going through his worst slump of the last 7 years. His 4 non clay tournaments prior to this one he had lost to 44th ranked 18 year old Andy Murray at Wimbledon, pre prime David Ferrer on hard courts, Andreev on hard courts, Benneteau on hard courts, and 18 year old 60th ranked Murray on hard courts. His rank had fallen out of the top 10 for the only time ever from mid 2002 to now. That is the only time Blake was able to get a couple wins over even Roddick.

Agassi- He managed a win over 32 year old Agassi, then still couldnt follow it up, losing their next 3 meetings to a 32, 33, and 35 year old Agassi, the latter one choking away a big lead in a slam quarterfinal like the grand slam chump he is.

Hewitt- lost his first 6 meetings with Hewitt. Did not finally get his first only thus far only win until 2006, the year Hewitt began a major decline. Hewitt was already a shadow of the player he had been from 2000-2005 in 2006, and would never regain his spot amongst the elite of the game. Despite being nowhere near the player he was in 2000-2005 though Hewitt still rebounded from this first loss to Blake to defeat Blake in their 2 meetings since. So Blake is 0-6 vs prime Hewitt, 1-2 vs far from his prime Hewitt.

That is not the definition of can beat anyone. Someone who on a good day can beat anyone is someone like Safin, to a lesser extent Nalbandian or Tsonga. Someone that can beat anyone, anywhere, at any given time if they are firing on all cylinders that day. Not someone who can can eke out a win over the best players maybe if they are in their worst slump in 7 years, if they are injured and on the way down for good, if they are pre-primed teenagers and only on your best surface and their worst, or if they are in their 30s. Blake at his best can beat the best at their worst, and even under that circumstance only 1 time out 3 or 4.

anointedone
05-25-2009, 02:14 AM
18 guys on "my" original list, what list was that?? I just said Borg, I had no list. I didn't say anything until you had Blake over Kuerten on hardcourts.

He was referring to my list of 30 players (I had earlier said I could name atleast 30 since hard court slams began in 1978 and a poster had challenged me to do so) which are IMO superior hard court players than Blake since 1978 who also havent won a hard court slam. My list was:

Vitas Gerulaitis
Michael Chang
Goran Ivanisevic
Bjorn Borg
Richard Krajicek
Nikolay Davydenko
David Nalbandian
Todd Martin
Tommy Haas
Cedric Pioline
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Thomas Muster
Andy Murray (although he probably will)
Marcelo Rios
Jonas Bjorkman
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Fernando Gonzalez
Michael Stich
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Mark Philippoussis
Pat Cash
Roscoe Tanner
Guillermo Vilas
Alex Corretja
Wayne Ferreira

He is referring to the 12 he disagreed with which were:

Richard Kraijicek
Nikolay Davydenko
Tommy Haas
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Jonas Bjorkman
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Wayne Ferreira

I was responding in horror to the idea anyone could even suggest Blake is the greatest hard court player not to win a hard court slam.

jamesblakefan#1
05-25-2009, 02:19 AM
Enough of this bull crap about pre prime Nadal. He'd already beaten Federer multiple times on HC when Blake beat him, Blake beat him 3 times after he already had a slam, it's not like he beat him in 03 in 04. Stop this bs about pre prime Nadal, because it's bull crap.

Federer in post Wimbledon hangover? Stop making these bs excuses and discrediting Blake's accomplishments. No one makes these excuses for anyone else, yet since it's Blake you can't give him credit? You don't get to be top 10 in the world for 3 years by accident. Give the guy some credit. I'm not saying he's top 20 of all time, I'm just saying give credit where credit is due instead of saying guys were pre-prime or past their prime.

jamesblakefan#1
05-25-2009, 02:19 AM
Sorry. Double post. Just went into full (semi) Blake-**** mood there.

grafselesfan
05-25-2009, 04:36 AM
Enough of this bull crap about pre prime Nadal. He'd already beaten Federer multiple times on HC when Blake beat him, Blake beat him 3 times after he already had a slam, it's not like he beat him in 03 in 04. Stop this bs about pre prime Nadal, because it's bull crap.

Federer in post Wimbledon hangover? Stop making these bs excuses and discrediting Blake's accomplishments. No one makes these excuses for anyone else, yet since it's Blake you can't give him credit? You don't get to be top 10 in the world for 3 years by accident. Give the guy some credit. I'm not saying he's top 20 of all time, I'm just saying give credit where credit is due instead of saying guys were pre-prime or past their prime.

