PDA

View Full Version : schrichapan plays like junior player.


stoneagle
05-31-2006, 04:41 PM
Did you guys watched some of the match between
blake and schrichapan? how did schrichapan became
#10 in the world two years ago. this guys plays
ridiculous tennis; he played like a bad junior player. he
seems no plan at all during his match against
blake. he made too many errors, he couldn't even
play the ball over three shots,his shots are scattered
all over the court, just like they have no directions at all,
his serve and form looks ugly. is this the guy they admire
and worship in thailand? if i watched that at the roland
garros, i felt like i wasted my money on that match, no
quality shot making, rallies were to short,one,two,three,
then the point was finished. too boring to watch.

!Tym
05-31-2006, 04:58 PM
Did you guys watched some of the match between
blake and schrichapan? how did schrichapan became
#10 in the world two years ago. this guys plays
ridiculous tennis; he played like a bad junior player. he
seems no plan at all during his match against
blake. he made too many errors, he couldn't even
play the ball over three shots,his shots are scattered
all over the court, just like they have no directions at all,
his serve and form looks ugly. is this the guy they admire
and worship in thailand? if i watched that at the roland
garros, i felt like i wasted my money on that match, no
quality shot making, rallies were to short,one,two,three,
then the point was finished. too boring to watch.

Because when he gets hots that random selection of shots that normally spray can be mistaken for "shot making." I.e. See his match with Agassi at Wimbledon a few years ago.

On grass or hard courts, he can sometimes be devastatingly effective playing this way. His performance over Kiefer and Blake a few years ago at the Hamlet Cup in the semis and finals was just ridiculous. He was blasting balls left and right and every which way and they were going in. Because he doesn't seem to play any patterns and seem to know what he's doing out there, if and when he's on, that actually is what makes him tough to beat. It's not like say a clay courter with a huge inside-out forehand, because duh, you know if he's on where that guy's usually going to go with that huge forehand--inside-out. If Sriciphan doesn't even know what he's doing out there, then it follows that the opponent won't either. It works for and against him.

You can't sustain a career that way though, sooner or later you're going to start going down because mentally it's stressful to play that way in my opinion, in the sense that for you to win you feel like you must be "on" all the time. There was a time when Srichiphan was regularly making his shots with that style, see when he beat Rios in the Legg Mason final, seriously impressive stuff. He overpowered Rios that match with his unpredictable "shot making." Aggasi was actually easier for Rios to play, because Agassi plays more to patterns. Against Srichiphan in this match, he didn't look like he knew what hit him, because he didn't. How do you prepare for a guy like that?

When you look at Gonzales, see the difference. When he played Ferrero a few years ago at the French, he was playing like a chicken with his head cut-off. Now, he's still going for broke but he's also willing to play a little defense, mixes in more slices and drop shots, and is willing to come in more so he DOESN'T have to always rely on hitting the flashy winner. On important points and matches under pressure, that's just too much pressure on a player and then the cracks would show in Gonzales go-for-broke style as on these important moments he'd REGULARLY choke and spray the ball. If you get even just a little tentative when going for it, you WILL miss. As Arias said, "You can't steer the ball can you. You have to hit it." When you don't the ball actually tends to sail long when you're caught in that half-way zone between being tentative and going-for-it. You need to swing out to make sure with absolutely NO fear in order to make sure you get your racket out in front enough to bring the ball back down into the court. When you're slightly tenative or less than confident with this style, you'll tend to hesitate for an extra millisecond at the beginning of your swing, and then try to accelerate a millisecond too late into your normal "go for broke" swing. When this happens, the ball will of course sail on you, because you're hitting late yet also with major racket head speed. It's like a formula one racer, when you go for it, you BETTER go for it. It's too late to be tentative or think about it so to speak.

On clay, for Srichiphan, it's even worse. Because Srichiphan has ZERO belief in himself on clay, and basically himself said several years ago that he throws the clay season just waiting for hard courts to return again. In other words, he doesn't have the mental commitment to the point you need on clay, he's already defeated and given up before he steps on the court and that's why he's even MORE erratic on clay, BY FAR, than he is on hard courts which shouldn't be the case since hard courts give you less time to properly set-up your shots and get a clean rip at the ball.

It shows you how negative and close-minded his mindset and frame of mind are on clay. You simply can't win that way, that's why virtually ANYONE on tour within reason of standards would be strongly favored against Srichiphan on clay. He himself already concedes that before the match even begins. If he truly committed himself mentally to clay and came in with a positive frame of mind, he could do much better on the stuff. It's in his head. Even though Srichiphan is by nature in consistent, he is NOT that inconsistent to the point where you think "how can he even be a pro?"

