Biggest "crutch" players

[a verrry large duck]

Here's my list of top five list of "crutch" players. Players that without that one attribute would be more inclined to be ranked no where near where they were or are. You could rank the whole atp tour like this, for example I think roger federer would be ranked really really low for a change. I'm looking at attributes that would seem to be more about strength and natural advantage. What's your list?

(1) ivo karlovic and his height
(2) john mcenroe and his left handed serve out wide
(3) roddick and his 2nd serve
(4) sergi bruguera and his topspin
(5) gaudio and his psychologist

 

[Camilio Pascual]

I've decided to go with players that could be ranked much higher, if not for the following attributes. And I consider the distance from 10th to 5th to be greater than the distance from 10th to 40th.
1. Jelena Dokic and her horrible forecourt game. She'd be in the Top Ten consistently, otherwise.
2. Lindsay Davenport and her poor movement. She could have 2 - 4 more Slam titles and be in the Top Five most of the time.
3. Wayne Arthurs - This is one of the most interesting players out there. I don't know if he would do better or worse if his serve wasn't so good. His groundstrokes keep him from being ranked much higher.
4. Venus Williams' 2nd serve. Her 1st serve speeds have slowed down a lot in the last 2 years. I am convinced it is because of her weak 2nd serve. She may have beaten her sister in 1 or 2 of those Slam finals and beaten a lot of other people with a better 2nd serve to allow her 1st serve to be riskier and more dominating.
5. Mats Wilander's head kept him from being #1. He didn't seem to want it and he had the game to be #1 for maybe a year.

 

[Stinkdyr]

hey, how about Demented-eva's serve putting her on that second list?

 

[Feña14]

Elena's serve definetly holds her back, but I still Love ya Elena!

I also think that Henman's Wimbledon Semi Finalist's have handicapped him.

For people with the attributes I would say that Coria would be a poorer player if he didn't have his movement/speed.

Ferrero without his forehand.

And Schuettler without his "never let the ball bounce twice attitude"

-Liam

 

[007]

Philippoussis without his serve
Ivanisevic without his serve
Chang without his legs
Hewitt without his legs
Safin WITH his head/attitude

 

[@wright]

What about Pete without his serve? He wouldn't have been able to keep the 6 year end #1's.
Agassi without his forehand?
Rafter without his volley?
Guga without his backhand?
Federer without his movement?
Johannson without his luck?
Moya without his forehand?
Safin without his size?
Rios without his court sense?

 

[!Tym]

Um, don't really see the point to this post. Take a player's signature whatever away from them, then why bother? Of course, they rely on whatever said attribute. As you can see from this proliferating list, every player has a "crutch." But it's not really a crutch if it's something they've worked very hard at to become such a weapon. They deserve that "crutch" if that's what you want to call it.

The only true crutch is the kind you can't control or don't have to work to develop...like Karlovic's height. That I'd agree with, but nothing else. Everyone else had to work for their "gifts," immensely so and not just anyone can do it just like them no matter how hard they tried.

 

[ragnaROK]

Sjeng Schalken and his deformed thigh.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

What about Pete without his serve? He wouldn't have been able to keep the 6 year end #1's.

Well, probably Pete without his ...anything wouldn't be able to be anywhere near the player he was. If you take away his serve, he's top 10 with maybe a slam or two. If you take away his forehand, he might have gotten a couple of Slams, maybe a world #1 rank, but not in contention for GOAT. If you take away his volleys, he doesn't have anywhere near as many Wimbledons/USopens, and isn't anywhere near GOAT contention.

Really, it's SO difficult to be at the top, that if you take away any single positive attribute of a top player, he's no longer going to be able to stay at that top spot. Some players really do have "crutch" shots - the serve for Karlovic, maybe Arthurs - but for most, you shouldn't look at it like that.

For example, Ivanisevic. True, his serve was his main weapon. But his volleys were also competent, and he was a good shotmaker from the baseline too. Of COURSE if you take away his best shot, he wouldn't be the player he is; but he'd still be in the top 100.

...also, some of those listed are kind of ridiculous, once you think about them. "Rafter without his volleys?" That's like saying "Agassi without his groundstrokes." Actually, that works for just about any of the current top players. Hey, if you take away their groundstrokes, they're gone!