There is no double standardizing going on. When I noted Federer's weakness as far as talking about his historic greatness I noted that he was even losing matches to "pre-prime" Nadal on hard courts. So in any argument I make involving Nadal I acknowledge that 2005-2006 Nadal, heck 2005-2007 Nadal probably, was of course pre-prime Nadal despite that he was already dominating on his beloved clay. That in conjuction with the fact that it was not just pre-prime Nadal, but pre-prime Nadal on hard courts only, Blake's best surface and Nadal's worst, and Blake hasnt even gotten far enough to even play Nadal on another surface. There is nothing that suggests Blake can beat Nadal under any circumstance than a very young pre-prime Nadal of a couple years on, and only on, hard courts. I see no reason to believe Blake could have beaten Nadal at any age on anything other than hard courts, nor that he can beat a 21 year old or older Nadal even on hard courts.

After Wimbledon Federer lost to Simon, Karlovic, and Blake in his next 3 tournaments in a row. If you dont think that was a hangover so be it. Did you even watch the Olympic match between Federer and Blake. If so and you either dont have the eyesight or objectivity to admit that is one of Federer's worst matches ever then I am afraid I cant help you. Even so it doesnt change the fact his win over Federer didnt come until their 9th match.

A player who can beat anyone on a good day means they can beat anyone at any given time, even if they are playing decently atleast or at a normal time in their careers. If in a ton of matches you only beat someone once or maybe twice when they were teenagers, in their 30s, or playing their worst little stint of tennis in a 7+ year span, then that means you only have an outside shot to beat certain players under their worst circumstances. I am sorry but that is not "can beat anyone on a good day" sort of reality.

fps
05-25-2009, 04:45 AM
blake's a good player, he's been a good player for many years, but he's not the best player to never win a hardcourt slam, especially since i can't really think of a "one that got away". it's not like henman's 2001 wimbledon on grass, for instance, where you think "yes, that could have been his year".

all this crushing negativity on the forum towards his accomplishments, the equivalent of being presented with a sheet of facts, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "no no no doesn't count wasn't him blahblahblah can't hear you" is really dumb.

thalivest
05-25-2009, 04:52 AM
2001 Wimbledon never got away from Henman and the hype that it did is nonsense. If it had not been for the rain delay in the 2001 Wimbledon semis, Rafter would have won Wimbledon. Rafter was the biggest victim of the rain delay, even more than Henman, as no way Henman beats him in the final. They have similar games but Rafter does everything as well or better than Henman, and he had been there before whereas Henman never would have been. Henman's only edge is he returns a huge serve like Ivanisevic's better than Rafter which would have been a non factor in the final.

fps
05-25-2009, 04:57 AM
2001 Wimbledon never got away from Henman and the hype that it did is nonsense. If it had not been for the rain delay in the 2001 Wimbledon semis, Rafter would have won Wimbledon. Rafter was the biggest victim of the rain delay, even more than Henman, as no way Henman beats him in the final. They have similar games but Rafter does everything as well or better than Henman, and he had been there before whereas Henman never would have been. Henman's only edge is he returns a huge serve like Ivanisevic's better than Rafter which would have been a non factor in the final.

well, all i can say is he was playing well that year, he has the home crowd, and strange things happen in grand slam finals. i think it would have been a great match, and a close match.

but my point was more that without the rain delay in the semi, henman would have got to the final- ivanisevic had mentally caved, and came out a different player afterwards. henman had a legitimate shot at the final, and from there, yes rafter is the more accomplished player, but who knows? whereas blake never put himself in that "what if?" position. there would have had to be a couple of big long shot results from where he DID get to, in order for him to win a slam.

jamesblakefan#1
05-25-2009, 05:00 AM
blake's a good player, he's been a good player for many years, but he's not the best player to never win a hardcourt slam, especially since i can't really think of a "one that got away". it's not like henman's 2001 wimbledon on grass, for instance, where you think "yes, that could have been his year".

all this crushing negativity on the forum towards his accomplishments, the equivalent of being presented with a sheet of facts, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "no no no doesn't count wasn't him blahblahblah can't hear you" is really dumb.

