Could Blake have won a slam with a better coach?

A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Now BlakeGOAT and JBF#1 might accuse me of trolling, so in advance i'm sorry for making this thread.

I like Blake a lot. I was watching some matches in 2006 and thinking 'how did this guy achieve what he did'. He could have achieved much more with the weapons he has.

However i am starting to belive that with a coach of Cahill's or Gilbert's stature he could learn to currel his power of his forehand, which is his biggest shot now doubt. Obviously he could improve all of the other aspects of his game.

The way i see it, he was able to get to #4 in the world and push Federer at the US open QF with an ok coach and his game had holes, which could be improved as they were more about inconsistency with his fireballs and his mental attitude. In other words, he managed to ball-bash to a real high ranking. I'm sure if he learned about his game more and became more rounded he could have done a better. Perhaps getting into a slam final and dare i say. Win a slam. It's quite possible.

I think at that point in his career he could have adapted better and added new dimensions. Roddick is a good example of adding new dimensions midway/late on in your career.

I think the problems with Blake were......

A) Mental attitude: Cramped mentally in tight situations and would throw in the towel if in trouble in a match.
B) Can be inconsistent: One of those players who was good when they were 'on'. Unfortunately were 'on' less than they were 'off'. Could have learned to control his game better
C) Doesn't help himself by being nice to opponents on court, encouraging them to play better.

So what do you think. Would blake have won a slam/Had a better career with a better coach. Disprespect to Blake or his former Coach not intended.
 
BlakeGOAT isnt a blake fan... he hates everyone. and in the ultraweek era, maybe (If you look at the top 10 at some points, it's pathetic with Federer, Nadal, and Davydenko the only people who would be in any normal top 10)
 
He isnt good enough to win a slam. His best shot is his great forehand and there are guys on tour with even better forehands than him, most noteably of all the king of tennis. How could he have ever won a slam. He clearly cant beat Federer, he isnt a contender on clay or grass, he is owned by everyone of the current top players apart from Davydenko. I like the guy and I like his game but a slam title was never happening.

He should have won that match with Agassi at the 05 U.S Open and made the final. He also could have done better in some slams. He was never winning one though.
 
He's an overachiever if you ask me. With that serve and backhand, can't believe he reached top 5.
 
Anaconda said:
Now BlakeGOAT and JBF#1 might accuse me of trolling, so in advance i'm sorry for making this thread.

I like Blake a lot. I was watching some matches in 2006 and thinking 'how did this guy achieve what he did'. He could have achieved much more with the weapons he has.

However i am starting to belive that with a coach of Cahill's or Gilbert's stature he could learn to currel his power of his forehand, which is his biggest shot now doubt. Obviously he could improve all of the other aspects of his game.

The way i see it, he was able to get to #4 in the world and push Federer at the US open QF with an ok coach and his game had holes, which could be improved as they were more about inconsistency with his fireballs and his mental attitude. In other words, he managed to ball-bash to a real high ranking. I'm sure if he learned about his game more and became more rounded he could have done a better. Perhaps getting into a slam final and dare i say. Win a slam. It's quite possible.

I think at that point in his career he could have adapted better and added new dimensions. Roddick is a good example of adding new dimensions midway/late on in your career.

I think the problems with Blake were......

A) Mental attitude: Cramped mentally in tight situations and would throw in the towel if in trouble in a match.
B) Can be inconsistent: One of those players who was good when they were 'on'. Unfortunately were 'on' less than they were 'off'. Could have learned to control his game better
C) Doesn't help himself by being nice to opponents on court, encouraging them to play better.

So what do you think. Would blake have won a slam/Had a better career with a better coach. Disprespect to Blake or his former Coach not intended.
Click to expand...

He doesn't hit with enough topspin and hits very hard at the same time which leads to spectacular winners from James and spectacular errors. HE just does not have enough safety on his ground strokes over the course of matches with the top players to beat them
 
It's possible we never know 2006 was an indicator he had the game to beat big names. I think he relied too much on the power approach in his game to win matches. I think with the right coach he could have brought in some new weapons to his game and make him a consistent threat.
 
All-rounder said:
It's possible we never know 2006 was an indicator he had the game to beat big names. I think he relied too much on the power approach in his game to win matches. I think with the right coach he could have brought in some new weapons to his game and make him a consistent threat.
Click to expand...

Like most players he has no plan B so when plan A doesn't work he loses. Most of the all time greats had no plan B either. They had plan A and few could deal with plan A. Most players can only wish they had a plan A like Blake does.
 
