Better career so far: Robredo or Blake?

Better career so far?

  • Total voters
    50
Z

Zaragoza

Banned
TOMMY ROBREDO

Singles titles: 7
Masters Series titles: 1
Career high ranking: 5
Davis Cup titles: 2

Best results in Slams:

AO- QF.
RG- QF (3 times).
W- 3rd round.
USO- 4th round (5 times).


JAMES BLAKE

Singles titles: 10
Masters Series titles: 0
Career high ranking: 4
Davis Cup titles: 1
Masters Cup finalist.

Best results in Slams:

AO- QF.
RG- 3rd round.
W- 3rd round (2 times).
USO- QF (2 times).
 
Stats are in Robredo's favor but Blake has had moments of greatness out there - that's the thing about being a streaky player. He's taken a lot of big heads and been in some classic matches - well, at least one.
 
blake. you have to be a champion to play in the showdown of champions. blake played in the showdown of champions. therefore, blake is a champion.

...right?
 
Blake by quite a bit IMO. James had that masters cup final where, in addition to 2 other MS finals, he lost to Federer. Who will probably become the GOAT and stay that way for a very long time. Although Blake did get freaking tuned up in each of those matches.
 
I give advantage to Blake because of TMC final(he played great there beating Nadal and Nalbandian) and because at his best he's more capable of beating the best(top5-top10 players)than Robredo.

No offense to Robredo but I also think he benefitted that Fed and Nadal played that epic Rome final before Hamburg(where Robredo got his masters title)but he's overall a very good player on all surfaces.
 
380pistol said:
Who cares?? Can we talk about players that are actually worth talking about??

Blake and Robredo, please.
Click to expand...

And who determines which players are "worth talking about"? You? Please. These posters have the liberty to talk about whoever the hell they want.
 
Blake is a total disappointment.. All that talent and nothing to show for it. No slams.. And this is a guy who had the ability to win quite a few IMO.. Definitely a couple US OPENS I think.. Its a shame. I always liked blake
 
GameSampras said:
Blake is a total disappointment.. All that talent and nothing to show for it. No slams.. And this is a guy who had the ability to win quite a few IMO.. Definitely a couple US OPENS I think.. Its a shame. I always liked blake
Click to expand...

i just like his forehand, better than gonzo anytime.
 
ogruskie said:
380pistol said:
Who cares?? Can we talk about players that are actually worth talking about??

Blake and Robredo, please.
Click to expand...
And who determines which players are "worth talking about"? You? Please. These posters have the liberty to talk about whoever the hell they want.
Click to expand...

These posters have the liberty to talk about who they want. Then don't I have the liberty to state my opinion on the players being talked about??? OK then, now that we've cleared that up, would you care to explain to me wha makes either James Blake, Tommy Robredo, or who's better between the two something worth discussing???
 
380pistol said:
Who cares?? Can we talk about players that are actually worth talking about??

Blake and Robredo, please.
Click to expand...

As you can see,this thread has plenty of responses so there are people who do consider them "worthy" to talk about.If you don't,well there's no one that's forcing you to read or post in this thread,is there?

GameSampras said:
I always liked blake
Click to expand...

Yeah,he's a nice guy IMO and I really respect him for bouncing back from all the troubles he had.

A bit of a one-dimensional game but a very good athlete and shotmaker,really big FH,entertaining to watch when he's on.Hope he still has some good tennis left in him.
 
wyutani said:
i just like his forehand, better than gonzo anytime.
Click to expand...

Gonzo's FH is different in that he hits with much more spin than Blake,Gonzo's FH is a lethal combination of spin and pace which is what makes it so good.Blake's FH is much more flatter,it's really impressive when it's on but has less margin for error than Gonzo's.
 
I dunno what the root of Blake's problem really was.. I mean always thought he was better than Roddick to be honest. At least from a pure talent standpoint. There were matches watching Blake play I was just in awww. I thought for sure this guy would have gotten reasonably 3-5 slams in his career. In fact, I thought he could have beaten Roger every now and then at the slams. Its too bad this past olympics wasnt the slam. Blake played very well there I thought. Even beating Roger. So its not like he COULDNT beat Roger.

Alot of it could be his passion and focus was never really there. It was always on something else. I guess he liked his cars and women. Alot like Safin. Safin liked his partying from what I heard. Thats another guy who totally underachieved in his career
 
Last edited:
GameSampras said:
I dunno what the root of Blake's problem really was.. I mean always thought he was better than Roddick to be honest. At least from a pure talent standpoint. There were matches watching Blake play I was just in awww. I thought for sure this guy would have gotten reasonably 3-5 slams in his career. In fact, I thought he could have beaten Roger every now and then at the slams. Its too bad this past olympics wasnt the slam. Blake played very well there I thought. Even beating Roger. So its not like he COULDNT beat Roger.

