Is Tommy Hass basically a Federer who was prone to injury?

N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Haas's best chance at a slam was the 2002 Australian Open though and he couldnt even beat a poor Safin in the semis, in fact getting brutally overpowered by Safin in the last 2 sets once he woke up from a bad first 3 sets, while Johansson did beat an equally poor Safin in the final. That is what I meant when I said it was telling Haas couldnt even make a major final while playing well at the same point people like Johansson were winning slams. I saw him play other matches in 2002, like the Rome final where he had a super tournament to make the final, then gets spanked so badly by a 32 year old Agassi. Then in Canada where he came close to the title, but lost in the semis to Canas, and Peter Burwash the TSN commentator felt Haas played his best and Canas played a poor match, and Canas still won. Peak Haas just wasnt that great. I like the guy as well, I really do, and I rooted for him back then and still do today.

Do you think Haas is better than Kafelnikov? I consider Kafelnikov possibly the worst 2 slam winner in history, but he still beat Haas in some of Haas's biggest ever matches, the 99 Australian Open semis (a young Haas but he got dressed down good), and the 2000 Olympic final.

By the way when Haas briefly reached #2 his slam results in the last year were semis, 4th round, 4th round, DNP, he had not won a tournament for almost a year, and as others have pointed out he missed a large chunk of time with his unfortunate family tragedy too. Really says something about the state of the mens game in 2002 he ever reached that rank with those results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haas is a fun player with a fun personality(which has been pretty rare in tennis the last 10 years, some of his press conferences, post match interviews were almost Goran like, anyone remember his interview after a USO match where he said he was mad at his coach for not coaching him during the match?) but I have trouble seeing him winning a major at any point in his career unless the draw broke perfectly for him.

one of the main reasons being - he rarely had easy matches in majors, he played a ridiculous amount of 4/5 setters. Often he was pretty gassed at the end of the majors he did well in. And he didn't seem to have endless reserves(like a Guga, that guy played a ton of 5 setters but still could play at a high level tired, when Haas was tired, his level was not good. or Agassi who took the ball so early, so he didn't have to run as much in long matches)

To win majors, most of the time you need to have more than a few pretty easy matches en route to the title. Haas often seemed to be more of a grinding type player, not Federer like(who we know won so many majors barely losing sets) or even Nalbandian like(I remember him romping through early rounds at the AO one year before losing to Fed in the quarters. Honestly Nalbandian's level in making that QF was better than Haas in any of the majors he made a SF in.

I think Haas would have lost to Johansson in '02 (who played quite well, despite not getting credit today. he basically overpowered Safin, I think too many chalk that up to Safin's poor play & forget how big a server & returner Johansson was - bigger than Haas. he was in the zone that day, I recently rewatched it, he wasn't allowing Safin to really play that day, he was hitting so deep & hard off the first shot)
plus Haas was so physically worn down from the long matches he played at that event, can't see him having much left in the final.

And look up Haas' USO record, the guy was grinding out every other match the years he made Qf's. I have trouble seeing him beating a Hewitt or an Agassi in a hypothetical final there after his typical long early round matches.

it sounds strange, but sometimes the guys with the most talent/variety etc don't necessarily have great games to win majors. In addition to what I said, I just don't see big weapons in Haas' game in the way some past one slam winners had(like I said I even think Johansson's weapons were more dangerous. I think he wasn't far from beating Roddick in a W sf one year as well as his AO win) Despite being a big guy with all the shots, Haas just always seemed to have to work really hard to win. maybe some of that was mental, who knows.
 
Last edited:

Gaudio2004

Semi-Pro
Federer's a terrible tactician
Think about what you're saying here - you look pretty daft, mind you, you are calling the most successful player in the game a terrible tactician. Federer is a superb tactician. Maybe if you think "he's a terrible tactician because of this and that and this" you forget to see the good tactics that he does employ; this year he has won several titles (and on different surfaces, different countries, different opponents), each match, each opponent, each tournament, each surface is different.

If you believe Federer is a terrible tactician - then the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, in fact... anyone out there, cannot even have the noun tactician applied to them. The intelligence Federer plays with on court (most of the time, and this will be explained later) is remarkable; even at his late age he is still ahead of pretty much everyone in how he plays tennis on the court.

His losses to Nadal early on in his career are perfect examples of this
You do not prove something (i.e. Federer is a terrible tactician) by giving an example, rather you disprove something by giving an example; in mathematics it is called a counter-example. There is no logic in saying what you have quoted.

The losses to Nadal indicate, perhaps, that Federer did not employ the best available tactics against Nadal - that does not defeat the notion that he is a superb tactician, just that against Nadal, he didn't (or doesn't) employ the best tactics.