He probably would have done better than he did at the majors with better coaching. His serve, forehand and athleticism are awesome.

He should have done what Djokovic did, keep the main coach (Marian Vajda) and then add others to chime in (Woodforde, now Todd Martin).
 
I saw Blake play Davis Cup in 2001. And to be honest, I am quite surprised at what he's achieved. I think he amped up his power a little (maturity perhaps). And those years that he was top 5, his conditioning was just superb. Could he have won a slam? Ya I think so. Two? Definitely not. I think unfortunately for him his best years coincided with the time that Federer & Nadal ruled the tour. Those years were just slim-pickings. Ask Roddick.
 
could've reached a slam final or two, but don't see him beating fed ..... also who knows how he'd have reacted to the nerves in his first slam final, if he'd reached there .....
 
abmk said:
could've reached a slam final or two, but don't see him beating fed ..... also who knows how he'd have reacted to the nerves in his first slam final, if he'd reached there .....
Click to expand...

I remember that USO QF match vs. Federer. Blake's movement & athleticism was certainly on par with Federer. In addition, he had the power on his groundies to cause Federer some problems. But damn it...Federer just had that extra "stuff" (slice backhand, net game, placement & mojo on his serve). In a nutshell, Blake's game was just more basic while Federer was more intricate.
 
joeri888 said:
Not in Federer's era he couldn't. In the 90's maybe, or early 2000's.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Blake might have had a chance to win a slam if his prime were say 1998-2002. The years he might have had a shot were 1998 and 2002 imparticular, maybe an Aussie Open one of those years. That is it really, and even then it is more likely he wouldnt have then would have.
 
decades said:
no but he could have won one with a better backhand.
Click to expand...

His backhand was arguably better than Gonzalez's. People bash his backhand, but his backhand was awesome in 2006. Once the footwork went away, so did the backhand however...

35ft6 said:
On one hand, I, as a recreational player, would love his serve and backhand. But for a pro, they're ugly, and don't look technically sound.
Click to expand...

Ugly, yes. Not technically sound? No. His backhand is absolutely textbook. He tossed the ball a bit too far into the court on his serve, resulting in a few more double-faults then he should've had, but not enough to truly hurt him (I've seen Davydenko double-faulting on break/set points way too often...).
 
I think he could have done better with better coaching. His game is a bit of an oxymoron. Lots of footspeed, but he goes for his shots. Maybe, he thought he could have been like Hewitt with a bigger forehand, which is good, but it isn't a lock for a major in the Federer/Nadal era. He also would need to be as composed as Hewitt is under pressure. You just need super weapons to guarantee a major in this era. If James added some extra craft to his game, and some more spin, he could contend, again. I wouldn't give up if I were him. I would hire a coach is a good at developing craftiness.
 
Jonny S&V said:
His backhand was arguably better than Gonzalez's. People bash his backhand, but his backhand was awesome in 2006. Once the footwork went away, so did the backhand however...
Click to expand...

That isnt saying much. Gonzalez actually has quite a mediocre backhand. Yes Blake has a better backhand than Gonzalez but that doesnt indicate much, it is like saying so and so has a better serve than Simon. Gonzalez has had the success he has had in the sport almost entirely due to his forehand, and his backhand is clearly not part of a strong enough package to allow him to win a slam or even really come close (one slam final where he was beaten pretty easily). Gonzalez has an even greater forehand than Blake probably though.
 
All-rounder said:
It's possible we never know 2006 was an indicator he had the game to beat big names. I think he relied too much on the power approach in his game to win matches. I think with the right coach he could have brought in some new weapons to his game and make him a consistent threat.
Click to expand...

In 2006 he played Federer 4 or 5 times, most of those best of 5 set matches, and took only 1 set total (where he saved a set and match point to do it). He certainly didnt indicate he had the game to beat Federer. He did show he had the game to beat Nadal on hard courts, but Nadal was unable to show he had the game on hard courts to reach a slam semifinal or even win a Masters that particular year. If he had played Nadal on either clay or grass that year I suspect (more like we all know pretty much) it would have been a quite different story.
 
35ft6 said:
On one hand, I, as a recreational player, would love his serve and backhand. But for a pro, they're ugly, and don't look technically sound.
Click to expand...

Well, compared to Fed's serve and backhand, Blake's strokes are ugly as heck. But his serve isn't bad at all, and his backhand is not bad. I mean, look at a guy like Moya. Unattractive backhand, nothing special about the serve, great forehand, and he reached #1 and won the French! (in the 90s, though, he didn't have to face Fed or Nadal)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Blake's strokes.
 