Alot of it could be his passion and focus was never really there. It was always on something else. I guess he liked his cars and women. Alot like Safin. Safin liked his partying from what I heard. Thats another guy who totally underachieved in his career
Click to expand...

thats probably where u messed up, look at the other talents that dissappointed, hard workers can make up for talent and do well, besides his serve roddick had no other shot that made him stood out from most other tennis players, he had an average backhand, average forehand that he could sometimes rip and even some below average stuff and still had a good career.

Blake was probably more of a mental case than anything, he seemed to lose confidence against very strong players.
 
Blake's much better imo, some of his matches are ridiculous. I remember his USO qf against Fed in 06 (or was it 07?), his forehand was ridiculous and he's so damn fast.

Robredo does everything just well enough and at times has a nice forehand, but he's pretty blah to me.

As for actual careers, neither has had a stellar nor disappointing career. about a tie, but I prefer Blake by a lot.
 
So far, both have had solid while unspectacular careers - no huge slam results, good Top 10 players - and that is about it.
 
Blake is an overachiever. He doesnt even really belong in the top 10 talent wise and made it there late in his career through perseverance and hard work.

Robredo is an overachiever too though.

Hard to pick either. Both are mediocre talents with totally different games who overachieved.
 
GameSampras said:
I dunno what the root of Blake's problem really was.. I mean always thought he was better than Roddick to be honest. At least from a pure talent standpoint. There were matches watching Blake play I was just in awww. I thought for sure this guy would have gotten reasonably 3-5 slams in his career. In fact, I thought he could have beaten Roger every now and then at the slams. Its too bad this past olympics wasnt the slam. Blake played very well there I thought. Even beating Roger. So its not like he COULDNT beat Roger.

Alot of it could be his passion and focus was never really there. It was always on something else. I guess he liked his cars and women. Alot like Safin. Safin liked his partying from what I heard. Thats another guy who totally underachieved in his career
Click to expand...

You are crazy. Blake did not have that much ability, not even close. He certainly isnt a player that should have won a slam title, and it would have needed a total fluke for him to have done so. Maybe you could argue he is player who could have won a Masters title or something. Blake's win over Federer at the Olympics was nothing more than a huge fluke, like Capriati's win over Graf at the Olympics in 92. It proves nothing, and anyway Federer played like total garbage that day and Blake probably played the match of his life. At the 2006 U.S Open Blake also played one of the best matches of his life vs Federer in the quarters and it was enough to barely get a set.

To compare him to Safin makes me laugh. Safin has more talent in his pinkie toe than Blake had in his whole body. If Blake had the same work ethic as Safin even in Safin's prime he wouldnt even be a top 100 player.
 
Last edited:
380pistol said:
Who cares?? Can we talk about players that are actually worth talking about??

Blake and Robredo, please.
Click to expand...

They are two players with similar achievements. At least it´s a debate that makes sense, not another "Sampras could beat Federer or Nadal today" or Muster being compared to Nadal on grass. If you think this thread is pointless I guess you could say the same about 90% of the threads on this forum.
 
Blake has lost to the eventual champ at a hardcourt slam a few times, even way back when he pushed Hewitt to 5 sets in 01'. Blake's slam performances have been better then Robredo's. Robredo's win in Hamburg isn't worth much considering that Federer and Nadal skipped that tourney and I don't think he even beat a top 10 player there. If Federer had skipped a couple hardcourt masters I bet Blake would've ended up with a shield.
 
GameSampras said:
I dunno what the root of Blake's problem really was.. I mean always thought he was better than Roddick to be honest. At least from a pure talent standpoint. There were matches watching Blake play I was just in awww. I thought for sure this guy would have gotten reasonably 3-5 slams in his career. In fact, I thought he could have beaten Roger every now and then at the slams. Its too bad this past olympics wasnt the slam. Blake played very well there I thought. Even beating Roger. So its not like he COULDNT beat Roger.
Click to expand...

Nah, Blake doesn't have anywhere near the mental game that Roddick has. Plus he has a weak serve. I don't see how you think he couldv'e beaten Fed since Federer (until this year when he was handing out wins) absolutely killed him every time they met.
 
Zaragoza said:
They are two players with similar achievements. At least it´s a debate that makes sense, not another "Sampras could beat Federer or Nadal today" or Muster being compared to Nadal on grass. If you think this thread is pointless I guess you could say the same about 90% of the threads on this forum.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Alot of people on TW seem immune to threads that actually make sense and break out of the fantasy world many live in.
 
