Has James Blake sticking around hurt his legacy? - Page 2

Harry_Wild · 02-13-2013, 11:51 PM

If Blake at his age can make a final comeback like Goran Ivanisevic did; Blake will then have a legacy! But as of now; he just another tour pro trying to break back in to the top tier.

TheCheese · 02-13-2013, 11:55 PM

Who cares about the legacy? He should do what he loves as long as he can.

Fiji · 02-14-2013, 05:07 AM

Not really..

tacou · 02-14-2013, 10:23 AM

Every person leaves behind a legacy and James Blake's is more epic than most..

While I think players should play as long as they enjoy it, this is an example of the later years overshadowing a brief but fruitful run. Ranked #4 in the world for awhile, YEC finalist, dangerous floater on fast courts. But I forget he is still on tour these days.

citybert · 02-14-2013, 10:46 AM

James Blake is the man, he should have no regrets with what he accomplished. And even was a college baller.

Blake agassi USO QF is def a top 10 night match esp when you factor in emotions and crowd.

fps · 02-14-2013, 10:48 AM

It's completely up to him, but I wouldn't say his career deserves to be described in terms of leaving a legacy. While off the court he's very interesting, in total he was a good player, and that's it.

always_crosscourt · 02-14-2013, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relinquis

what?! i think you're projecting with the identity politics thing... he has always seemed comfortable in his skin (no pun intended) and one of the more genuine players on tour.

His appeal for fans:
he has/had a great game and still is fun to watch as he plays a modified version of aggressive 90s baseline attacking tennis. he is still the most entertaining American tennis player to watch currently on tour.

equally importantly, the guy loves tennis and it shows. he has that joy that many top french players have for the game. you know, the guys who smile during the match! i would love to see him play as long as it brings him joy to compete. watching highlights of him playing qualifiers during the last aussie open and his interviews were more interesting than most of the matches in the first two rounds.

Hewitt is still on the tour way past his prime, but his matches are good to watch. his tennis style also contrasts with most of the current players, which ends up giving us fund rallies and matches.

Hewitt's tennis style is baseline grinding. Modern tennis is baseline grinding. So how is Hewitt's game different from the modern game?

President · 02-14-2013, 12:20 PM

James Blake could have been a great player and a major winner IMO with his tools and game, he got unlucky with injuries and was not a great competitor.

tipsytennis · 02-14-2013, 12:42 PM

He should retire, he has his time i think but if you're a tennis bettor you will know how much of a mug her can be. He's a decent player and enjoys the sport but he will never be a name we all shout about

President · 02-14-2013, 03:06 PM

James Blake also had a very exciting game that was great to watch, and an inspiring life story in addition to being a very good looking guy. It's no surprise he got a lot of attention, being the #2 American of his generation behind Andy Roddick.

Relinquis · 02-14-2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

Hewitt's tennis style is baseline grinding. Modern tennis is baseline grinding. So how is Hewitt's game different from the modern game?

more of a counterpuncher than grinder/retriever. still at baseliner at heart and while it's not as big a difference as blake's style, it still is pretty different from the dominant form. he doesn't push as much as most players do nowadays.

furthermore, since his injuries you see him hitting flatter and through the ball more in order to close out angles and finish points earlier as his hips/legs aren't what they used to be. contrast him with Simon/ferrer types and there is a big difference in style. more aggressive shotmaking (davydenko-eque when playing well), more focus on winners (which results in more unforced errors).

check out Hewitt Vs. Tipsy during the aussie open earlier this year for some good rallies because of the difference in style. i agree though, it's not like he is a net-rusher.

hoosierbr · 02-15-2013, 12:45 PM

Blake was a fine player in his day, no doubt. But a legacy player is one who left an indelible mark on the game. Blake has never done that and won't unless he wins a slam before he retires. That'd be something to remember.

bluetrain4 · 02-15-2013, 01:29 PM

What legacy?

I ask this as a James Blake fan.

He was a good tour-level player, made 3 Slam QFs, had some wins over big players, got into the Top 10 and acheived a No. 4 ranking at his peak. 10 titles overall, composed of 9 250s and 1 500-level event.