I agree completely with this post. I never said James was the best to never win a HC slam. I was just merely making the case that he's not as awful as Sampras guy and Grafseles guy were making him out to seem. Like I said, you don't get to top 10 for 3 consecutive yrs and make it to #4 in the world by luck. There has to be some skill and talent involved.

And as far as the pre-prime Nadal thing goes, I mean Nadal had won MS titles on HC when Blake beat him, so I don't know why you choose to discount those victories as "teenage Nadal". Obviously he's better now, but that doesn't discount his teenage years. You're not going back and taking 2 of his FO titles away because he won them as a teen, are you?

flying24
05-25-2009, 05:03 AM
When a player with only 3 slam quarterfinals in his career is being brought up as a candidate for best ever not to win a slam on anything there is inevitably going to be some negativity towards him. That is just inviting it.

hoodjem
05-25-2009, 05:04 AM
Miloslav Mecir.

grafselesfan
05-25-2009, 05:06 AM
I agree completely with this post. I never said James was the best to never win a HC slam. I was just merely making the case that he's not as awful as Sampras guy and Grafseles guy were making him out to seem. Like I said, you don't get to top 10 for 3 consecutive yrs and make it to #4 in the world by luck. There has to be some skill and talent involved.

And as far as the pre-prime Nadal thing goes, I mean Nadal had won MS titles on HC when Blake beat him, so I don't know why you choose to discount those victories as "teenage Nadal". Obviously he's better now, but that doesn't discount his teenage years. You're not going back and taking 2 of his FO titles away because he won them as a teen, are you?

These are Nadal's slam results on hard courts from 2005-2007:

2005 Australian Open- 4th round
2005 U.S Open- 3rd round
2006 U.S Open- quarterfinals (lost to Youzhny)
2007 Australian Open- quarterfinals (destroyed by Gonzalez)
2007 U.S Open- 4th round

Yet if you still insist on believing it was a remarkable feat to beat Nadal on hard courts during this time period then go ahead.

Nadal is either the greatest or 2nd greatest clay courter in history, so playing at a time of a weak overall clay court field where the 2nd best clay courter is someone he owns mentally and whom pees his pants at the sight of him in general (you know you) it is little wonder even in his pre-prime days he was already winning regularly on clay.

jamesblakefan#1
05-25-2009, 05:15 AM
He also won 3 MS titles on HC during 2005-2006, lost in Miami final in 05 to Fed in 5, and won 2 other HC titles during this time, including Dubai 06 over Fed. So how was he such a bad hard courter again?

And BTW, I like how you conviniently left out that Blake beat him in that 05 USO.

It was remarkable, he was #2 in the world for God's sake.

grafselesfan
05-25-2009, 05:21 AM
Yes it indeed says something about the mens field at the time that a player was a solid and permenent #2 in the World almost a full 3 years before even reaching their first hard court slam semi. Not to mention that the only one pushing Federer on hard courts is someone who took another 3 years to reach his first hard court slam semi. I like Rafa alot so I would not go out of my way to unfairly diminish him as a player at any point. Of course he was a very good hard court player, but all I am saying it this defintiely wasnt prime Nadal and you are kidding yourself if you think he was, and even then Blake could only have a hope on hard courts.

fps
05-25-2009, 05:40 AM
Yes it indeed says something about the mens field at the time that a player was a solid and permenent #2 in the World almost a full 3 years before even reaching their first hard court slam semi. Not to mention that the only one pushing Federer on hard courts is someone who took another 3 years to reach his first hard court slam semi. I like Rafa alot so I would not go out of my way to unfairly diminish him as a player at any point. Of course he was a very good hard court player, but all I am saying it this defintiely wasnt prime Nadal and you are kidding yourself if you think he was, and even then Blake could only have a hope on hard courts.

you conveniently forget that Blake is around 30 now, so we will never know what a *prime* match-up between the two would have looked like. we can say nadal was heavy favourite, but not that an in-form Blake would have had no chance.

as for *only on hard-courts*, this thread is about hard courts.

jamesblakefan#1
05-25-2009, 05:42 AM
I said Nadal's obviously better now. Still doesn't mean didn't beat him.

Let's just end this argument, ok? It's obvious you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not going to win an argument over who's better, Blake or Nadal, because that's what this is turning into.

stormholloway
05-25-2009, 05:50 AM
The answer is Borg by a mile. Only one slam was played on harcourts back then however, but the man was in 4 US Open finals. He should have taken at least one of those.