Blake has beaten better players, probably would have 2 MS shields if not for Federer who both times was in nearly unbeatable form. Blake has stayed at the top of the game longer. Robredo wins points for consistency but I bet Blake is more feared as a player in the lockerroom.
 
edmondsm said:
Blake has lost to the eventual champ at a hardcourt slam a few times, even way back when he pushed Hewitt to 5 sets in 01'. Blake's slam performances have been better then Robredo's. Robredo's win in Hamburg isn't worth much considering that Federer and Nadal skipped that tourney and I don't think he even beat a top 10 player there. If Federer had skipped a couple hardcourt masters I bet Blake would've ended up with a shield.
Click to expand...

Blake losing in 4th round or QF against the eventual champion doesn´t mean he would have done better had he played other opponents. Blake has lost many matches in Slams against players with a similar or lower ranking than him. Robredo´s performances in Slams are slightly better as the OP proves. Robredo won Hamburg without Federer and Nadal but how many hardcourt Masters Series did Blake play where Federer and Nadal didn´t play or were injured and yet he wasn´t able to even reach the final? The last MS in Paris is a good example.
If Federer had not played those events where Blake reached the final, other players who lost to Federer in those events could have beaten Blake as well (Gasquet,Ljubicic in Indian Wells 2006- Roddick,Nadal in Masters Cup 2006-Hewitt in Cincinnati 2007). Given the players Blake lost to in Slams and Masters Series it´s a bold assumption that he would have won some MS or would have done better in Slams had not been for Federer.
 
Last edited:
Robredo has a MS;2 Davis cups and come on unlike Blake he plays ok on all surfaces and has better results(except maybe on grass) compared 2 Blake who seems 2 forget how 2 play tennis once he leaves the comfort of his beloved hard courts

Robredo has age in his favor and if he gets his sh T 2gether he can only progress

Blake refuses 2 change coaches and his high risk high reward tennis and his refusal 2 play any differently on clay and especially grass when he should have better results considering his plays well at the net is proof

u would think that 4 someone who moves as well as Blake does,better at defense compared 2 Roddick on clay 4 example;that he'd head more often 2 Europe instead of playing on fake clay of Houston and yap about losing annually in Paris in the 1st round?

Grosjean I'll add choked that 2 set and a break lead 2 hand Blake the match this year at the Aussie

if Ferrer can win on grass and he's got sup-par net play compared 2 Robredo;Tommy has time 2 improve his game on grass

Robredo>>Blake
 
Last edited:
zagor said:
380pistol said:
Who cares?? Can we talk about players that are actually worth talking about??

Blake and Robredo, please.
Click to expand...
As you can see,this thread has plenty of responses so there are people who do consider them "worthy" to talk about.If you don't,well there's no one that's forcing you to read or post in this thread,is there?
Click to expand...

Well there are lot of people who believed that Jim Jones was God. Many believed the world was flat. So the "plenty of responses" proves what exactly??

I think this thread is pointless, cuz if Blake wins..... whoop de doo he's better than Robredo. And if Robredo wins vice versa. They're both marginal to horrible in slams. Roberedo has "paper" masters. Yes "paper"!!!!. He won it when Federer and nadal didn't show up. And since the rest of the tour was nothing great what does it mean??

Everyone stated their opinion, I stated mine. All I said was "can we talk about players that are actuall worth talking about??"
 
380pistol said:
Well there are lot of people who believed that Jim Jones was God. Many believed the world was flat. So the "plenty of responses" proves what exactly??

I think this thread is pointless, cuz if Blake wins..... whoop de doo he's better than Robredo. And if Robredo wins vice versa. They're both marginal to horrible in slams. Roberedo has "paper" masters. Yes "paper"!!!!. He won it when Federer and nadal didn't show up. And since the rest of the tour was nothing great what does it mean??

Everyone stated their opinion, I stated mine. All I said was "can we talk about players that are actuall worth talking about??"
Click to expand...

Well you are free to make up your own thread and talk about whatever players that you want. But I don't know why you feel it's necessary to jump in a thread just to criticize it. If you don't want to discuss these players then why jump in the thread at all?
 
edberg505 said:
Well you are free to make up your own thread and talk about whatever players that you want. But I don't know why you feel it's necessary to jump in a thread just to criticize it. If you don't want to discuss these players then why jump in the thread at all?
Click to expand...

Don't recall criticizing anyone. I just made an independent post asking if we could talk about players actually worth talking about. I don't know what Blake/Robredo have done to warrant a discussion of who's better??