Changmaster said:
Well, compared to Fed's serve and backhand, Blake's strokes are ugly as heck. But his serve isn't bad at all, and his backhand is not bad. I mean, look at a guy like Moya. Unattractive backhand, nothing special about the serve, great forehand, and he reached #1 and won the French! (in the 90s, though, he didn't have to face Fed or Nadal)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Blake's strokes.
Click to expand...

Moya won his slam title in 1998, the other worst year of mens tennis in history along with 2002 probably. He reached #1 in early 1999 which was mostly a carryover from the horrid 1998, he would be out of the top 20 by years end in 1999.

If one is to compare Moya to Blake, Moya is lucky to specialize on clay where most of the best guys are usually at their weakest. Beyond that Moya has the bigger and superior first serve, Blake has more raw speed but Moya has better overall defense, Blake has the more powerful backhand and skilled return of serve yet still misses more off even those shots than Moya due to his high risk game, Moya is another with an even better forehand at his peak than Blake (despite this being Blakes best shot), and Moya was definitely a better volleyer and smarter about when to approach even though both guys mostly played from the baseline. Overall Moya was still the better player of the two.
 
Anaconda said:
Now BlakeGOAT and JBF#1 might accuse me of trolling, so in advance i'm sorry for making this thread.
Click to expand...

Not at all. And like others have said, BlakeGOAT isn't really a Blake fan, his user name is a failed ironic joke.

I like Blake a lot. I was watching some matches in 2006 and thinking 'how did this guy achieve what he did'. He could have achieved much more with the weapons he has.

However i am starting to belive that with a coach of Cahill's or Gilbert's stature he could learn to currel his power of his forehand, which is his biggest shot now doubt. Obviously he could improve all of the other aspects of his game.

The way i see it, he was able to get to #4 in the world and push Federer at the US open QF with an ok coach and his game had holes, which could be improved as they were more about inconsistency with his fireballs and his mental attitude. In other words, he managed to ball-bash to a real high ranking. I'm sure if he learned about his game more and became more rounded he could have done a better. Perhaps getting into a slam final and dare i say. Win a slam. It's quite possible.

I think at that point in his career he could have adapted better and added new dimensions. Roddick is a good example of adding new dimensions midway/late on in your career

I think the problems with Blake were......

A) Mental attitude: Cramped mentally in tight situations and would throw in the towel if in trouble in a match.
B) Can be inconsistent: One of those players who was good when they were 'on'. Unfortunately were 'on' less than they were 'off'. Could have learned to control his game better
C) Doesn't help himself by being nice to opponents on court, encouraging them to play better.

So what do you think. Would blake have won a slam/Had a better career with a better coach. Disprespect to Blake or his former Coach not intended.
Click to expand...

With Federer standing in the way in practically every HC slam since 05, it's hard to say he could have won a slam. Slam final? Possibly. 05 was his best chance. But slam win? I don't think so. His game is hard to hold up over 7 best of 5 matches. I'm realistic and realize that. If anything I think Blake is an overachiever - he has an extremely one dimensional gameplan, and when its' failing, is reluctant to change it up. Of course when he is on he can beat anyone not named Federer, but when he is off he can lose to anyone, and that has been the source for his downfall.
 
It is interesting to compare Blakes game to Roddicks though. Blake probably can hit every shot better other than the serve, and is light years faster and more athletic overall. However Roddick can hit every shot with more consistency it seems, and is mentally alot tougher, and of course has the much better serve. I guess comparing Blake to Roddick maybe that is one time Blake can look like an underachiever. However I think that means he just didnt overachieve to nearly the extent Roddick did, and Roddick IMO is a massive overachiever (and I mean that in a good way). Comparing Blake to Davydenko who he completely owns head to head might be another case where he looks like an underachiever by comparision. Again though I think that is more showing Blake just wasnt able to be an overachiever of Davydenko proportion rather than him being an underachiever. I cant believe some think Davydenko underachieves to not win a slam, the guy is really good but he is a poor mans Kafelnikov basically, he really is a big overachiever to have stayed in the top 5 or 6 so long.
 
djokovicgonzalez2010 said:
BlakeGOAT isnt a blake fan... he hates everyone. and in the ultraweek era, maybe (If you look at the top 10 at some points, it's pathetic with Federer, Nadal, and Davydenko the only people who would be in any normal top 10)
Click to expand...

