James Blake = Biggest waste of talent ever

[jakemcclain32]

Seriously, how many five setters does this guy have to get into at Wimbledon? He has more pure talent than a guy like Roddick, yet Roddick has gone farther.

Just like Donald Young and Gael Monfils, Blake has a load of big shots on youtube to wag your tongue at, but he's not a winner, and he doesn't compose himself like one.

It's just too bad that players like that, who should have been the cream of the crop, just stay complacent year after year.

[pvaudio]

And why is that? Unlike Roddick, Blake hasn't swallowed his pride and gone to a coach who will get him exactly what he needs to succeed. Curious, those other players have that same fault in common.

[Buckethead]

LOL, Blake super talented???

[Comet Buster]

Safin and Krajicek, regardless of how many injuries they had are the biggest wastes of talent I've seen. At their best they could handily beat some of the best players ever and make it look easy sometimes. Blake at his best is a dangerous player but even when 'on' Blake never had a big win at a Major.



For his skills he underachieved but definately not the biggest waste of talent ever. The guy had half a brain on court at the most, relied solely on his FH and movement. His return was Agassi like but was too aggressive at times. Had hopeless decision making skills and never came to the net. Could have made a few semifinals in slams if he achieved to his full potential.



As for the Blake/Roddick comparison. Roddick is the bigger underachiever. He lost more than Blake ever gained. Had chances at Wimbledon 04 & 09, had chances at US Open 06 & 07. Then we have the little factor of the difference in serves. Blake's main weapon wasn't consistent. Roddick's was.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by Comet Buster

Safin and Krajicek, regardless of how many injuries they had are the biggest wastes of talent I've seen. At their best they could handily beat some of the best players ever and make it look easy sometimes. Blake at his best is a dangerous player but even when 'on' Blake never had a big win at a Major.



For his skills he underachieved but definately not the biggest waste of talent ever. The guy had half a brain on court at the most, relied solely on his FH and movement. His return was Agassi like but was too aggressive at times. Had hopeless decision making skills and never came to the net. Could have made a few semifinals in slams if he achieved to his full potential.



As for the Blake/Roddick comparison. Roddick is the bigger underachiever. He lost more than Blake ever gained. Had chances at Wimbledon 04 & 09, had chances at US Open 06 & 07. Then we have the little factor of the difference in serves. Blake's main weapon wasn't consistent. Roddick's was.

lol what?


Roddick is considered one of the greatest overachievers of all time, winning purely on his determination to win at times.



Blake has far more weapons than Roddick ever has; the issue has always been between the head. He has a far better backhand, moves better, volleys better, and has just as dangerous as a forehand as peak Roddick did. Blake is an underachiever in the sense that he had so many weapons but he couldn't ever put it together.

[Devilito]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

lol what?

Roddick is considered one of the greatest overachievers of all time, winning purely on his determination to win at times.

Blake has far more weapons than Roddick ever has; the issue has always been between the head. He has a far better backhand, moves better, volleys better, and has just as dangerous as a forehand as peak Roddick did. Blake is an underachiever in the sense that he had so many weapons but he couldn't ever put it together.

Roddick is a way better player. He is more consistent, has more variety, plays like he has a game plan and has good match and court awareness. Blake just strings together random strokes that look good on their own but don't add up to anything on the whole.

[jamesblakefan#1]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

lol what?

Roddick is considered one of the greatest overachievers of all time, winning purely on his determination to win at times.

Blake has far more weapons than Roddick ever has; the issue has always been between the head. He has a far better backhand, moves better, volleys better, and has just as dangerous as a forehand as peak Roddick did. Blake is an underachiever in the sense that he had so many weapons but he couldn't ever put it together.

Roddick's serve is one of the biggest weapons in the history of the game. And Comet and Devilito make great points about Roddick's ability to be consistent to be far greater than Blake's. Having what it takes between the ears is part of being talented.

Blake shot by shot may be better, but Roddick's serve is stronger than anything Blake has, and the rest of his game at his best was better than Blake's. You also seem to be forgetting that Roddick at one point had one of if not the biggest FH in the game circa 03-04. So it's not like Rod is some talentless schlub who's lucky to be top 10.

Blake is a better shotmaker than Rod, but Roddick is the more complete player and his game is more suited to success due to his consistency.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by jakemcclain32

Just like Donald Young and Gael Monfils, Blake has a load of big shots on youtube to wag your tongue at, but he's not a winner, and he doesn't compose himself like one.