If Blake is...and??? Robredo... so?? I just stated my opinion and that was it, I don't why everyone is so sensitive. I don't feel either one is worth getting into a discusion/debate about. In my eyes neither of them have done anything to warrant it.
 
I definitely see what 380pistol is saying here. Given the two players in question it is sort of a "who cares". 10 years from now only the most diehard of tennis fans will ever know either existed.
 
The only way you could say Blake underachieved is because of that horrible injury and the zoster and all of that that took him out in his prime.

Otherwise, he was just mentally never there. Such a high risk game which he COULD pull off, but when things started to go south, he put his head down and sulked. Now he's a little older, maybe doesn't have quite that athleticism he used to.
 
Zaragoza said:
Blake losing in 4th round or QF against the eventual champion doesn´t mean he would have done better had he played other opponents. Blake has lost many matches in Slams against players with a similar or lower ranking than him. Robredo´s performances in Slams are slightly better as the OP proves. Robredo won Hamburg without Federer and Nadal but how many hardcourt Masters Series did Blake play where Federer and Nadal didn´t play or were injured and yet he wasn´t able to even reach the final? The last MS in Paris is a good example.
If Federer had not played those events where Blake reached the final, other players who lost to Federer in those events could have beaten Blake as well (Gasquet,Ljubicic in Indian Wells 2006- Roddick,Nadal in Masters Cup 2006-Hewitt in Cincinnati 2007). Given the players Blake lost to in Slams and Masters Series it´s a bold assumption that he would have won some MS or would have done better in Slams had not been for Federer.
Click to expand...

Robredo's slam performance is better you are right. Blake has more total titles, despite missing so much time due to the injury. Plus he has the 2 MS finals and the MC final appearance, all of which he lost to probably the greatest player ever.

How many times has Robredo gotten to a clay final and lost to Nadal? Only once and it wasn't even a MS.
 
tintin said:
Robredo has a MS;2 Davis cups and come on unlike Blake he plays ok on all surfaces and has better results(except maybe on grass) compared 2 Blake who seems 2 forget how 2 play tennis once he leaves the comfort of his beloved hard courts

Robredo has age in his favor and if he gets his sh T 2gether he can only progress

Blake refuses 2 change coaches and his high risk high reward tennis and his refusal 2 play any differently on clay and especially grass when he should have better results considering his plays well at the net is proof

u would think that 4 someone who moves as well as Blake does,better at defense compared 2 Roddick on clay 4 example;that he'd head more often 2 Europe instead of playing on fake clay of Houston and yap about losing annually in Paris in the 1st round?

Grosjean I'll add choked that 2 set and a break lead 2 hand Blake the match this year at the Aussie

if Ferrer can win on grass and he's got sup-par net play compared 2 Robredo;Tommy has time 2 improve his game on grass

Robredo>>Blake
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure why people are putting so much stock in those Davis Cup titles. He only played in 1 live rubber in each of those years, none of which were the finals. And sure he has a master's title. He beat Stepanek, well that's a tough match up. Blake has been to 2 master's finals and 1 master's cup losing to Roger Federer each time. I'd say that's pretty darn impressive. And Blake can only play on 1 surface? He's been to a final on every surface (except carpet). Has Robredo been to a grass court final? I don't even remember the last time Robredo has even been to hardcourt final. Blake also has some respectable wins over top players.
 
Overall Talent blake has that on Roddick.. MANY PLAYERS have that Roddick. Thats what I was getting at in the sense that I think his overrall arsenal was getter than Roddicks. From movement to the FH and BH.

Mental toughness is not the same as talent.. There have been many players in history with a ton of talent and no mental toughness to back that up.
 
edberg505 said:
I'm not really sure why people are putting so much stock in those Davis Cup titles. He only played in 1 live rubber in each of those years, none of which were the finals. And sure he has a master's title. He beat Stepanek, well that's a tough match up. Blake has been to 2 master's finals and 1 master's cup losing to Roger Federer each time. I'd say that's pretty darn impressive. And Blake can only play on 1 surface? He's been to a final on every surface (except carpet). Has Robredo been to a grass court final? I don't even remember the last time Robredo has even been to hardcourt final. Blake also has some respectable wins over top players.
Click to expand...

