Could Blake have won a slam with a better coach?

[Anaconda]

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

So when Blake chokes he is mentally week but when he fights from 2-1 down then it's because the opponent is mentally week. :roll:

 

[davey25]

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.

Nadal though is the easiest matchup for Blake of anyone in the top 10, apart from Davydenko that is. So being able to beat Blake, which back in 05-06 he was able to do consistently on hard courts anyway as it was, would not neccessarily lead to much improved results. As well like I said Nadal wasnt even ever past the quarters (and only twice that far) in hard court slams before 2008, so was not even one of the guys to beat after Federer in hard court slams during Blake's prime years.

 

[35ft6]

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'm not saying it's "bad." He made it to top 5, so it's obviously effective in some way. I'm saying he's got top 10 forehand and top 5 speed, and probably top 3 aggression. But his backhand and serve aren't top 25 or maybe even 50 if you ask me. Both have a sort of "grip it and rip it" quality. And Blake is fast, but he's like Rafter, it seems like he relies on sheer athleticism to get where he needs to be, he doesn't seem to have that natural anticipation that Edberg and Federer has, where they just get to the right place without expending a whole lot of energy. Blake really uses a lot of energy during his matches.

Basically, for Blake to beat a top 10 guy, he had to be clicking on all cylinders. His serve, returns, forehand, backhand, and especially volleys had to be working, he really had to be playing his all court A game. Other top guys, they sort of have an A- or B game they can use to beat another top player. We've seen Fed, Nadal, Novak, and Murray eek out wins against other top 10'ers when they're far from their best. Blake is not in that class. He has to take "big" risks and they have to pay off. He can't just grind his way to a win using a B game. Fantastic player and one of the most exciting on tour, but to me, again, he was an overachiever.

 

[tintin]

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

compare Blake and Roddick and you'll realize that Blake is the one with the most natural variety not just some floating mid court slices a la Roddick

sorry but Blake hasn't beaten Nadal on hard courts for years now

So when Blake chokes he is mentally week but when he fights from 2-1 down then it's because the opponent is mentally week. :roll:

are you smoking some bad weed?cause if you are;please do yourself a favor and ask for a REFUND!
so he has won a few 5 set matches and then what? he lost to an injured Del Potro in Australia just a few weeks ago!
has any of his 5 set matches been in a grand slam quarterfinal? when it matters most.didn't think so!

 

[SLD76]

Comparing Blake to Roddick is nearly comparing apples to apples in terms of natural variety of game.

And even with that Roddick has had a better career becasue 1) he is mentally stronger 2) better serve 3) has better court strategy than blake. Not that he is a tennis mastermind but especially in the last few years, he has had the ability to go to plan B, and C. Both players dont have great variety, but have worked to add some variety to their game.

And again, the debate isnt what blake has done, its about what Blake *could* have done if he'd maximized his potential.


Davey- given what you said, dont you wonder what Blake could have done 05-06 if he'd a better more consistent game on HC?

 

[lambros]

The answer is NO.

 

[tlm]

No coach could save blake, he is not good enough+he is to dumb to ever win a gs.

 

[JW10S]

No........

 

[Kobble]

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.

Guga and Safin are nice guys, and they have slams, and big wins. Then there is Nadal; his results are super human.

 

[Wilander Fan]

What benefit?

Having had very little 1-1 coaching, Ive often wondered what a new coach would bring to the table for a pro. All the experiences Ive had with coaches have been in group settings and the emphasis has generally been on basic fundamentals..fixing obvious problems, etc. In team settings, our coach basically ignored me to spend time with better players. He was more interested in winning matches than developing players.

With respect to pros, they obviously have no problem with fundamentals with the players they are coaching often having better strokes than they ever. This makes me wonder what pros are trying to achieve when they go out and get a coach. Are they hiring the guy to learn a specific tactic the coach may know well (S&V for instance) or maybe even something even more specific like a specific stroke generation?

 

[SLD76]

Safin has more raw talent.

Nadal has completely type of game, and a better mentality.

And my point wasnt that you cant be a good guy and have success.

My point was, I think blake's loyalty may have worked agaisnt him in terms of getting better by stickng with the same coach so long.


Then again, I think Blake deep down was a 'happy to be here' guy. I dont think he burned to be #1.

I think he was content to be a top 15, top 10 player, travel the world, bang hot chicks etc,


of course this is all my wild speculation.

 

[hoodjem]

He went to Harvard; he should be a smarter player.

 

[darthpwner]

Nah, Brian Barker was the best match for Blake.