In my opinion, while this is a very good career, it is not the sort of career that is the foundation of a "legacy" that is in any way ruined by sticking around and dropping in the rankings.

Will I think any differently of James Blake because of the less-than-impressive tail end of his career? No way. I'll remember him for his headband, his insane power, his pure speed, his controversial matches (Hewitt USO, Gonzalez at the Olympics), his Sideshow Bob-looking brother, and his ability to bother anyone when in "on" mode (which hardly ever lasted long enough).

There's not enough of a legacy or aura or anything else that would be diminished by going out as a lower-ranked player.

IMO, the queston would be better directed at someone like Hewitt.

Mustard · 02-15-2013, 04:10 PM

I've never understood the argument that a player who carries on playing as their results decline "damages their legacy". Any results they have made in the past are not removed by playing on.

For example, I've heard some people say that Connors should have retired after 1984. Why? What he did up to 1984 will always be there whether he had stopped at the end of 1984 or carried on well into the 1990s, as he did. I believe that by squeezing every last drop out of his potential, surely he increased his legacy all the more.

HunterST · 02-15-2013, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacou

Every person leaves behind a legacy and James Blake's is more epic than most..

While I think players should play as long as they enjoy it, this is an example of the later years overshadowing a brief but fruitful run. Ranked #4 in the world for awhile, YEC finalist, dangerous floater on fast courts. But I forget he is still on tour these days.

Agree with this.

In fact, I think everyone saying "he has no legacy to damage!" just strengthens the idea. 3 years in top 10, finalist at YEC, and his Davis cup record are not accomplishments to sneeze at.

Now, though, everyone thinks of him as a guy who "could never have won a slam." I doubt anyone would have said that during his better playing days.

HunterST · 02-15-2013, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

I've never understood the argument that a player who carries on playing as their results decline "damages their legacy". Any results they have made in the past are not removed by playing on.

For example, I've heard some people say that Connors should have retired after 1984. Why? What he did up to 1984 will always be there whether he had stopped at the end of 1984 or carried on well into the 1990s, as he did. I believe that by squeezing every last drop out of his potential, surely he increased his legacy all the more.

While Roddick did NOT wait too long to retire, he does show how sticking around could hurt a player's legacy. Young Roddick was known as a huge hitter, biggest server, and a kid with a ton of talent.

Now, a lot of people think of him as lacking a lot of talent on groundstrokes, less talented that other top players, etc. When players' abilities start diminishing, people remember them as less successful and talented than they would have if the player had quit closer to their prime.

cork_screw · 02-15-2013, 08:24 PM

First only people who really deserve a legacy in the minds of the public (and not your own personal goals) are special players. James is making the decision of doing something he wants to do and he knows that once he ever leaves it, it's almost impossible to come back. So he always has the chance to leave the sport, but he doesn't really have that same flexibility of coming back.

Understand?

For someone who has a james blake avatar, you seem to be really urging him to retire. A true fan would respect the player's own decisions and not generate threads pushing him towards your own fanatical interests.

Relinquis · 02-16-2013, 01:49 PM

what is this legacy non-sense? since when do tennis players play for "legacy"? tennis was always about having a bit of fun and competing with yourself and one another.

this legacy drivel is just a corporate media creation to sell more merchandise and give the guys with the biggest "records" brand power. some of the most talented tennis players have never won slams (Rios), yet these are the guys who enrich the sport so much. A highlight reel of his 'touch' shots is more of a legacy than knowing that XYZ player has a few slams.

what about all of the french players? Tsonga, Santoro (Sampras called him a Magician) and others who fans love due to their celebratory tennis style. They enrich the game so much and make tennis worth watching. How many times have you tried to emulate Santoros slices when fooling around with your friends on a court?

What about players like Benneteau who have poor win/loss stats but can entertain us with their all court style even against Roger (the GOAT) Federer at Bercy '09, Wimbledon '12 and Rotterdam a couple of days ago! Should he have given up years ago and deprived us of his beautiful tennis?! He is 31 and has yet to win a title (made 7 finals), forget going deep in a slam!