Saying that - Federer played well against Nadal in numerous matches earlier on; assume he played well in the matches that he won and let us look at the matches that he lost:

Dubai 2006 - was up a break in the first set.
Rome 2006 - Had match points.
French Open 2006 - 6-1 1*- 0.
French Open 2007 - 17 break points.
Monte Carlo 2008 - Up a break in... each set.
Hamburg 2008 - Up 4-0* in the first set.
Wimbledon 2008 - Up a break in the second set, 2 points away from winning.

These do not illustrate or "prove" that Federer is a superb tactician, rather they just show how Federer was capable of using the correct tactics to build a lead (or come back from a defeat - Wimbledon 2008, Hamburg 2007) against Nadal. It shows that Federer can employ good tactics even against someone who you believe proves that Federer is a terrible tactician, which is clearly not the case.

It may be the case that Federer is a terrible tactician against Nadal specifically - but given his success against Nadal and even in the losses (look above), that really isn't the case; and if you believe that, then it's simple to fix: watch the matches, you will see how many times Federer gets ahead.

He absolutely refused to adapt no matter what
This isn't necessarily a bad thing - against many other players he has refused to use other tactics that most players use (i.e. the way he went after Roddick's serve in the period 2003-2007, no one else did, at all). It could mean he is working on a proactive style that he thinks is good enough to win against the opponent; be it Nadal, Murray, etc.

However, he HAS adopted. He is one of the best "adopters" on the tour; his success this year and last year (later) show how well he adopts to anything; the poor blue surface in Madrid, slow courts in Indian Wells, fast courts in Dubai, medium courts in Rotterdam, etc, etc,

He just needed to actually not play like a stubborn idiot.
Easy to say when you are watching from home! Perhaps some credit has to go to Nadal? Surely he had a say in the matches, too..

instead he allowed Nadal to beat him over relentlessly by staying way too far back, while never forcing Nadal to serve into different directions, especially on the AD court.
I completely agree with you - but this in part is explained by what Nadal is so good at; he makes you play with him and takes you to his level, as explained HERE.

People overrate Federer's tactical abilities. He has two tricks, the slice backhand that he literally abuses over and over again against players like Roddick, Berdych, etc. who cannot properly deal with it, and his inside out forehand. His variety is completely overrated. Period.
If that's what you think "tactical abilities" equal, then clearly you will see it that way. The two shots you listed are listed as "technical ability", not tactical; such a misconception is common. I could list 100+ "things" Federer has "done" to illustrate superb tactical ability; but these would not be "technical ability", they would be "tactical ability". So a short slice backhand may be a tactic in some context, but by definition it is a technical shot!

The last "allcourt" style Federer played was early in 2005.
Completely incorrect and I almost feel sorry for you if you think of tennis and of Federer this way - this kind of view explains how tennis pundits love watching Federer and hail him for his all-court game, yet tennis viewers feel he does not have an all-court game.

All-court changes with time - what was defined as an "aggressive baseliner" in 1990 and what is defined as an "aggressive baseliner" in 2012 is totally different; Federer's all-court game has been apparent in many of his victories, but a good example to illustrate that he definitely has an all-court game, is the Madrid match vs Raonic. From the baseline he was getting nothing - Raonic was just firing either a winner or Federer was making an unforced error, so he started serve and volleying and gradually moved up even on Raonic's return.

Such an idea is rare on any surface - to make the big server move back by moving up on his service games, rather than the usual way to think "I'm going to out-grind him and move even more back to return his games".

his one dimensional style of play of glueing himself onto the baseline has hurt him plenty of times.
Against Djokovic, Nadal and some other top players, yes, of course; but cannot this be said for all top players against respective top players? Against the very best your potential "problems" with your game come out due to the pressure and style of your quality opponent!
 
Last edited:

Gaudio2004

Semi-Pro
Again, do you not understand the premise???

Hass' respective best has, most likely, been affected by his many injuries (some of which were significant)...

Hass still made it to number 2 and threatened to win some slams even with the injuries and large gaps in his career; imagine if he could have capitalized on his momentum...

Another way of putting it: what if Federer had suffered some significant injury at the end of 2003 that forced him to lay off tennis for months? Would he have still dominated the way he has?

Federer has hardly suffered from any injury, none that has caused any long pause in his career. Although many of his devotees constantly bring up his supposed back issues or mono in 2008, as the excuse and main reason he was less dominant every since and Nadal took #1 away from him :twisted:
I understand the premise perfectly.

If Federer had suffered some significant injury at the end of 2003; suppose he would not have dominated the way he has now. Then we cannot compare the Federer in this parallel universe (who suffered a significant injury at the end of 2003) to the very, alive, real Federer right now - because the one now would not exist due to having a different past and having completely different paths (missing AO 2004 possibly, missing out on number 1..)