I wonder if Lleyton Hewitt could discover any similarity between the players you list

[rainingaces]

Blake is a great example of making the maximum out of what you got. No harder worker then Blake.

[Sentinel]

Roger is the biggest waste of talent. He could have won 20 slams by now, and also that Olympic title too, had he not lost to .... Blake.

[tusharlovesrafa]

Originally Posted by Sentinel

Roger is the biggest waste of talent. He could have won 20 slams by now, and also that Olympic title too, had he not lost to .... Blake.

SEntinal is the biigest waste of talent ..He could have been a Women if he had XX cromosome instead XY cromosome..

[Bartelby]

he's past his prime so its impolite to criticise

[Comet Buster]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

lol what?


Roddick is considered one of the greatest overachievers of all time, winning purely on his determination to win at times.

Most great players win through determination. Roddick is an underachiever because he could have played so much more aggressive and won at least 1 or 2 more slams. But you could say he overahieved because he was stuck playing a very defensive game yet didn't fade away. Your choice.

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Blake has far more weapons than Roddick ever has; the issue has always been between the head. He has a far better backhand, moves better, volleys better, and has just as dangerous as a forehand as peak Roddick did. Blake is an underachiever in the sense that he had so many weapons but he couldn't ever put it together.

The serve of Roddick puts him ahead of Blake. I've already mentioned this. FH for FH I'd probably take Roddick's actually. You mentioned Blake's netplay. I can't remember a match where Blake won a big match because of his net skills. At least for Roddick he's got Wimbledon 09 to show for volleying great, especially against Murray who is one of the best passers in the game.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by Buckethead

LOL, Blake super talented???

athletically yes. He has great power and was incredibly fast and explosive in his prime.

But I would call him rather a great athlete than a great tennis player although he has a nice stroke technique.

[heftylefty]

Originally Posted by jakemcclain32

Seriously, how many five setters does this guy have to get into at Wimbledon? He has more pure talent than a guy like Roddick, yet Roddick has gone farther.

Just like Donald Young and Gael Monfils, Blake has a load of big shots on youtube to wag your tongue at, but he's not a winner, and he doesn't compose himself like one.

It's just too bad that players like that, who should have been the cream of the crop, just stay complacent year after year.

Last checked, Blake was once the 4th ranked player in the world, year end. Monfils in the number one player in France; country littered with some of the world's best tennis players. And you going to compare them to Young?

How can your post even be taken seriously. I know, I replied to this not so serious post. So it doesn't speak well of my judgement. But I know enough to know that Blake is not a waste of talent.

[heftylefty]

Originally Posted by r2473

I wonder if Lleyton Hewitt could discover any similarity between the players you list

Thank you saying what I was thinking!!

[vive le beau jeu !]

james may be a waste of talent but today, on the other side of the net, there was a bigger one !

[bluetrain4]

I'd say he's much more of an overachiever than he is an underachiever. I honestly think he got the most out of his talent.

[FeVer]

There are loads of great talents that just can't get their heads together: Verdasco, Blake, Safin, Baghdatis, Tsonga etc. 90% of tennis happens in the mind.

Or was that cricket? Oh well, the principle's the same.

[NadalAgassi]

I am not entirely sure what to make of Blake. Sometimes I think he could have had a Davydenko like career so is a bit of an underachiever. Other times I think he is an overachiever with his rather one dimensional high risk game, and how late he became a top player.

Really it is pointless to judge his performances now. He is 31, has had alot of injuries and is WAY past his prime. If he wins some matches and is able to be a top 100 player at this point he is doing very well. It is delusional to expect him to be playing top 10 tennis when he needs to be at his career peak to be top 10 caliber, and someone far more talented like Federer is even a shadow of himself at 29 (he is only still at #3 since being 50% of what he was he is still better than everyone other than Nadal or Djokovic, he is just that superior).

The Roddick comparision isnt really a good one. The serve is the most important shot in tennis and Roddick has one of the best serves in history. Karlovic without his serve for instance would be a park player but instead he is a top 30 player i the World.

Roddick is also much more consistent even if less powerful and lethal off the ground, and mentally is much tougher than Blake. There are many guys who arent even as good as prime Blake who can still outhit Roddick minus the 03-04 forehand off the ground, return better, move better, and volley better, and the vast majority of those were always below Roddick.