Davydenko? Are you serious.

The only 'great' players of this last decade were Federer and Nadal. Possible Safin. But Murray/Roddick/JMDP/Djokovic/Safin/Hewitt/Gaudio/Coria/Nalbandian are all better players than Davydenko and have achieved more in slams (and with some cases MS too). Davydenko is lucky with his top 10 ranking.
 
His game has never been smart and also with the lack of mental toughness, he was never going to win a slam. He had a chance to make a final in '05 but he choked.
 
Last edited:
a better coach;doesn't make a player less of choker and Blake sure as hell doesn't have the mental fortitude to win 7 matches on nothing but hard courts since he's a hard court specialist that can go 5 sets

at some point;his serve goes off;the errors piles up and it's over!
 
He could have reached a slam final or two. If he'd won that USO 05 match against Andre he would have been favored against Ginepri, but who knows how that would have played out. And Fed would have totally destroyed him in the final.

Also, I can't believe he never did better at Wimbledon.
 
VictorS. said:
I remember that USO QF match vs. Federer. Blake's movement & athleticism was certainly on par with Federer. In addition, he had the power on his groundies to cause Federer some problems. But damn it...Federer just had that extra "stuff" (slice backhand, net game, placement & mojo on his serve). In a nutshell, Blake's game was just more basic while Federer was more intricate.
Click to expand...

yeah, agree, that was a pretty exciting match ...
 
davey25 said:
It is interesting to compare Blakes game to Roddicks though. Blake probably can hit every shot better other than the serve, and is light years faster and more athletic overall. However Roddick can hit every shot with more consistency it seems, and is mentally alot tougher, and of course has the much better serve. I guess comparing Blake to Roddick maybe that is one time Blake can look like an underachiever. However I think that means he just didnt overachieve to nearly the extent Roddick did, and Roddick IMO is a massive overachiever (and I mean that in a good way). Comparing Blake to Davydenko who he completely owns head to head might be another case where he looks like an underachiever by comparision. Again though I think that is more showing Blake just wasnt able to be an overachiever of Davydenko proportion rather than him being an underachiever. I cant believe some think Davydenko underachieves to not win a slam, the guy is really good but he is a poor mans Kafelnikov basically, he really is a big overachiever to have stayed in the top 5 or 6 so long.
Click to expand...

I think I tend o agree with this. Roddick is an over-achiever, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great player. Really, a much better grass-court player than Hewitt, unlucky to have no Wimbledons. Roddick's mental strength is vastly under-rated. He's probably one of the strongest players mentally on the tour.
 
dh003i said:
I think I tend o agree with this. Roddick is an over-achiever, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great player. Really, a much better grass-court player than Hewitt, unlucky to have no Wimbledons. Roddick's mental strength is vastly under-rated. He's probably one of the strongest players mentally on the tour.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think Roddick is one of the best fighters on tour bar none. I am surprised less people dont talk about his fighting heart and determination. I agree overall he is a better grass court player than Hewitt. I like Hewitt but he lucked out to peak during the joke 2002 year in mens tennis and the biggest joke Wimbledon ever in 2002. Still it is close. I think had there been no Federer then Roddick beats Hewitt for Wimbledon title in 2004, but Hewitt takes it in 2005, and last year even past his prime and injured Hewitt nearly won. So Roddick is better, but not by all that much, then again on the true faster grass of old the gap might be more.
 
Anaconda said:
Davydenko? Are you serious.

The only 'great' players of this last decade were Federer and Nadal. Possible Safin. But Murray/Roddick/JMDP/Djokovic/Safin/Hewitt/Gaudio/Coria/Nalbandian are all better players than Davydenko and have achieved more in slams (and with some cases MS too). Davydenko is lucky with his top 10 ranking.
Click to expand...

Do you think Davydenko would not be in a normal top 10???!!! Right now is a normal top 10 imo, and he's in it

Murray- I meant in like 06
Roddick- A lot of luck, but yeah I see your point here.
JMDP- I meant in like 06
Djo- I STILL meant in like 06
Safin-Underachiever, was dead by 06
Hewitt- Was already in trouble in '06
Gaudio- Ehhh....briefly... a bit before the period I meant
Coria- No
Nalbandian- Davy has done more than him, especially with regard to longevity
 
Who knows. I for one think he should have at least tried it in the last few years when he started coming down from the #4 ranking. What did he have to lose? He was already rich. If Brian Barker was a true friend he would have totally understood. Blake kept talking about how he wouldn't abandon the coach that stood by him during his difficult period. Last time I checked Federer and Nadal weren't beating down Barker's door to get his remarkable coaching services.
 
