Casper Ruud says : If you haven't played Pro Tennis, you have no clue what you are talking about...

[duaneeo]

Doesn't take an expert to use your eyes to see how bad Ruud is relative to other top pros at the top of the game. Nobody is saying we are better than him. Of course he can destroy any rec player with a frying pan but that won't win him any slams. He is weaponless and has been completely outmatched in every final he's reached. He's also been lucky with favorable draws and a weak era in general to even make those finals.

Exactly...losing at RG in straight sets (including a bagel) to 36 year old Nadal and again in straight sets to 36 year old Djokovic. He should've had the mental advantage facing first-time slam finalist Alcaraz at the US Open, but even lost that in 4 sets.

But of course Ruud only wants pros/experts to express opinions because he knows their job to promote the greatness of tennis and the players.

 

[duaneeo]

So, can only pro players give their opinion about last year's USO finalist losing in the 2nd round?

 

[ND-13]

Nick has played pro tennis and here is what he thinks

https://twitter.com/x/status/1697070190427549996

 

[augustobt]

Another good indication of the cluelessness Ruud referenced.

Sure. Not that a 2R exit on a hard-court major is exactly the result one should expect from a clay 250 specialist.

 

[intrepidish]

Sure. Not that a 2R exit on a hard-court major is exactly the result one should expect from a clay 250 specialist.

Great players throughout tennis history have certainly lost in the 2nd round of majors, even when they were playing on their best surface, much less on other surfaces. I don't know if you noticed, but several other top players also went out in the first 2 rounds, some even in the very first round for that matter.

Ruud made back to back finals of the French Open along with a US Open final, so calling him a 250 clay specialist is rather silly. He has been in the top 10 continuously for almost 2 years now, so it's no accident.

 

[augustobt]

Ruud made back to back finals of the French Open along with a US Open final, so calling him a 250 clay specialist is rather silly. He has been in the top 10 continuously for almost 2 years now, so it's no accident.

It all started with those 3 weeks in 2021 that ended up producing this anomaly. Hope you always remember that and what tournaments I'm talking about, especially considering the depleted field. Merits to Ruud for winning them, but I have to defy the numbers. Having top 10 points doesn't make a guy top 10 by my personal armchair-warrior standards. I thought that by now we would already be living in a Ruudless Top 10 era, at least officially.

You can keep citing his accomplishments; I'll still stand by what my eyes saw: Ruud is by far - not even comparable - the worst player to be ranked in the top 2, top 3, top 4, top 5, top 6, top 7, top 8, top 9, and top 10. I remember back then people mocking Almagro and Tipsarevic for reaching the top 10. They were miles better than Ruud and actually had weapons.

 

[Aabye5]

To be clear, some of them do. The big majority of them, even.

But a lot of great players are terrible analysts for the same reason a lot of great athletes make terrible coaches. Some of them went their whole careers on natural talent with an ability to just flow through the game without even really understanding what they were doing, which is why they struggle to teach it. Likewise there are a lot of great coaches out there that never played at a high level because they were forced to see the game differently.

There is some truth that, and it is interesting that players such as Medvedev have coaches who were not top players.

 

[intrepidish]

I thought that by now we would already be living in a Ruudless Top 10 era, at least officially.

Yes, well, it's time for you to revise your opinion. No one stays in the top 10 for almost 2 years by accident.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Yeah, you can’t say this Casper and then lose your next match. Just asking for it. lol

 

[lurker2025]

I hope yo

It all started with those 3 weeks in 2021 that ended up producing this anomaly. Hope you always remember that and what tournaments I'm talking about, especially considering the depleted field. Merits to Ruud for winning them, but I have to defy the numbers. Having top 10 points doesn't make a guy top 10 by my personal armchair-warrior standards. I thought that by now we would already be living in a Ruudless Top 10 era, at least officially.

You can keep citing his accomplishments; I'll still stand by what my eyes saw: Ruud is by far - not even comparable - the worst player to be ranked in the top 2, top 3, top 4, top 5, top 6, top 7, top 8, top 9, and top 10. I remember back then people mocking Almagro and Tipsarevic for reaching the top 10. They were miles better than Ruud and actually had weapons.

I hope you do not believe that even guys like Massu or Pouille were miles better than Ruud because they were also in the top ten, so even if you regard Ruud as worse than Almagro and Tipsarevic and even if that were true, it would not have been impossible for him to make the top ten at some point even between 2003 and 2020. Tiafoe has been in the top ten. Is he also miles above Ruud despite a far less accomplished career playing in the same era? Even if he first got into the top ten by what you regard as illegitimate means by feasting on depleted fields in Atp 250s on clay, he was able to stay in the top 10 for over three years which is no mean feat even in a weak era. Hurkacz, who i am sure you would say is several levels above Ruud, has spent less time in the top 10 than Ruud playing in the same era. Ruud has also three seasons with around 50 matches won. You do not accomplish that if you are weaponless. You can say that reciting his accomplishments is useless but accomplishments are factual and go beyond the eye-test which can be subjective.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Never forget when Ruud was 1 point away from becoming #1 with a bunch of 250s to his name

 

[Mainad]

Never forget when Ruud was 1 point away from becoming #1 with a bunch of 250s to his name

Would that have made him the least accomplished player ever to become #1?

 

[lurker2025]

If he had won the Us open against Sinner or Tiafoe in case Alcaraz had lost, then he would not have been the least accomplished. Of course it is all hypothetical but him losing a final against Sinner or Tiafoe is hypothetical as well.

 

[lurker2025]

Would that have made him the least accomplished player ever to become #1?

Of course he would have been the least accomplished number one in that scenario but there is a good chance he could have won it against say Tiafoe. Sinner is a very bad match-up for him so he would have likely won it against Ruud.

 

[Holmes]

That man has 7 grand slams and laid the blueprint for the "winning 3 in a year" template that's been followed by the big 3 since. He's earned the right to make a troll-insight smoothie whenever he wants.

 

[heavyD]

Yeah Mats was one of the most cerebral players to ever play the game. He didn't have the tools to win on pure talent a lot of time and had to be tactical.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Would that have made him the least accomplished player ever to become #1?

There are like 3 former #1 without a slam. Now imagine with masters or even 500s