AAAA
05-31-2006, 05:16 PM
Everything about his form of late is due to the likelihood he has been resting on his laurels for quite some time.

sandiegotennisboy
05-31-2006, 05:44 PM
he never got proper training. tennis videotapes can only teach you so much. he needs to dump his coach/dad and get a real one.

i totally agree with the above poster that said that his "shot making" is just him not really knowing what to do and going for broke.

LowProfile
05-31-2006, 05:52 PM
Paradorn is a very dangerous player on the faster courts. He possesses powerful groundstrokes and a very high level of fitness. However he is perhaps one of the worst players on clay that were present at Roland Garros this year.

You think his strokes are ugly? He has a very beautiful (if mercurial) backhand and I like his traditional style forehand (he uses a very eastern grip I believe). He possesses great power and is very difficult to read, probably because he himself doesn't exactly know where he is aiming.

woody6.1
06-01-2006, 06:20 AM
like others he can pull out some great angles.. it seems more of a matter of consistency for him.. but i do agree entirely what brad gilbert was talking about when commentating on the match

HyperHorse
06-01-2006, 06:43 AM
Didnt Sampras also say he didnt quite know what he was doing on clay?
Paradorn is a VERY exciting player, should be top ten imho...
yep, dump the father coach... i totally agree...
such a shame really... *sigh*

dmastous
06-01-2006, 06:50 AM
Isn't Schrichapan part of the royal family in Tailand? Or at least from a family of privilage in a country of poverty?
I'm not writing this to be critical of him or his upbringing. I just don't think he's resting on his laurals. He's not playing tennis for his survival.
Unlike basketball, I think many tennis pros are from well-to-do backgrounds with families who can afford the training and equipment it takes to reach that level, but the difference between the rich and poor in a country like Tailand is significantly more than most other countries.
The comments about his total lack of confidance on clay is probably more the case. His game is based on hitting winners and clay takes a lot of those winners away from him. If he can't hit it by his opponent he doesn't know how to work the point to create an opening, or just outlast his opponent. He seems clueless because he doesn't have a plan B.
Also, didn't he have to take some time off for some religious reason? He had to fast for awhile then go through some ceremony. All that could have effected his preperations for this season.
Let's see what his play is like at Wimbledon before we write him off completely.

Colpo
06-01-2006, 06:55 AM
I was surprised at how harsh some of the commentary was toward Paradorn during that match. I think one of the commentators described him as playing out the string of his career! There is something about his expression when he's playing and losing that suggests he's mentally elsewhere. He's never going to win a grit award. Watching him play on clay is like watching a house cat in a swimming pool. He probably has peaked, but we could say the same for many other pros who are still out there on tour.

Ripper
06-01-2006, 07:28 AM
Because when he gets hots that random selection of shots that normally spray can be mistaken for "shot making." I.e. See his match with Agassi at Wimbledon a few years ago.

On grass or hard courts, he can sometimes be devastatingly effective playing this way. His performance over Kiefer and Blake a few years ago at the Hamlet Cup in the semis and finals was just ridiculous. He was blasting balls left and right and every which way and they were going in. Because he doesn't seem to play any patterns and seem to know what he's doing out there, if and when he's on, that actually is what makes him tough to beat. It's not like say a clay courter with a huge inside-out forehand, because duh, you know if he's on where that guy's usually going to go with that huge forehand--inside-out. If Sriciphan doesn't even know what he's doing out there, then it follows that the opponent won't either. It works for and against him.

You can't sustain a career that way though, sooner or later you're going to start going down because mentally it's stressful to play that way in my opinion, in the sense that for you to win you feel like you must be "on" all the time...

Exellent stuff Tym!

anonymous2364
06-01-2006, 07:48 AM
he sucks on clay

Max G.
06-01-2006, 07:56 AM
Isn't Schrichapan part of the royal family in Tailand? Or at least from a family of privilage in a country of poverty?

If I remember correctly, his father was a banker, who decided that he would teach his sons to be pro tennis players. Srichaphan was the third child - his father said that he learned off of the mistakes he made with teaching the first two ;)

siber222000
06-01-2006, 09:20 AM
he sucks on clay
period

highsierra
06-01-2006, 09:57 AM
he sucks on clay

And he apparently made the decision that he doesn't want to improve on clay either. I don't understand why he even signed up for the French Open because there's no way for him to get past any of the other 127 players regardless of who he played in the first round. He should have just rested and wait for the grass season to begin in two weeks.

It's funny to watch the Blake match as Blake was also determined to meet power with power :cool: but Blake had a plan and had much better consistency.

!Tym
06-01-2006, 10:09 AM
And he apparently made the decision that he doesn't want to improve on clay either. I don't understand why he even signed up for the French Open because there's no way for him to get past any of the other 127 players regardless of who he played in the first round. He should have just rested and wait for the grass season to begin in two weeks.