Federer needs a coach. Like seriously, bad. He's done a fine job by himself but as he gets older and his body starts to fail, he will need someone to fine-tune his game. Edouard Davydenko has gotta be pretty good to keep his bro in the game as much as he plays, though he's never mentioned, possibly due to his awful taste in hats...
 
I think Blake proves the old saying "nice guys finish last"

I sometimes wonder if Blake wouldnt have made a better doubles player, where some of the pressure would be off his shoulders. That said, there is always a moment in sport that comes down to an individual unless you are on a rowing team or something.

But my point is really in regards to his coach. He is loyal guy. A more self serving player would be able to seperate business from personal, but I think Blake is the type of guy that values relationships and loyalty even over personal success.

For what its worth, I dont know that a new coach would be able to change Blake's mindset on the court. However, maybe a coach that taught James to play defensive, develop a transition game, and showed him how to strategize on court may have resulted in better, more consistent results. And who knows what effect those results may have had on his confidence? And who knows what he could have achieved with a better game and more confidence?

I think he could have easily made a slam final. Hard to say if he would win a slam(esp over Fed in the final). But who knows if he wouldnt have made a few slam finals in lieu of Nadal, aside from clay.
 
Last edited:
djokovicgonzalez2010 said:
Federer needs a coach. Like seriously, bad. He's done a fine job by himself but as he gets older and his body starts to fail, he will need someone to fine-tune his game. Edouard Davydenko has gotta be pretty good to keep his bro in the game as much as he plays, though he's never mentioned, possibly due to his awful taste in hats...
Click to expand...

i usually like reading your posts...but this one is just...:-?

when federer stops winning majors and starts losing in the first round of tournaments, then i will join in on the chorus of people saying that Federer needs a coach...

as of now..he's fine.

i simply despise when federer decides to withdraw from a tournament that everyone jumps on the "federer needs a coach" band-waggon
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

that being said...

i think that blake had he been in the era of cillic, del potro, would have done a lot better than in the late sampras, federer/ nadal era. blake could handle nadal, but he really can't handle federer.
 
Last edited:
Especially when he is withdawing due to sickness and not injury, chronic or otheriwise.

And Fed doesnt need a coach to fine tune his body. he has a whole team of physio trainers for that. And judging by how little ( noticeable) injury he has suffered in 10 years. They must be doing something right.
 
SLD76 said:
I think Blake proves the old saying "nice guys finish last"

I sometimes wonder if Blake wouldnt have made a better doubles player, where some of the pressure would be off his shoulders. That said, there is always a moment in sport that comes down to an individual unless you are on a rowing team or something.

But my point is really in regards to his coach. He is loyal guy. A more self serving player would be able to seperate business from personal, but I think Blake is the type of guy that values relationships and loyalty even over personal success.

For what its worth, I dont know that a new coach would be able to change Blake's mindset on the court. However, maybe a coach that taught James to play defensive, develop a transition game, and showed him how to strategize on court may have resulted in better, more consistent results. And who knows what effect those results may have had on his confidence? And who knows what he could have achieved with a better game and more confidence?

I think he could have easily made a slam final. Hard to say if he would win a slam(esp over Fed in the final). But who knows if he wouldnt have made a few slam finals in lieu of Nadal, aside from clay.
Click to expand...

I don't see why Blake didn't maybe hire additional help, like Djokovic did with Todd Martin. He's essentially getting more input without letting go of his current coach. Blake could've hired an additional consultant perhaps for the US Open Series, being that the US Open probably was his best chance at winning a slam. Oh well...likely too late now.
 
AM95 said:
i usually like reading your posts...but this one is just...:-?

when federer stops winning majors and starts losing in the first round of tournaments, then i will join in on the chorus of people saying that Federer needs a coach...

as of now..he's fine.

i simply despise when federer decides to withdraw from a tournament that everyone jumps on the "federer needs a coach" band-waggon
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

that being said...

i think that blake had he been in the era of cillic, del potro, would have done a lot better than in the late sampras, federer/ nadal era. blake could handle nadal, but he really can't handle federer.
Click to expand...

I'm flattered that you like my posts :D this is in no way related to Federer's withdrawing from Dubai. No coach can stop bronchitis or pneumonia. Federer's game plans, while usually the best there is, can occasionally be a bit questionable though and he's had back problems all his life that will onl get worse.
 