Davis Cup titles are not individual achievements but they are really important in a tennis career and if you were part of the team and you played it´s fair to be recognised as a Davis Cup champion. I guess that Davis Cup title is the most important achievement for Blake in his career.
Blake was 2-2 in live rubbers the year USA won the title. Robredo was 1-0 in live rubbers both times Spain won the Davis Cup so you can´t say his contribution to the team was worse than Blake´s.
I don´t buy that "if it weren´t for Federer" theory. As I said on my previous post Blake lost to many other players in Slams and MS. I´m not saying Nadal would be a 3 times Wimbledon champion if it weren´t for Federer.
Blake has only won titles on hardcourts, Sydney is probably the biggest tournament he won.
Robredo won the Hamburg MS, Barcelona (one of the biggest tournaments after the MS) and one title on hardcourts (Metz ´07). Robredo has won more important titles and his performances in Slams are slightly better so I give him the edge but I reckon it´s really close.
Blake plays an aggressive style that gives more problems to top players than Robredo but I don´t think that´s an important factor to decide which career is better. I don´t see those upsets as achievements.
 
zagor said:
I give advantage to Blake because of TMC final(he played great there beating Nadal and Nalbandian) and because at his best he's more capable of beating the best(top5-top10 players)than Robredo.

No offense to Robredo but I also think he benefitted that Fed and Nadal played that epic Rome final before Hamburg(where Robredo got his masters title)but he's overall a very good player on all surfaces.
Click to expand...
globally similar achievements for those 2 players... 2 of only 5 players to have been in the top 5 in the ATP rankings (since 1973) without ever reaching any slam SF (along with mayer, gilbert and forget).
but at least blake played a big final, at the Masters, so he has a clear advantage here.

Nb: 2 davis cups to one for robredo ?... that's not really significant, especially considering robredo didn't win any match in those finals. at least blake did (in his davis cup final). ;)
 
considering the fact that Blake Broke his neck has scoliosis and got the chiken pox and a old age causing him to lose all feeling in the left side of his body

I think hes wayy more succesful.
 
Zaragoza said:
Davis Cup titles are not individual achievements but they are really important in a tennis career and if you were part of the team and you played it´s fair to be recognised as a Davis Cup champion. I guess that Davis Cup title is the most important achievement for Blake in his career.
Blake was 2-2 in live rubbers the year USA won the title. Robredo was 1-0 in live rubbers both times Spain won the Davis Cup so you can´t say his contribution to the team was worse than Blake´s.
I don´t buy that "if it weren´t for Federer" theory. As I said on my previous post Blake lost to many other players in Slams and MS. I´m not saying Nadal would be a 3 times Wimbledon champion if it weren´t for Federer.
Blake has only won titles on hardcourts, Sydney is probably the biggest tournament he won.
Robredo won the Hamburg MS, Barcelona (one of the biggest tournaments after the MS) and one title on hardcourts (Metz ´07). Robredo has won more important titles and his performances in Slams are slightly better so I give him the edge but I reckon it´s really close.
Blake plays an aggressive style that gives more problems to top players than Robredo but I don´t think that´s an important factor to decide which career is better. I don´t see those upsets as achievements.
Click to expand...


So you don't give Blake any credit for the MC final or the MS finals? The MC is one of the hardest tournaments to advance in and Blake made the final, that should count for something. You know at IW 2006 Blake straight setted Nadal to get to the final. That to me is a much more impressive result then Robredo's Hamburg title.
 
edmondsm said:
So you don't give Blake any credit for the MC final or the MS finals? The MC is one of the hardest tournaments to advance in and Blake made the final, that should count for something. You know at IW 2006 Blake straight setted Nadal to get to the final. That to me is a much more impressive result then Robredo's Hamburg title.
Click to expand...

I listed that MC final on the OP so I gave him credit for that but I would choose a MS title over a MC final. I said Blake performs better against top players because of his style but if those upsets don´t make you win a title they´re not too relevant in your career. Being a finalist is nice but I think titles are what make a career better.
I am not discussing which player beat more top players but which player had a better career. Personally, I would choose Robredo´s titles.
As I said, Blake had multiple chances to win MS or go further at Slams without playing Federer or Nadal. Robredo took his chance and Blake didn´t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chicharito
The 3 phases of del Potro's career?
Replies
9
Views
785
Chanwan
Chanwan
bjk
Better Career, Malivai Washington or James Blake?
Replies
17
Views
2K
BGod
BGod
Rhino
Who has achieved the most out of Henman, Rusedski, and Murray so far?
Replies
6
Views
800
zagor
zagor
J
  • Poll Poll
Better Career - Tim Henman vs Todd Martin
Replies
26
Views
3K
phoony
phoony
dapchai
  • Poll Poll
Henman vs Tsonga. Who's greater?
Replies
21
Views
721
King_olaf_the_hairy
King_olaf_the_hairy
Back
Top