However, I would argue that given Federer's talents, he would have still reached the top!

Had Haas not been injured early on, certainly we can say he would have achieved more, just being on a court instead of dashing out $$$ for surgeries of course is better; but we don't truly know how Haas would have behaved or dealt with being at the top consistently.

I would like to say he should have won the Australian Open and perhaps the US Open /Wimbledon (latter parts of his career show he is superb on grass) - Australian Open 2003 would have been perfect for him.

Obviously your judgement can't be trusted if you think Delpo is as good as the end of 2009!

Also, by extension you are saying that Federer is playing just about as well as he ever has, discounting the basic argument of Fedephants everywhere ...
Federer won French Open 2009, but his level in the same tournament in 2011 was miles, miles better. Winning a Major does not mean a player's "level" is at his highest.

Saying that, Del Potro had a superb level during that Major and I would argue that Federer's was no-where near in that final than how he has played for the first 4 months of 2012; missing in that final was serving ability, a poor choice of tactics and a lack of composure. With those added in, regardless of how Del Potro performs, Federer will win.

Del Potro performed extremely well during their recent 5-set encounter; Federer out-lasted him. Even when his level is extremely high, and I would argue that it was higher in the first 2 sets of the French Open 2011 match than it was for the whole US Open 2009 match, Federer has just more.

Del Potro has been performing very well (given how good he can be) for a while now!

You and aboveboard have pretty much ignored the entire premise of this thread!

I guess you two are unaware or completely clueless about the extreme negative impact a break in momentum can have on a player's career! Particularly when it's injuries that are constantly forcing you to effectively start over and thus losing confidence and even physical ability.

Delpotro is a prime example of this; he a shadow of his 2009 form. I think he's actually afraid to hit out the way he used for fear of reinjuring his wrist...

Imagine if Federer suffered a serious injury after his fist slam and did not ride and build the wave of momentum he had garnered; could have resulted in a whole different story!

At the very least, if Hass was injury free, he would have been a much bigger rival to Federer...
Then Federer would not exist the way we think now and we would not be able to compare him.

Similarly, assuming Haas did not get injured, it is possible he may have won 5+ Majors, including many Masters - we just don't really know that well, and given his weaknesses (mainly mentally, but technically he has some issues too), there is some shadow on this view that Haas would have done much better.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k_Z6Ijd2DY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jnc-N2mkfM

Haas missed his entire prime. Everytime he got a conistent run together he'd start pushing Federer like this then get injured and have to start from square one.
Hass did not miss his entire prime. He missed 2003. He was 25 by that point. From 20-24 he came up with nothing in the majors. In some of the weirdest and weakest years of tennis. From 2000-2002 he had basically two and half to three full years of tennis in prime age, made one semi and won a single master series title. He had time there to really breakthrough. He didn't come out of the sport due to injury until he was 25. We can go with the late bloomer thing, but I find it hard to believe that at 25 Haas was about to dominate the tour, considering he hadn't shown any sign of it prior to. Federer bloomed at 23, very few players start winning multiple majors at 25 without having been to major finals before. Even then Haas had most of 04-07 and considering how poor his 2005 was after a full year back on tour in 2004 you just don't see it. Maybe had there just been better more convicing results, but a few spot semifinals doesn't have me sold that he wouldn't have been anymore than a Davydenko, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Henman type. He might have picked up a major or two tops, but I don't seem him ever haven taken one out of the Fedal era of the mid 2000s and honestly his best chance was 99-02 and he didn't capitalize. The only major in 2003 he might have won was the Australian Open.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
No, but like others I think he could have bagged some Slams if he could have gone through his career relatively injury free, at least free of serious injuries.

This is not to say he's not mega-talented, but those few times he was healthy and playing well, he didn't win any Slams. So, while if he would have had more good opportunities due to good health, maybe he pulls out a few, but that's still far short of Fed level.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Haas is a fun player with a fun personality(which has been pretty rare in tennis the last 10 years, some of his press conferences, post match interviews were almost Goran like, anyone remember his interview after a USO match where he said he was mad at his coach for not coaching him during the match?) but I have trouble seeing him winning a major at any point in his career unless the draw broke perfectly for him.

one of the main reasons being - he rarely had easy matches in majors, he played a ridiculous amount of 4/5 setters. Often he was pretty gassed at the end of the majors he did well in. And he didn't seem to have endless reserves(like a Guga, that guy played a ton of 5 setters but still could play at a high level tired, when Haas was tired, his level was not good. or Agassi who took the ball so early, so he didn't have to run as much in long matches)
Pretty much. The 2002 Australian Open which was possibly his best ever slam tournament is a perfect example. Despite playing well he had to go 5 sets or 4 long sets with every dangerous opponent he faced and eventually just ran out of gas in the semis. I also dont think he would have beaten Johansson in the final. Safin played poorly in the semis as well as the final, the first 3 sets of the semis he was worse then the final, but Haas still couldnt beat him.