It's funny to watch the Blake match as Blake was also determined to meet power with power :cool: but Blake had a plan and had much better consistency.

Srichiphan said a few years ago that he doesn't expect to win at all during the clay season, but that he just looks at it as an opportunity to have some fun and get in shape for the hard court season...umm, not exactly what I'd call the most productive use of your time or a surefire and well-thought out plan to maximize your potential.

ksbh
06-01-2006, 11:18 AM
Excellent analysis Tym! I think you're spot on with that.

Because when he gets hots that random selection of shots that normally spray can be mistaken for "shot making." I.e. See his match with Agassi at Wimbledon a few years ago.

On grass or hard courts, he can sometimes be devastatingly effective playing this way. His performance over Kiefer and Blake a few years ago at the Hamlet Cup in the semis and finals was just ridiculous. He was blasting balls left and right and every which way and they were going in. Because he doesn't seem to play any patterns and seem to know what he's doing out there, if and when he's on, that actually is what makes him tough to beat. It's not like say a clay courter with a huge inside-out forehand, because duh, you know if he's on where that guy's usually going to go with that huge forehand--inside-out. If Sriciphan doesn't even know what he's doing out there, then it follows that the opponent won't either. It works for and against him.

You can't sustain a career that way though, sooner or later you're going to start going down because mentally it's stressful to play that way in my opinion, in the sense that for you to win you feel like you must be "on" all the time. There was a time when Srichiphan was regularly making his shots with that style, see when he beat Rios in the Legg Mason final, seriously impressive stuff. He overpowered Rios that match with his unpredictable "shot making." Aggasi was actually easier for Rios to play, because Agassi plays more to patterns. Against Srichiphan in this match, he didn't look like he knew what hit him, because he didn't. How do you prepare for a guy like that?

When you look at Gonzales, see the difference. When he played Ferrero a few years ago at the French, he was playing like a chicken with his head cut-off. Now, he's still going for broke but he's also willing to play a little defense, mixes in more slices and drop shots, and is willing to come in more so he DOESN'T have to always rely on hitting the flashy winner. On important points and matches under pressure, that's just too much pressure on a player and then the cracks would show in Gonzales go-for-broke style as on these important moments he'd REGULARLY choke and spray the ball. If you get even just a little tentative when going for it, you WILL miss. As Arias said, "You can't steer the ball can you. You have to hit it." When you don't the ball actually tends to sail long when you're caught in that half-way zone between being tentative and going-for-it. You need to swing out to make sure with absolutely NO fear in order to make sure you get your racket out in front enough to bring the ball back down into the court. When you're slightly tenative or less than confident with this style, you'll tend to hesitate for an extra millisecond at the beginning of your swing, and then try to accelerate a millisecond too late into your normal "go for broke" swing. When this happens, the ball will of course sail on you, because you're hitting late yet also with major racket head speed. It's like a formula one racer, when you go for it, you BETTER go for it. It's too late to be tentative or think about it so to speak.

On clay, for Srichiphan, it's even worse. Because Srichiphan has ZERO belief in himself on clay, and basically himself said several years ago that he throws the clay season just waiting for hard courts to return again. In other words, he doesn't have the mental commitment to the point you need on clay, he's already defeated and given up before he steps on the court and that's why he's even MORE erratic on clay, BY FAR, than he is on hard courts which shouldn't be the case since hard courts give you less time to properly set-up your shots and get a clean rip at the ball.

It shows you how negative and close-minded his mindset and frame of mind are on clay. You simply can't win that way, that's why virtually ANYONE on tour within reason of standards would be strongly favored against Srichiphan on clay. He himself already concedes that before the match even begins. If he truly committed himself mentally to clay and came in with a positive frame of mind, he could do much better on the stuff. It's in his head. Even though Srichiphan is by nature in consistent, he is NOT that inconsistent to the point where you think "how can he even be a pro?"

HyperHorse
06-01-2006, 04:35 PM
after making statements like that, he should just be banned from all clay tournaments, until proven otherwise...
pathetic really... *rolls eyes*

bennieboi
06-01-2006, 06:30 PM
paradorn is NOT A CLAY COURTER! he uses an eastern forehand grip, YOU use an eastern grip on Clay and tell me if it's easy or not. While in Wimbledon, a grass court, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, a few years back, he defeated Aggasi in the quarters i believe. I hope you do know there's a huge difference on different types of courts, and plus, no one can always go out on the court and play his best, pros have their days too. please do your research before assuming or saying anything, just because he can't play on clay doesn't mean he's a horrible player.

dirkgnuf
06-01-2006, 07:14 PM
Dmastous, one thing, Thailand includes an h.