Also related is the question of "if you take away the shot... what do your replace it with?" For example, if you take away Ferrero's forehand and replace it with a forehand that's about average for the ATP top 100 - he'd still be the player he is. The "average" forehand of the ATP top 100 is damn good - it would still be a strength for Ferrero, though maybe not as much of a strength as it is now. He'd still be in contention for Grand Slam titles because of his backhand, his speed, all his other attributes.

 

[Anonymous]

Definetly Wonderful Wayne's one shot: the serve; unfortunate as it is, without it, he's nothing. Horrible loss for him today in Queen's, better luck at the Big W, Wayne, Win it all! PULL A GORAN!

 

[ibelieveinliquidmetal]

So basically you guys are talking about what the tennis world would be like if people with big weapons didnt have those weapons?

 

[JSummers]

How about Anna without her looks ? :wink:

 

[JohnThomas1]

Interesting post. I can't however agree about McEnroe, simply look at the scores he was beating guys by in his prime. He could have lost serve once a set and still not had to go near a tiebreaker most times. He had the best net game on earth for some time even taking away the ad court swinger

 

[@wright]

Max, thanks for spelling it out, but I don't agree about Ferrero. You say an average forehand on the ATP 100 is damn good, but it's still average for the ATP. It reminds me of Lake Wobegon "where all the children are above average". Ferrero isn't much of a slam contendor now WITH his forehand, if he had an average forehand, he'd be top 20 material, because you'd have taken away at least half of his arsenal.

 

[dax_q]

Wilander was 1988 year end number 1. He won 3 of the four slams that year.

 

[Camilio Pascual]

Doh! Good spot, dax_q. What I meant to say was he could have stayed at #1. I almost put Rios down instead because he was #1, briefly. But, he isn't half the player Wilander was. It's a pity, Wilander had that one fabulous year and just choked it away.

 

[JohnThomas1]

I think Wilander's trouble was that he had no weapons and his game could only rise so high, tho he performed close to his best each time he played and hence making number one. He could never blow anyone off a court like Lendl or Mac. His steadiness and brains were his greatest assets. If someone had a very good day they could beat him (Say Mecir, Edberg, Becker et al) wherea's some others could just play over the top of such an opponenet anyway. He also had some great beat him way more times than not, and Edberg and Becker played him well too. Mecir was his bogie man too for quite a while. Wilander was a great player however, never beaten until the end and always thinking and adjusting. With a handful extra of power he might have become the greatest player of his era.

 

[Andy Zarzuela]

I've decided to go with players that could be ranked much higher, if not for the following attributes. And I consider the distance from 10th to 5th to be greater than the distance from 10th to 40th.
1. Jelena Dokic and her horrible forecourt game. She'd be in the Top Ten consistently, otherwise.
2. Lindsay Davenport and her poor movement. She could have 2 - 4 more Slam titles and be in the Top Five most of the time.
3. Wayne Arthurs - This is one of the most interesting players out there. I don't know if he would do better or worse if his serve wasn't so good. His groundstrokes keep him from being ranked much higher.
4. Venus Williams' 2nd serve. Her 1st serve speeds have slowed down a lot in the last 2 years. I am convinced it is because of her weak 2nd serve. She may have beaten her sister in 1 or 2 of those Slam finals and beaten a lot of other people with a better 2nd serve to allow her 1st serve to be riskier and more dominating.
5. Mats Wilander's head kept him from being #1. He didn't seem to want it and he had the game to be #1 for maybe a year.

Yes, Venus' first serve speeds have slightly lowered just recently due to the clay season. In Australia in 2003 she hit a 135mph bomb that just missed the line. This year in Australia, although she played bad, she hit some 125 mph serves against Raymond with a total of 17 aces in that match. Her serve was the only thing keeping her alive in that match, because her groundstrokes were way off rythym that day. Anyway, the only change in Venus' first serve speed I've noticed was this past clay court season. Of course she had a couple of lower leg and ankle issues, which I think may have something to do why she wasn't hitting her 1st serve as hard, due to either she wanted to be more cautious not to injure her ankle more by taking a little pace off the ball OR it hurt her where she couldn't push off as hard as normal to put that extra MPH in her serves. In an interview at Roland Garros, she said that she was constantly changing the speed of her serves (however, she didn't give a reason, but my guess was that her ankle was still bothering her) But now that she has had some rest, I think Venus' will hit some 120+ bombs at Wimbledon this year. Who knows, she said earlier in the year that one of her goals this year was to break her current service speed record [/b]
________
Video reviews