Who is considered the better player Gasquet or Gonzalez?

[Prabhanjan]

Vs Roddick in Wimbledon 2007 QF --- amazing backhand and passing shot show from Gasquet.
vs Stan in RG 13 4R -- excellent match, wit the 4th set being a brilliant winner fest.

then of course the 5-setter b/w Gasquet and Gonzalez himself in AO 09.

Thanks ABMK! If I get time, I will watch them.

 

[Steve0904]

Would assume people "like" Gasquet more. I know Gonzalez is retired by he is pretty much never mentioned on these boards. Richard mis my favorite player, I just think Gonzalez was more dangerous to the top players and his one major final overshadows Richard's consistency/longevity.

I don't think that's true tbh. You know the obsession here with things like huge FHs or one handed BHs (Gasquet has one but it's useless against top players) I'd say more people on this board specifically, like Gonzo and it's showing in the poll. No way it should be this lopsided even if Gonzo is a slightly better player. I actually thought about voting for Gasquet when I first saw this thread because of his longevity, but you know how it goes here. Gasquet is a MUG and people (myself included) sometimes get nostalgic for Gonzalez. Gonzo made one major final, a great achievement for sure, but it doesn't vault him head and shoulders over Gasquet. Essentially he's won one more match at one particular slam than Gasquet has in his career. It's not that huge a difference IMO.

Now if Gonzo had won a slam and Gasquet was a finalist that's a different story. Winning a slam is extra special.

 

[tennis_pro]

Gasquet is absolutely horrible against top player. Gonzalez for me.

 

[SQA333]

How poetic that their only meeting is one where Gasquet squandered a 2-set lead + multiple match points yet again

 

[heninfan99]

The stats are similar but I think Gasquet is more well rounded and has more talent.

 

[captainbryce]

There are too many parts of Gasquets game that sucks for him to be realistically considered better. His backhand is literally his only spectacular shot. He has good volleys too, but that’s about it. His serve sucks, his return is mediocre, his forehand sucks, his movement sucks. Honestly, I never saw the hype about Gasquet as a player. He’s just not that good.

 

[tacou]

I don't think that's true tbh. You know the obsession here with things like huge FHs or one handed BHs (Gasquet has one but it's useless against top players) I'd say more people on this board specifically, like Gonzo and it's showing in the poll. No way it should be this lopsided even if Gonzo is a slightly better player. I actually thought about voting for Gasquet when I first saw this thread because of his longevity, but you know how it goes here. Gasquet is a MUG and people (myself included) sometimes get nostalgic for Gonzalez. Gonzo made one major final, a great achievement for sure, but it doesn't vault him head and shoulders over Gasquet. Essentially he's won one more match at one particular slam than Gasquet has in his career. It's not that huge a difference IMO.

Now if Gonzo had won a slam and Gasquet was a finalist that's a different story. Winning a slam is extra special.

can't disagree with any of that, but it's still kind of circular logic. Lots of people call Gasquet a "what could have been," but just as many continue to rave about his raw talent and shot making ability. His BH and Gonzo's FH lead to the same sort of fawning in my eyes.

The numbers indicate Richard had a slightly better career in most areas, but not enough to overshadow the fact that he never made a major final. Gonzo also made 2 additional major QFs and has an Olympic medal in singles, reinforcing the idea that he was more of a threat on the bigger stages than Richard.

anyways, as I said earlier in this thread Richard is my favorite player but I still had to give the slight edge to Fernando.

 

[Steve0904]

can't disagree with any of that, but it's still kind of circular logic. Lots of people call Gasquet a "what could have been," but just as many continue to rave about his raw talent and shop making ability. His BH and Gonzo's FH lead to the same sort of fawning in my eyes.

The numbers indicate Richard had a slightly better career in most areas, but not enough to overshadow the fact that he never made a major final. Gonzo also made 2 additional major QFs and as an Olympic medal in singles, reinforcing the idea that he was more of a threat on the bigger stages and Richard.

anyways, as I said earlier in this thread Richard is my favorite player but I still had to give the slight edge to Fernando.

Gonzo is slightly better statistically, but I think we can put them around the same talent level. That's my argument here, not necessarily that Gasquet is a better player, but that they're on more or less the same level.

And Gonzo does have an Olympic medal in singles, but tbh I think a lot of the Olympic stuff is down to good timing more than anything else. Gonzalez still went down pretty tamely against Nadal, but yes he had a better career than Gasquet has right now, and he had the bigger weapon which is why he took down a big name every now and then.

 

[SinjinCooper]

There are too many parts of Gasquets game that sucks for him to be realistically considered better. His backhand is literally his only spectacular shot. He has good volleys too, but that’s about it. His serve sucks, his return is mediocre, his forehand sucks, his movement sucks. Honestly, I never saw the hype about Gasquet as a player. He’s just not that good.

Yeah. Pretty much makes him just like Gonzalez, all things considered.

Both players are good. Neither is great. Both are the kinds of guys you need so that you have entertaining fodder for the real players in the second week of slams.

 

[buscemi]

Gonzo is slightly better statistically, but I think we can put them around the same talent level.

How is Gonzo better statistically?

-Gasquet has more years in the top 10 (4 vs. 2);
-Gaquet has more years in the top 20 (8 vs. 6);
-Gasquet has more wins against top 10 players (30 vs. 27);
-Gasquet has more wins (486 vs. 370);
-Gasquet has more wins at Majors (99 vs. 74);
-Gasquet has more wins at Masters Series events (124 vs. 86)
-Gasquet has more titles (14 vs. 11);
-Gasquet has 2+ titles on clay, hard, and grass vs. no grass titles/finals for Gonzo
-Gasquet has more finals (28 vs. 22)​

Gonzo does have the won Major final and the Olympics singles medals, but otherwise it seems clear that Gasquet has the statistical lead.

 

[Steve0904]

How is Gonzo better statistically?

-Gasquet has more years in the top 10 (4 vs. 2);
-Gaquet has more years in the top 20 (8 vs. 6);
-Gasquet has more wins against top 10 players (30 vs. 27);
-Gasquet has more wins (486 vs. 370);
-Gasquet has more wins at Majors (99 vs. 74);
-Gasquet has more wins at Masters Series events (124 vs. 86)
-Gasquet has more titles (14 vs. 11);
-Gasquet has 2+ titles on clay, hard, and grass vs. no grass titles/finals for Gonzo
-Gasquet has more finals (28 vs. 22)​

Gonzo does have the won Major final and the Olympics singles medals, but otherwise it seems clear that Gasquet has the statistical lead.

Higher peak would've been more accurate I guess. Didn't really think that first sentence through. Gonzo had more ability to beat the big guns. In any case we don't really disagree if you read all my posts in this threads. I'm actually one of the few here arguing that they're basically on the same level. Gasquet has a lot of things over Gonzo because of better longevity, but any which way you use the stats it won't mean that one guy is far better than the other. That's not meant to be offensive btw.

 

[captainbryce]

Yeah. Pretty much makes him just like Gonzalez, all things considered.

Both players are good. Neither is great. Both are the kinds of guys you need so that you have entertaining fodder for the real players in the second week of slams.

I think Gonzalez is a better mover than Gasquet. And his weak side (backhand) is much stronger than Gasquet’ weak forehand. Also Gonzalez has a much better serve. So in putting results aside, Gonzalez is the better player IMO.