As for those saying he could have won majors, when exactly? His peak was 2001-2002 which was the Hewitt era which in hindsight is viewed as the softest time for winning majors we have had in a long time. He still didnt even reach a slam final, and was never able to get past someone like Hewitt. Hewitt despite peaking for several more years after that and into the Federer era never came close to another major (making 1 slam final where Federer fed him 2 bagels), and Hewitt was always better than Haas, even at Haas's peak, so where would Haas's future majors come from? The Federer era (2004-2007)? Hugely unlikely. The Nadal/Djokovic era? He does well vs Djokovic, but has always been spanked down when he plays Nadal, and he would have been already into his 30s by then.

I think he would have been a more consistent force in the top 10 and made a few more good runs, as it is he has 5 slam semis which is great, but he would have needed a draw to break perfectly at just the right time to have snuck out a major.
 

ARIARAIDEN

Rookie
Yes you know why because Federer developed his game year to year as in 2006 he peaked.Tommy Haas never could because of the injurys.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Lol I love it. Haas wins one match and people act like he missed out on calendar grand slams in the years he was injured.

Haas is nowhere near Federer when it comes to tennis skills.
 
Last edited:

President

Legend
Lol I love it. Haas wins one match and people act like he missed out on calendar grand slams in the years he was injured.

Haas is nowhere near Federer when it comes to tennis skills.
Federer is certainly more talented but don't underestimate what taking repeated breaks (for LONG periods) of time can do to someone's game, especially someone with a very multifaceted game like Haas (just like Fed) that can take many years to perfect. Tommy Haas never got to truly develop his game due to all the breaks; he also never managed to build up the measure of confidence that repeated wins on the tour will give a player (as Fed can attest to).
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Federer is certainly more talented but don't underestimate what taking repeated breaks (for LONG periods) of time can do to someone's game, especially someone with a very multifaceted game like Haas (just like Fed). Tommy Haas never got to truly develop his game due to all the breaks; he also never managed to build up the measure of confidence that repeated wins on the tour will give a player (as Fed can attest to).
Nah, brah. Haas had time to play good tennis and he simply was not good enough, physically or mentally, to dominate the game. Even in 2002 when he was in the top 10 the whole year(he finished number 2), look at all the pathetic losses he had. He lost a few times to guys ranked outside the top 100 whilst being the number 2-3 player in the world (lol he even got straight setted by Alex Bolgomolov who was ranked 278 at the time). He was 24 at the time, the "he didn't develop his game" argument is nonsense as Egn said. As if Haas was about to crush the world at the age of 25 had it not been for his injury.

Just because a player's game gets you off doesn't mean you have to act like he was Jesus Christ. For all the talk about his so-called "beautiful attacking game", Haas was a largely undistinguished player on grass even in his best years. He only performed well in 2009 once the courts had been slowed down by a huge margin.

Haas's skills should be compared to someone in his own class.. like Henman or Davydenko..Not Federer, Sampras, or any other players who are far beyond Haas's level.
 
Last edited:
I think this thread demonstrates who watched tennis because they love the sport, and those who watched tennis because they love Roger Federer.

In their perspective prime time, Haas was never in the conversation of "the next big star". People had speculations about the young Roger Federer, and when he beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, that's when people went: "**** just got real..."
 
Last edited:

tennisplayer1993

Professional
first of all Haas is one of my favorite players. Huge talent. so much fun to watch. so versatile, huge BH, great FH ... big net game, very smart player. I think that his biggest problem was in the mental department (aside his injuries). He reminds me a bit of Safin, because they are both nut cases. Safin did manage to win 2 slams tho.

If he had been able to control his nerves (also, being injury free) he would have been a multiple GS champion. so sad.

also, that accident he had, almost destroyed his career, but it's great to see him back playing well.
+1

Haas was a beast when he was younger. But he is very similar with Safin's nutcase immense talent level
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
I think this thread demonstrates who watched tennis because they love the sport, and those who watched tennis because they love Roger Federer.
Yes, because having the audacity to say that a 17 times grand slam champion, who has produced so much brilliance on a tennis court, is more skilled than Tommy Haas is such a criminal thing to say for a tennis fan.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Lol I love it. Haas wins one match and people act like he missed out on calendar grand slams in the years he was injured.