While you guys are busy nerding out on stats and records (i.e. legacy), some of us are thankful for all of the 'real' tennis that is still played on tour and for the chance to be inspired in a way that makes us appreciate why we play this beautiful game.

darrinbaker00 · 02-16-2013, 02:11 PM

James has a wife and baby at home. Diapers and formula aren't cheap. He sucks at commentary. He must keep playing.

SLD76 · 02-16-2013, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

What legacy?

I ask this as a James Blake fan.

He was a good tour-level player, made 3 Slam QFs, had some wins over big players, got into the Top 10 and acheived a No. 4 ranking at his peak. 10 titles overall, composed of 9 250s and 1 500-level event.

In my opinion, while this is a very good career, it is not the sort of career that is the foundation of a "legacy" that is in any way ruined by sticking around and dropping in the rankings.

Will I think any differently of James Blake because of the less-than-impressive tail end of his career? No way. I'll remember him for his headband, his insane power, his pure speed, his controversial matches (Hewitt USO, Gonzalez at the Olympics), his Sideshow Bob-looking brother, and his ability to bother anyone when in "on" mode (which hardly ever lasted long enough).

There's not enough of a legacy or aura or anything else that would be diminished by going out as a lower-ranked player.

IMO, the queston would be better directed at someone like Hewitt.

quoted for truth.

02-13-2013, 11:51 PM	#21
Harry_Wild Semi-Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 745	If Blake at his age can make a final comeback like Goran Ivanisevic did; Blake will then have a legacy! But as of now; he just another tour pro trying to break back in to the top tier. __________________ Prostaff 6.0 85, Prostaff Tour 90, KProstaff 88 Head Prestige FlexPoint 98, Head Prestige IG Youtek Mid 93.

02-14-2013, 10:48 AM	#26
fps Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,780	It's completely up to him, but I wouldn't say his career deserves to be described in terms of leaving a legacy. While off the court he's very interesting, in total he was a good player, and that's it. __________________ My band's new album streaming! http://deathapedisco.bandcamp.com/

02-15-2013, 12:45 PM	#32
hoosierbr Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,831	Blake was a fine player in his day, no doubt. But a legacy player is one who left an indelible mark on the game. Blake has never done that and won't unless he wins a slam before he retires. That'd be something to remember. __________________ twitter.com/ramjamvan

02-15-2013, 01:29 PM	#33
bluetrain4 Legend Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 7,285	What legacy? I ask this as a James Blake fan. He was a good tour-level player, made 3 Slam QFs, had some wins over big players, got into the Top 10 and acheived a No. 4 ranking at his peak. 10 titles overall, composed of 9 250s and 1 500-level event. In my opinion, while this is a very good career, it is not the sort of career that is the foundation of a "legacy" that is in any way ruined by sticking around and dropping in the rankings. Will I think any differently of James Blake because of the less-than-impressive tail end of his career? No way. I'll remember him for his headband, his insane power, his pure speed, his controversial matches (Hewitt USO, Gonzalez at the Olympics), his Sideshow Bob-looking brother, and his ability to bother anyone when in "on" mode (which hardly ever lasted long enough). There's not enough of a legacy or aura or anything else that would be diminished by going out as a lower-ranked player. IMO, the queston would be better directed at someone like Hewitt. Last edited by bluetrain4 : 02-16-2013 at 02:47 PM.

02-15-2013, 04:10 PM	#34
Mustard G.O.A.T. Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Bristol, England Posts: 18,448	I've never understood the argument that a player who carries on playing as their results decline "damages their legacy". Any results they have made in the past are not removed by playing on. For example, I've heard some people say that Connors should have retired after 1984. Why? What he did up to 1984 will always be there whether he had stopped at the end of 1984 or carried on well into the 1990s, as he did. I believe that by squeezing every last drop out of his potential, surely he increased his legacy all the more. Last edited by Mustard : 02-15-2013 at 04:14 PM.