SLD76 said:
I think Blake proves the old saying "nice guys finish last"

I sometimes wonder if Blake wouldnt have made a better doubles player, where some of the pressure would be off his shoulders. That said, there is always a moment in sport that comes down to an individual unless you are on a rowing team or something.

But my point is really in regards to his coach. He is loyal guy. A more self serving player would be able to seperate business from personal, but I think Blake is the type of guy that values relationships and loyalty even over personal success.

For what its worth, I dont know that a new coach would be able to change Blake's mindset on the court. However, maybe a coach that taught James to play defensive, develop a transition game, and showed him how to strategize on court may have resulted in better, more consistent results. And who knows what effect those results may have had on his confidence? And who knows what he could have achieved with a better game and more confidence?

I think he could have easily made a slam final. Hard to say if he would win a slam(esp over Fed in the final). But who knows if he wouldnt have made a few slam finals in lieu of Nadal, aside from clay.
Click to expand...

Blake made the Quarters in Australia a few years ago due to choking from Grosjean.Grosjean was up 2 sets a break and went awol.That was Blake's first 5 set match win

since you mention clay;I'll point out his really abysmal results on the grass of Wimbledon.You'll say but wait he made the finals in Queens but I'll remind you that for all of his speed;forehand and volleys and a solid backhand he has never been past the 3th round at Wimbledon and that was years ago.He lost to Seppi at last year's Wimbledon for pete's sake

truth is;Blake has just person to blame and it ain't Federer nor Nadal nor the rest of the players who beats him in the majors

he has boxed himself in by being a hard court specialist who refuses to change his game no matter the surface unlike Roddick who is trying to turn into a serve/volley player at 28 years of age.

back in the days;hard court specialists did pretty well and being a dirtballer was insulting;well the dirtballers are the ones winning the majors nowadays
 
Blake made the Quarters in Australia a few years ago due to choking from Grosjean.Grosjean was up 2 sets a break and went awol.That was Blake's first 5 set match win

since you mention clay;I'll point out his really abysmal results on the grass of Wimbledon.You'll say but wait he made the finals in Queens but I'll remind you that for all of his speed;forehand and volleys and a solid backhand he has never been past the 3th round at Wimbledon and that was years ago.He lost to Seppi at last year's Wimbledon for pete's sake

truth is;Blake has just person to blame and it ain't Federer nor Nadal nor the rest of the players who beats him in the majors

he has boxed himself in by being a hard court specialist who refuses to change his game no matter the surface unlike Roddick who is trying to turn into a serve/volley player at 28 years of age.

back in the days;hard court specialists did pretty well and being a dirtballer was insulting;well the dirtballers are the ones winning the majors nowaday
Click to expand...



yeah, we know all that. we already know blake is a one dimensional choke artist. the question isnt evaluate Blake's career. the question is to ponder what his career may have been with a different approach.

Thats why I said he would have benefited from someone who would have encouraged him to add some variety to his game and take a smarter approach to tennis.

And I didnt say he was a guarantee to make it to every final. But, a Blake wth a better game plan and execution( like he showed flashes of against Delpo at the AO), I like his chances agaisnt Nadal(and others) on everything but clay.


I concede that grass wasnt Blake's surface, but I never said he'd win Wimbledon either.

Like the other poster said, Blake's best chance for a slam would be the fast HC of USO. And who knows, with a more varied game and smarter tennis..who knows if he didnt at least make a final or two ? Injury and other misfortune aside
 
Last edited:
djokovicgonzalez2010 said:
I'm flattered that you like my posts :D this is in no way related to Federer's withdrawing from Dubai. No coach can stop bronchitis or pneumonia. Federer's game plans, while usually the best there is, can occasionally be a bit questionable though and he's had back problems all his life that will onl get worse.
Click to expand...

i see what your saying.

regarding the backproblems..im sure he takes necessary precautions.

btw. is that what he means by lung infection?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
  • Poll Poll
Blake needs to hire a real coach
Replies
2
Views
421
kingkong
K
A
Does Blake need a new coach?
Replies
38
Views
2K
West Coast Ace
West Coast Ace
M
Potential of James Blake
Replies
17
Views
1K
sillymonkey
sillymonkey
ahile02
James Blake with new coach
Replies
47
Views
6K
jamesblakefan#1
jamesblakefan#1
Conquistador
James Blake Must Change His Game
Replies
18
Views
1K
Rabbit
Rabbit
Back
Top