Haas is nowhere near Federer when it comes to tennis skills.
Actually, this thread was started way before by DRII and it was basically yet another hypothetical scenario in which Fed wouldn't have won so much (meaning if Haas wasn't injury prone Fed wouldn't have 17 or at the time of this thread 16 slams).

Haas is a pretty complete all-around player but tennis has time and again been dominated by players with big weapons to separate them from the rest, I think some aspects of Haas game are very comparable to Fed (BH, volleys, slice) but what good that does to him when Fed has a much better FH, movement and serve?
 
I always roll my eyes at the people who point out Federer's losses to Nadal as an example of his "inferior tactics." Federer loses to Nadal because Nadal is a better player than him.

Nobody else beats Nadal unless they're redlining with flat 100+ MPH forehands, either. Why do you think that is?

I mean, what...do you think Nadal is beating Federer with tactics?

"Oh, break point, no? Hmmm, serve to the backhand, hit big forehand, no?"

Gee, what genius. I'm sure Federer is just too clueless on a tennis court to figure out what to do about this. It's not simply a matter of him being incapable of him doing anything about it. No, couldn't be that.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Actually, this thread was started way before by DRII and it was basically yet another hypothetical scenario in which Fed wouldn't have won so much (meaning if Haas wasn't injury prone Fed wouldn't have 17 or at the time of this thread 16 slams).

Haas is a pretty complete all-around player but tennis has time and again been dominated by players with big weapons to separate them from the rest, I think some aspects of Haas game are very comparable to Fed (BH, volleys, slice) but what good that does to him when Fed has a much better FH, movement and serve?
Yup, I agree with what you are saying, but also guys like Federer and Sampras have something special that others dont have. You could argue that Sampras was not as good of volleyer as Rafter or Henman, but when he played them at Wimbledon, he was one who was coming up with the crazy volleys when it mattered most.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Nah, brah. Haas had time to play good tennis and he simply was not good enough, physically or mentally, to dominate the game. Even in 2002 when he was in the top 10 the whole year(he finished number 2), look at all the pathetic losses he had. He lost a few times to guys ranked outside the top 100 whilst being the number 2-3 player in the world (lol he even got straight setted by Alex Bolgomolov who was ranked 278 at the time). He was 24 at the time, the "he didn't develop his game" argument is nonsense as Egn said. As if Haas was about to crush the world at the age of 25 had it not been for his injury.

Just because a player's game gets you off doesn't mean you have to act like he was Jesus Christ. For all the talk about his so-called "beautiful attacking game", Haas was a largely undistinguished player on grass even in his best years. He only performed well in 2009 once the courts had been slowed down by a huge margin.

Haas's skills should be compared to someone in his own class.. like Henman or Davydenko..Not Federer, Sampras, or any other players who are far beyond Haas's level.

Exactly. 2002 might be the weakest year in mens tennis history. A way past his prime Albert Costa, Tomas Johansson, and broken shouldered 125th ranked Ivanisevic won slams, while a way past his prime Sampras on a 25 month tournament-less drought beat fellow oldie Agassi for the years final major. Scheng Schalken was one of the guys to beat, seriously who were the threats.

Yet Haas clearly peaking then, still couldnt win a major or even come that close. Heck he didnt even win a tournament that year, made the finals of only ONE tournament, and made it past the round of 16 of only one slam, and lost in his 2nd round or sooner in 12 of his 23 tournaments. Yet those are the results that got him to World #2 very late in the year mostly all based on 2002 points, LOL, really does show what I mean when I say it was the weakest year ever for mens tennis. Some of his best moments of the year were losing the AO semis to Safin where he couldnt finish off a poor playing Safin in 3 sets despite being up in the 2nd set which he lost, and then managed only 2 games the final 2 sets; Rome final where he was only 6 games in 3 sets in a total beatdown to Agassi, and Canadian Open 2002 where despite playing very well he couldnt even beat Canas in the semis from a break up in the final set when TSN commentator Peter Burwash stated Canas played his only poor match of the week. 2001 he was also peaking, and it was also truly in the transition era of mens tennis, and again not close to a major. So if peaking around then he couldnt win a major when was he going to. I like Haas, and am happy to see him still playing some of his best tennis in his mid 30s which is remarkable, and sadlly he is still having the injury problems that plagued him off and on through his career, but lets be real here too. Essentialy what he is showing now is what he always was when healthy, a dangerous player who could take out top guys and also be reasonably consistent enough to have a shot at being in the top 10, but not someone who can go through several top guys in a row to ever win a big title.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
If Fed had Haas fire, he'd probably have a few more majors!
If by "fire" you mean passion then I disagree. Federer had enough mental issues in his early career. He would have never been successful if he liked to commentate after every point and have conversations with himself at changeovers like Haas does.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Federer has fire. Sometimes he is a little boring to watch for me as an admited non fan of his, but when he really gets in tight spots or wants something badly he can show alot of fire. Since when is Haas known for fire. With one of his only chance to qualify into the WTF he shakes and looks at his wrist for a little injury after every point in losing a winnable match to Grosjean (I loved Luke Jensen in the booth saying if you are really hurt then just WD, and if not stop with the sissy stuff).
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Essentialy what he is showing now is what he always was when healthy, a dangerous player who could take out top guys and also be reasonably consistent enough to have a shot at being in the top 10, but not someone who can go through several top guys in a row to ever win a big title.
Well said, sir.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Federer has fire. Sometimes he is a little boring to watch for me as an admited non fan of his, but when he really gets in tight spots or wants something badly he can show alot of fire. Since when is Haas known for fire. With one of his only chance to qualify into the WTF he shakes and looks at his wrist for a little injury after every point in losing a winnable match to Grosjean (I loved Luke Jensen in the booth saying if you are really hurt then just WD, and if not stop with the sissy stuff).
He showed fire yesterday. I thought he was going to choke when he lost his break of serve, he responded with a quick batch of aces and unreturnables and won with a monster forehand winner.