!Tym
06-01-2006, 07:44 PM
paradorn is NOT A CLAY COURTER! he uses an eastern forehand grip, YOU use an eastern grip on Clay and tell me if it's easy or not. While in Wimbledon, a grass court, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, a few years back, he defeated Aggasi in the quarters i believe. I hope you do know there's a huge difference on different types of courts, and plus, no one can always go out on the court and play his best, pros have their days too. please do your research before assuming or saying anything, just because he can't play on clay doesn't mean he's a horrible player.

Actually, I think this is a myth. Lendl used a classical grip and did just fine. Medvedev and Kafelnikov, Medvedev in particular, were among the flattest ball strikers on tour. Medvedev had very traditional technique. Pioline used an eastern grip and arguably his best surface was clay. Leconte made the semis and finals of the French and used an eastern grip, not to mention, not being a percentage type of tennis player himself. Korda hit the flattest of anyone on tour yet he still made the finals of the French. Filip Dewulf, a nobody, made the semis of the French one year and the quarters the next, and the cornerstone of his game was a big flat forehand very similar in style to Srichiphan's, was not an extreme western type technique, even the motion/take back was somewhat similar.

I think someone recently said that studies actually showed topspin actually bounces slightly less on clay than on hard, but what I think is the cause of the perception being different than this is that on clay you have more time to hit heavy topspin, which as we all know, requires more set-up time to get off properly, and set-up time is something clay DEFINITELY gives you more of.

Baisically, if you have more of a classical grip you can look at it two ways.

1) Is like Srichiphan. 2) Is to see it as an opportunity to more perfectly set your feet for your higher-risk flatter shots so that you can get in a groove with them and execute them confidently.

You can hit flatter, and still make an impact on clay if you're attitude is positive.

Clay if you're really confident in your strokes on a day, it can be a glorious thing, because you look at it as I have that many more opportunitities to hit my glorious strokes cleanly. If you're strokes are in a quagmire, or your technique is breaking down, then it feels like, well, being in a quagmire, being in QUICKSAND. Like quicksand, the more you struggle and resist, the faster you'll sink, the more sure and invetiable you're demise. On clay, you have to go with the flow and accept the conditions and look at it as an opportunity to work for you.

bennieboi
06-01-2006, 10:35 PM
Actually, I think this is a myth. Lendl used a classical grip and did just fine. Medvedev and Kafelnikov, Medvedev in particular, were among the flattest ball strikers on tour. Medvedev had very traditional technique. Pioline used an eastern grip and arguably his best surface was clay. Leconte made the semis and finals of the French and used an eastern grip, not to mention, not being a percentage type of tennis player himself. Korda hit the flattest of anyone on tour yet he still made the finals of the French. Filip Dewulf, a nobody, made the semis of the French one year and the quarters the next, and the cornerstone of his game was a big flat forehand very similar in style to Srichiphan's, was not an extreme western type technique, even the motion/take back was somewhat similar.

I think someone recently said that studies actually showed topspin actually bounces slightly less on clay than on hard, but what I think is the cause of the perception being different than this is that on clay you have more time to hit heavy topspin, which as we all know, requires more set-up time to get off properly, and set-up time is something clay DEFINITELY gives you more of.

Baisically, if you have more of a classical grip you can look at it two ways.

1) Is like Srichiphan. 2) Is to see it as an opportunity to more perfectly set your feet for your higher-risk flatter shots so that you can get in a groove with them and execute them confidently.

You can hit flatter, and still make an impact on clay if you're attitude is positive.

Clay if you're really confident in your strokes on a day, it can be a glorious thing, because you look at it as I have that many more opportunitities to hit my glorious strokes cleanly. If you're strokes are in a quagmire, or your technique is breaking down, then it feels like, well, being in a quagmire, being in QUICKSAND. Like quicksand, the more you struggle and resist, the faster you'll sink, the more sure and invetiable you're demise. On clay, you have to go with the flow and accept the conditions and look at it as an opportunity to work for you.

YOU are an EXTREME GENIUS! i just quickly came with something because it really ticks me when people just assume things when they've seen a player play ONCE... yeah we have assumptions, but i just found it rude he said it like that. i wasn't trying to start an argument or anything, and also srichaphan is one of my favorite players. anyways, thank you for your knowledge, i dind't know all that.:)

Max G.
06-02-2006, 07:28 AM
Mario Ancic uses an eastern grip, I think, and hits pretty flat shots off both sides. He's perfectly comfortable on clay, though it's certainly not his best surface.

andfor
06-02-2006, 08:22 AM
Mario Ancic uses an eastern grip, I think, and hits pretty flat shots off both sides. He's perfectly comfortable on clay, though it's certainly not his best surface.

So does Radek Stepnek. He does OK on clay. Certain grips (western FH/eastern BH) can help on clay some that's obvious but more important than that is experience on clay and confidence.

Dmastous, one thing, thailand includes an h.
........and one more thing Thailand includes a capital T.;)