Though thinking about it, maybe not all of his finals were on hardcourts. I forget when they moved to Flushing.

droliver
05-25-2009, 08:39 AM
Michael Chang by a mile. Brilliant hard court player. He had the bad luck of being peers with Sampras, Agassi, & Courier.

honorable mention: Krajicek, Enqvist, Wayne Ferriera, Michael Stich, T. Martin, Philapousis, & Mecir

prosealster
05-25-2009, 10:27 PM
Oh now even I have to weight in. How stupid was this post? First, it's not "unlucky" to run into a better player or the #1 player. EVERY player has to deal with this. Second, JAMES BLAKE WOULD HAVE A HANFUL WITH HIS STYLE IN THE 90'S???!! LOL

James' brain dead, hitting would have no greater success against Courier, Chang, Agassi, SAMPRAS, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, (insert name here), than it does now.

Against the fab American 4:

Chang: WAY too consistent and versatile from all over the court for Blakers. As fast as Blake and anticipated better. The most mentally tough player ever vs one of the flakiest. Blake is toast the majority of the time.

Courier: as much firepower as Blake, plus better fitness, and much, much more mental toughness. Not quite as fast, but still covered the court very well. Way too much champ for little Blakey

Sampras: please....we'd be saying the same thing as federer...gee, if only Jamesey didn't have to play him....

Agassi: even old man Agassi was better than Blake. No comparison off the backhand side.

BLAKE IS NOT A CHAMPION FOR ANY ERA PERIOD.

gee i apologise that even a novice like u have to chime in on this post, certainly made me feel deeply in shame... do u not read other's post and process it before u spit it back out... all i am saying is that the only player that stood b/n blake and a big title was an in-his-prime possibly-GOAT Fed....he might also have gone further in a major if not for the fact he was in the same quarter as prime fed at usopen 2006 when i thought he was playing the 2nd best tennis in the entire field...and u said every player have to deal with that??? explain to me how is it possible for every player to have fed in their quarter??

i've never compared him to the feb 4...u did (i think he is clearly not in the same league)...i am not saying he is the best player to never win a major...all i was saying to blakefan was that a lot of blake bashing IMO is unfair...he has been a top 10 for 3 yrs (i think)..that's a lot more than what most player has achieved....having said that..since u brought up the feb 4....we all know that still....blake has a winning H2H vs nads...and nads is easily a better play than chang or courier. Apart from ur 'expert' opinion..u've got nothing to back up your clam that blake would be toast against these guys... the fast conditions in the 90s which rewards the attacking, flat hitting strokes may suit blake better than the current condition, he might have achieved more ....so what's wrong in saying that blake would be a handful in the 90s.... again....i have to spell it out to your hybernating cerebral cortex... a player who can be a handful does not automatically equal to being an all time great :rolleyes:

Dilettante
05-25-2009, 10:43 PM
I insist: has to be Borg.

380pistol
05-25-2009, 10:54 PM
He was referring to my list of 30 players (I had earlier said I could name atleast 30 since hard court slams began in 1978 and a poster had challenged me to do so) which are IMO superior hard court players than Blake since 1978 who also havent won a hard court slam. My list was:

Vitas Gerulaitis
Michael Chang
Goran Ivanisevic
Bjorn Borg
Richard Krajicek
Nikolay Davydenko
David Nalbandian
Todd Martin
Tommy Haas
Cedric Pioline
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Thomas Muster
Andy Murray (although he probably will)
Marcelo Rios
Jonas Bjorkman
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Fernando Gonzalez
Michael Stich
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Mark Philippoussis
Pat Cash
Roscoe Tanner
Guillermo Vilas
Alex Corretja
Wayne Ferreira

He is referring to the 12 he disagreed with which were:

Richard Kraijicek
Nikolay Davydenko
Tommy Haas
Miloslav Mecir
Yannick Noah
Tomas Enqvist
Jonas Bjorkman
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Sebastien Grosjean
Gustavo Kuerten
Wayne Ferreira

I was responding in horror to the idea anyone could even suggest Blake is the greatest hard court player not to win a hard court slam.

Of the ones he disagreed with......
Ferrero, Moya, Kuerten, Krajicek, Mecir and Noah are all definitely ahead of Blake. Ferreira was more consistent. I'm inclined to take Enqvist over Blake as well. Haas is better, but injuries killed his career.