He and Kiefer would definitely have won 1-3 slams each if they'd stayed healthy. They were such phenomenal talents.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Federer has fire. Sometimes he is a little boring to watch for me as an admited non fan of his, but when he really gets in tight spots or wants something badly he can show alot of fire. Since when is Haas known for fire. With one of his only chance to qualify into the WTF he shakes and looks at his wrist for a little injury after every point in losing a winnable match to Grosjean (I loved Luke Jensen in the booth saying if you are really hurt then just WD, and if not stop with the sissy stuff).
Haas was more of a hothead rather than fierce competitor such as Nadal or Hewitt. The emotions he shows on court are not healthy at all. He has the Murray approach to expressing himself.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Haas was more of a hothead rather than fierce competitor such as Nadal or Hewitt. The emotions he shows on court are not healthy at all. He has the Murray approach to expressing himself.
Hewitt choking was always a big issue when he had set or match points. His low first serve % combined with that double fault prone second serve.
 

Wuppy

Professional
Never really looked much at Hoss until this tournament. He's really playing incredibly good all-court tennis and it's a joy to see because almost everybody is a baseliner these days.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
I remember clearly the young Haas in the late 90s. He was very good at everything. Very good forehand, very very good backhand, very good serve, good volleys, great physique.

But tennis is not just the sum of all your strokes. It is much more complex.

He was mentally weak. As someone said early (I think it was Moose Malloy) he had to fight hard in many of his GS matches, so he was tired in the later rounds when he got there.

As I said, he was (and still is) very very good at everything (forehand, backhand, serve, net game when he comes in, physique), but he lacks that something extra-especial that the really great ones have.

There have been many players (in each era) that were very very good at everything, very complete players, that lacked that something extra-especial (I am thinking now about Wayne Ferreira or Cedric Pioline for example in the 90s).

Those type of players, are good enough to be top-10, top-5 for some time, and they usually make some GS SF or even GS finals. But they don't win multiple GS.

Tennis is a complex game. Haas is much more complete than, say, Rafter, but Rafter had one of the best net games ever.

Pioline was very good at everything. He was much more complete than, say, Agassi. But Agassi was the best in the world hitting on the rise and returning serve.

Heck, one could say that Jason Stoltenberg was good (not great, but good) at everything too (forehand, backhand, volleys, serve...) but he was only a top-20 player in his time.

I love Haas game, but I sincerely believe he would not have been a multiple GS winner (had he not have all those injuries and surgeries). Maybe 1 GS or 2 GS max.
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
Exactly. 2002 might be the weakest year in mens tennis history. A way past his prime Albert Costa, Tomas Johansson, and broken shouldered 125th ranked Ivanisevic won slams, while a way past his prime Sampras on a 25 month tournament-less drought beat fellow oldie Agassi for the years final major. Scheng Schalken was one of the guys to beat, seriously who were the threats.

