James Blake Skill

[flyinghippos101]

That's why I recommend any tennis fan to see a live match. Watching the players up close is an experience that tv simply cannot match.

[IvanisevicServe]

All-or-nothing, swing-for-the-fences player.

Dangerous, to be sure, but too erratic to win a major. Even had he won that 05 US Open QF against Agassi, he would've lost to Federer in the finals.

[Xizel]

Originally Posted by IvanisevicServe

All-or-nothing, swing-for-the-fences player.

Dangerous, to be sure, but too erratic to win a major. Even had he won that 05 US Open QF against Agassi, he would've lost to Federer in the finals.

Who wouldn't have?

[NamRanger]

Technically great player, supreme talent, wasted it all away on idiotic tactics.

[keithfival]

Definitely has some chinks in his game but none nearly as damaging as his negative, self-defeating mentality on the court. In the big moments when the winners dig their heels in, he'll miss one shot and down goes the head, down go the shoulders, down goes the energy level, down goes the game. Like clockwork. Too bad he just can't seem to shake it.

[hawk eye]

Originally Posted by The Baseline

I didnt realize how much skill Blake had until watching him up close. Its really amazing to see someone with that kind of power blending it with that kind of control. Blake has to be one of those players who could have won so much more. His talent was unreal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc...b6RVAAAAAAAABQ

Yes I agree. But somehow even when he totally crushes Fed, he manages to lose. It's like running the fastest in a 100 m dash and still end up second.

[Crazy man]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Technically great player, supreme talent, wasted it all away on idiotic tactics.

We are talking about James Blake, right?

[The Baseline]

Originally Posted by Crazy man

We are talking about James Blake, right?

we are. Blake was crazy good. He had big time talent, its just that Blake made too many unforced errors due to insufficient court positioning. Blake was a beast in his prime.

[Crazy man]

Originally Posted by The Baseline

we are. Blake was crazy good. He had big time talent, its just that Blake made too many unforced errors due to insufficient court positioning. Blake was a beast in his prime.

His court positioning, his footwork and his court coverage were great IMO.




However, his net game was non-existent and didn't even look comfortable up at the net. His BH, although aesthetically pleasing was inconsistent. His forehand was a weapon some days and was his bane the next, had no consistent weapon which could solely get him through matches, he was too aggressive on the return and didn't posses a very good serve either. Too erratic.


Blake was talented aesthetically and also had a talent in his beastly power but other than that, I'd say his 'talented hard hitting abilities' costed him a lot of matches.


'Blake was a beast in his prime'......Hardly. The majority of titles he won were small events and couldn't even manage a slam semifinal. Now, for a supreme talent, you should be able to make at least one semifinal considering A) You are a supreme talent and B) You have a game where your good days can be very good. Blakes biggest achievement after actually making a return to tour was winning a set against Federer whilst getting bageled in that match. His attitude was terrible, did not have a winners mentality and enjoyed to choke matches away.

[Squall Leonheart]

Originally Posted by Crazy man

His court positioning, his footwork and his court coverage were great IMO.

However, his net game was non-existent and didn't even look comfortable up at the net. His BH, although aesthetically pleasing was inconsistent. His forehand was a weapon some days and was his bane the next, had no consistent weapon which could solely get him through matches, he was too aggressive on the return and didn't posses a very good serve either. Too erratic.


Blake was talented aesthetically and also had a talent in his beastly power but other than that, I'd say his 'talented hard hitting abilities' costed him a lot of matches.


'Blake was a beast in his prime'......Hardly. The majority of titles he won were small events and couldn't even manage a slam semifinal. Now, for a supreme talent, you should be able to make at least one semifinal considering A) You are a supreme talent and B) You have a game where your good days can be very good. Blakes biggest achievement after actually making a return to tour was winning a set against Federer whilst getting bageled in that match. His attitude was terrible, did not have a winners mentality and enjoyed to choke matches away.

I agree for the most part. I think his footwork and positioning was below average, but he made up for it with his great foot speed. His entire game was inconsistent because he played such an aggressive, high risk style game. His volleys have improved over the years, but are still only slightly above average, although his strike zone at net is very limited: you pretty much have to hit it right at him or give him a weak reply for him to make a good volley. I personally think that his talent is greater than his results: he had the speed, the power, and all the shots, he was just too inconsistent and too weak mentally.

[BeHappy]

Blake's problem was that he served like a woman. Seriously, Justine Henin served as big as Blake did.

[Masayoshi]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Technically great player, supreme talent, wasted it all away on idiotic tactics.

I don't know how technically great he was, but I'll amen the idiotic tactics bit. He was very bad at adapting his gameplan to the situation. Frustrated me to no end, since he seemed like a decent bloke and I couldn't help but cheer for the one black dude in a sea of white.

(not a good reason to cheer for someone, I know, but I tend to support the ones who don't fit in - one reason I loved Chang was because he was so adorably short in a game of giants!)

[Paul Murphy]

Loved to watch him when he was "on".
Fantastic forehand and an excitement machine.
Unfortunately when he was "off" he was an error machine.