Davydenko, Bjorkman and Grosjean I don't know, I can see Bake ahead of them.

Of the 30 you had everyone except.....
-Davydenko (maybe)
-Murray (not yet anyway, but it's only matter of time, and it will be sooner, rather than later)
-Bjorkman (is questionable)
-Tsonga at present time (but JW will likely pass Blake anyway, if he hasn't already)
-Gonzalez (not better and not worse, about eqaul to me)
-Grosjean (better or worse I don't know and don't care, both aren't worth mentioning anyway)
-P'sis (probably, I'm inlclined to take him over Blake)
-Tanner (don't recall his HC prowess to well, but I would assume it's better than Blake's)

I can only see Davydenko, Grosjean and Bjorkman that he's definitely ahead of. One can argue others like Gonzalez and Corretja. But not much more than that.

Dilettante
05-25-2009, 10:55 PM
Of the ones he disagreed with......
Ferrero, Moya, Kuerten, Krajicek, Mecir and Noah are all definitely ahead of Blake.

I totally agree with that.

Breaker
05-26-2009, 05:00 AM
Of the ones he disagreed with......
Ferrero, Moya, Kuerten, Krajicek, Mecir and Noah are all definitely ahead of Blake. Ferreira was more consistent. I'm inclined to take Enqvist over Blake as well. Haas is better, but injuries killed his career.

Davydenko, Bjorkman and Grosjean I don't know, I can see Bake ahead of them.

Of the 30 you had everyone except.....
-Davydenko (maybe)
-Murray (not yet anyway, but it's only matter of time, and it will be sooner, rather than later)
-Bjorkman (is questionable)
-Tsonga at present time (but JW will likely pass Blake anyway, if he hasn't already)
-Gonzalez (not better and not worse, about eqaul to me)
-Grosjean (better or worse I don't know and don't care, both aren't worth mentioning anyway)
-P'sis (probably, I'm inlclined to take him over Blake)
-Tanner (don't recall his HC prowess to well, but I would assume it's better than Blake's)

I can only see Davydenko, Grosjean and Bjorkman that he's definitely ahead of. One can argue others like Gonzalez and Corretja. But not much more than that.

Davydenko has 2 Masters Series hard court title as well as multiple semifinal appearances in hard court slams > 3 hard court quarterfinal appearances in slams, a Masters Cup final, and a Masters Series final.

Murray has a slam final as well as 3 hard court Masters Series titles.

Tsonga has a slam final as well as a Masters Series title.

Grosjean has a Masters Series title as well as equaling Blake's other accomplishments on hard court.

Bjorkman about equal but has a semi at the US Open as well as equaling Blake's accomplishments on the surface outside of the year end final Blake has.

Gonzalez has hard court slam final, destroyong Blake on his way there.

380pistol
05-26-2009, 11:02 AM
Davydenko has 2 Masters Series hard court title as well as multiple semifinal appearances in hard court slams > 3 hard court quarterfinal appearances in slams, a Masters Cup final, and a Masters Series final.

Murray has a slam final as well as 3 hard court Masters Series titles.

Tsonga has a slam final as well as a Masters Series title.

Grosjean has a Masters Series title as well as equaling Blake's other accomplishments on hard court.

Bjorkman about equal but has a semi at the US Open as well as equaling Blake's accomplishments on the surface outside of the year end final Blake has.

Gonzalez has hard court slam final, destroyong Blake on his way there.


Davydenko - won his first hardcourt masters sheild when the top 3 players didn't even go. Not that impressive. And who of consequence has he beaten in a hardcourt slam?? Broke body Haas??? So I'm not sure.

Murray -may have already surpassed Blake.

Tsonga - see Muuray.

Bjorkman - better or worse I don't know, not that I care. Niether were anything special.

Gonzalez - got hot for a week (beat Blake, flailing Hewitt, the aforementioned broke body haas, and a unpolished on hardcourts Nadal), then proceeded to stink up the rest of the season... in fact he skunkified it. He went o for the damn US summer hardcourt season!!!! Not that he was impressive in the years prior to that.

veroniquem
05-26-2009, 11:04 AM
I insist: has to be Borg.
I agree. It's a shame Borg never won USO. He came very close.