Yet Haas clearly peaking then, still couldnt win a major or even come that close. Heck he didnt even win a tournament that year, made the finals of only ONE tournament, and made it past the round of 16 of only one slam, and lost in his 2nd round or sooner in 12 of his 23 tournaments. Yet those are the results that got him to World #2 very late in the year mostly all based on 2002 points, LOL, really does show what I mean when I say it was the weakest year ever for mens tennis. Some of his best moments of the year were losing the AO semis to Safin where he couldnt finish off a poor playing Safin in 3 sets despite being up in the 2nd set which he lost, and then managed only 2 games the final 2 sets; Rome final where he was only 6 games in 3 sets in a total beatdown to Agassi, and Canadian Open 2002 where despite playing very well he couldnt even beat Canas in the semis from a break up in the final set when TSN commentator Peter Burwash stated Canas played his only poor match of the week. 2001 he was also peaking, and it was also truly in the transition era of mens tennis, and again not close to a major. So if peaking around then he couldnt win a major when was he going to. I like Haas, and am happy to see him still playing some of his best tennis in his mid 30s which is remarkable, and sadlly he is still having the injury problems that plagued him off and on through his career, but lets be real here too. Essentialy what he is showing now is what he always was when healthy, a dangerous player who could take out top guys and also be reasonably consistent enough to have a shot at being in the top 10, but not someone who can go through several top guys in a row to ever win a big title.
1. Ivanisevic won Wimbledon in 2001, not 2002. The third big surprise of 2002 was Sampras's USO victory.

2. Haas finished 2002 ranked #11, with a record of 45-21, 0 wins and a majors record of SF--4th--MIA Wimbledon--4th.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Yes he ended 2002 #11 after reaching #2 in September/October. That pretty much sums up the equal mediocrity amongst everyone besides Hewitt that year. Even Hewitt would only be ranked about 5th usually with his 2002 results now.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Yes he ended 2002 #11 after reaching #2 in September/October. That pretty much sums up the equal mediocrity amongst everyone besides Hewitt that year. Even Hewitt would only be ranked about 5th usually with his 2002 results now.
I thought that was a very strong time for tennis. Haas, Safin, Kuerten, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Flipper, Moya, Henman, Agassi, Sampras still popping up in the USO final every year, Federer and Coria rising.

It wasn't until they all got injured/mental breakdowns/retired in 2005 that things became mediocre.

Hewitt's game was incredibly ugly, like a much faster but much weaker Djoker, but he is the best defensive player off clay since Wilander and was definitely better than Murray. His low points score says more about the level of competition than everything else.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Actually, this thread was started way before by DRII and it was basically yet another hypothetical scenario in which Fed wouldn't have won so much (meaning if Haas wasn't injury prone Fed wouldn't have 17 or at the time of this thread 16 slams).

Haas is a pretty complete all-around player but tennis has time and again been dominated by players with big weapons to separate them from the rest, I think some aspects of Haas game are very comparable to Fed (BH, volleys, slice) but what good that does to him when Fed has a much better FH, movement and serve?
yes, this .....

though a very good player all around, haas lacks that x-factor, the one aspect of his tennis that stands out
 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
I really don't know about your question, OP. Because I didn't start watching tennis closely until around 2006 or 2007, I've missed the whole Haas-story. I only just now found out that his parents were in a coma, pretty sad stuff.
Just watched this video about him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcYDUfANigU

He's really an awesome guy. Looks like he has a great personality, lots of talent, heart, knows what's important (taking care of your loved ones comes first). This goes to show that not only the people with lots of Grand Slam titles or records should be honored. This guys is a warrior and a role model.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I think that basically the answer is yes. If you reversed the injury fortunes for Haas and Federer then Haas would be sleeping uncomfortably on a total of roughly 12 - 22 Slam trophies. It's hard to deny this absolute truth.
 

tennisbuck

Professional
i think his volleys, slice, and backhand are comparable to Roger. Roger, however, has better variety, touch, serve, and a far more eplosive forehand.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Haas has a better backhand and a comparable serve to Federer, but Federer has a bigger forehand, better speed and footwork, and is much more mentally stable.
 

Ehh

Banned
I don't enjoy watching the Haas forehand. Totally robotic and mechanical. And actually I think Federer even has a better backhand. Haas just hits everything so flat, and his backhand is absolutely devastated by the Nadal forehand - much more so than Federer's backhand - just go watch any footage of Haas playing Nadal.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Actually, this thread was started way before by DRII and it was basically yet another hypothetical scenario in which Fed wouldn't have won so much (meaning if Haas wasn't injury prone Fed wouldn't have 17 or at the time of this thread 16 slams).

Haas is a pretty complete all-around player but tennis has time and again been dominated by players with big weapons to separate them from the rest, I think some aspects of Haas game are very comparable to Fed (BH, volleys, slice) but what good that does to him when Fed has a much better FH, movement and serve?
again allowing your insecurity regarding Federer to cloud your judgment.

that thread i satarted so long ago had nothing to do with Federer. It was all about Haas' talent and the personal and physical setbacks that most likely stopped him from winning a slam.

obviously I'm not alone in this thought...
 
Last edited:

Matt H.

Professional
Yet those are the results that got him to World #2 very late in the year mostly all based on 2002 points, LOL, really does show what I mean when I say it was the weakest year ever for mens tennis. Some of his best moments of the year were losing the AO semis to Safin where he couldnt finish off a poor playing Safin in 3 sets despite being up in the 2nd set which he lost, and then managed only 2 games the final 2 sets; Rome final where he was only 6 games in 3 sets in a total beatdown to Agassi, and Canadian Open 2002 where despite playing very well he couldnt even beat Canas in the semis from a break up in the final set when TSN commentator Peter Burwash stated Canas played his only poor match of the week. 2001 he was also peaking, and it was also truly in the transition era of mens tennis, and again not close to a major. So if peaking around then he couldnt win a major when was he going to. I like Haas, and am happy to see him still playing some of his best tennis in his mid 30s which is remarkable, and sadlly he is still having the injury problems that plagued him off and on through his career, but lets be real here too. Essentialy what he is showing now is what he always woas when healthy, a dangerous player who could take out top guys and also be reasonably consistent enough to have a shot at being in the top 10, but not someone who can go through several top guys in a row to ever win a big title.

Wrong.

He reached #2 in may of 2002.

He started his run in the summer of 2001. Reached the 4th round of the US Open, 2 regular titles, a Masters win, 2 Masters Semi's (Montreal and Paris).

Start of 2002 he makes the AO semis, quarters of Monte Carlo, and finals at Rome.

In a rolling 52 week period, he made quarters or better in 5 of 9 Masters.
 

Relinquis

Hall of Fame
To answer the thread title...

No, Haas is an all court player and was a young talent, there are so few of this combination on tour today that they all get compared to Federer (Dimitrov is an example of this).

I suppose Haas is similar to Federer in many ways, but ultimately Federer was able to put it together sooner and for longer and I think had a clear advantage in terms of his movement and his forehand; Federer's tennis is a bit more aggressive. Today, they are much more similar than they were in the past as Roger has lost a step and Tommy is in a good place mentally and emotionally. They're also playing for the same reasons, for fun and for epic matches mostly.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
again allowing your insecurity regarding Federer to cloud your judgment.

that thread i satarted so long ago had nothing to do with Federer. It was all about Haas' talent and the personal and physical setbacks that most likely stopped him from winning a slam.

obviously I'm not alone in this thought...
the thread title mentions federer, the opening post is about federer. Yet the thread has nothing to do with federer ?

LOL ......

zagor is not insecure. You are just jealous of fed, that's it .
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
again allowing your insecurity regarding Federer to cloud your judgment.
No, calling things as they really are isn't insecurity.

that thread i satarted so long ago had nothing to do with Federer.
Yes, this thread has nothing to do with Fed even though he's in your title, opening post (as Abmk has mentioned already) and you mentioned Fed about as much as you did Haas in this thread.

Especially the part of this post is telling of your true intentions with this thread:

We also don't know how an uninterrupted (Haas) progression would have affected the players who did go on to win slams...

Haas has troubled Federer.
Right, as I said, another fantasy scenario you came up with in which Fed doesn't win 17 slams and/or doesn't break Pete's slam record, reality can be harsh I know.


It was all about Haas' talent and the personal and physical setbacks that most likely stopped him from winning a slam.

obviously I'm not alone in this thought...
Winning a "slam" is a significantly different proposition to being one of the most dominating players of the Open Era:

Assuming Hass would not have had so many lapses during his career due to injury; would he have been as successful as Federer (or close to it)?

I think Hass has just as much variety as Federer. If his confidence could have gradually grown over the years, without large injury gaps, I think he could have been as good as Federer with near as much explosiveness and even a better backhand. I don't think Hass is naturally as fast as Federer, or have as big a forehand but everything is very close (potential wise)...
And yes you're pretty much alone in that thought (although some loony Nadal/Sampras fans might indulge in your fantasy as well so I may be wrong).
 

TTMR

Hall of Fame
No, calling things as they really are isn't insecurity.



Yes, this thread has nothing to do with Fed even though he's in your title, opening post (as Abmk has mentioned already) and you mentioned Fed about as much as you did Haas in this thread.

Especially the part of this post is telling of your true intentions with this thread:



Right, as I said, another fantasy scenario you came up with in which Fed doesn't win 17 slams and/or doesn't break Pete's slam record, reality can be harsh I know.




Winning a "slam" is a significantly different proposition to being one of the most dominating players of the Open Era:



And yes you're pretty much alone in that thought (although some loony Nadal/Sampras fans might indulge in your fantasy as well so I may be wrong).
If Haas is as talented as Federer, how talented does that make Gulbis?
 
Top