O
oneleggedcardinal
Guest
Gross. GTFO.
Will Gasquet ever win a slam?
- Thread starter ESP#1
- Start date
Gross. GTFO.
Motherwasp
Semi-Pro
***********************************Thread Title Change*****************************************
...Will Gasquet ever win a Masters Shield?
(p.s it's a joke, i like Gasquet and i realise he did get to a couple of master series finals)
...Will Gasquet ever win a Masters Shield?
(p.s it's a joke, i like Gasquet and i realise he did get to a couple of master series finals)
oranges
Hall of Fame
A wild guess here, if we were to have a poll whether Safin would ever win another slam in say 2003, you'd be making statements like this. You'd backtrack quickly come 2004 and forgot you ever said anything by 2005 and hoped no one bumped those those threads from a couple of years ago. While people obviously differ in their opinions whether he would step it up enough in the years to come for something like that, it's not particularly smart or entertaining for that matter to make "as sure as as the fact the Sun will rise in the morning" predictions based on your perception of the current moment.
ps LOL at Gasquet fanatics, obsessive players tend to attract obsessive fans much more, apparently not only in their support for their idol, but also in offering indisputable eternal wisdom all around
Breaker
Legend
Don't worry, that guy was saying the same crap about Monfils a few weeks ago and now that he has a win over Nadal he says that Gasquet is being left in the dust. Hilarious.
I think Gasquet can win a slam as all that talent eventually leads to good things, still has some time to make his move.
(FEDERER)vs(NADAL)
Semi-Pro
just doesn't have the consistancy
thalivest
Banned
Blah blah, more of the useless crap you have contributed to these forums since you joined.
Safin was already a champion by 2003. He had won a grand slam and reached two other slam finals. He had won multiple Masters titles. He had beaten all the best in the game multiple times over on their best surfaces. There is no comparision between him and Gasquet. No contrary to your blind accusations I would not have said Safin was finished for sure winning slams as early as 2003. He had a year of injuries and it was impossible to judge him based on that. He was young enough, had already shown enough talent, to ever discount. None of this has ever been true of Gasquet. The end.
oranges
Hall of Fame
Hahaha, the only thing you contribute are useless posts like that one. It's irrelevant whether he was already a champion or not, would you or would you not have denied any possibility of him winning a GS after he dropped down to 70 or so in the rankings and would you not have used the 2002 final as undeniable proof that he doesn't have what it takes and the first one was a fluke that would not be repeated? You can of course lie, but we both know the answer to that. How did Simon stand in your eyes six months ago and how are his chances now? Any more examples needed to prove a point?
You're not the only pundit around who has all the answers and Gasquet is hardly the only one the omniscience is applied to. What can I say, the pundits irritate me whether it's one of the players I like or not. You might not be able to see the difference, but there is a huge one between merely stating one's opinion and shoving that opinion down everyone's throat as a wisdom of the one that knows best. As an illustrative example, I don't think Nadal will ever win a HC slam, there are simply too many guys who are way better on hard and one of those he encounters is bound to play well enough to kick him out vs You guys who think he has any chance of winning one should join some comedy club, what a joke. Needless to say, those not desperate to appear as the source of all wisdom on Earth, will not resort to the second and might even add something like, but you never know, perhaps he'll develop more of a HC game, with some real weapons on hard to replace the topspins that often fall short and don't have the bite they have on clay or even grass, but that's just me, sorry I commented on your self-gratifying monologue.
Last edited:
World Beater
Hall of Fame
somebody gets it.
also many of the bh winners he hit past roddick were passing shots where he was behind the baseline. He is not a player that can take the bh early...that doesn't mean he cannot hit winner but to be successful on fast surfaces, you have to be able to take the ball early consistently...these days.
see the way federer takes the ball early on the fh.
I'm proud to be a supporter of this talented guy for quite sometime now so Yes - for me, he can at least win one Wimbledon or even USO in his career. he's still young at 22, and I don't understand when most people write him off so easily. while it is a common knowledge at the moment he has no mental fortitude of a Federer or a Nadal, still, he is young! and he's beginning to regain confidence and i see he's physically stronger now, and with it comes mental strength (I believe) - just look at how he stepped up against Tsonga last week, and overcoming one of his old nemesis in Tursunov.....I'm still optimistic for better results in 2009, and Yes - he can GS one day....
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
haha, your choice of words impresses me every time.
his shotmaking ability seems to be multi-slam worthy but his will to win and fitness level are questionable.
he is so typical french player. they don't want to just win. they still want to win but it has to be exactly the way they have in theor mind, if you know what i mean...
he is so typical french player. they don't want to just win. they still want to win but it has to be exactly the way they have in theor mind, if you know what i mean...
Last edited:
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
as fond as i am of gasquet's style of play, i don't really see it happening.
unless of course he:
flatten's out his forehand more often.
works on his fitness.
finds mental fortitude.
builds consistent, non-streaky type play.
that's arguably all he needs to do.
unless of course he:
flatten's out his forehand more often.
works on his fitness.
finds mental fortitude.
builds consistent, non-streaky type play.
that's arguably all he needs to do.
crazylevity
Hall of Fame
^^^ Just 3 and 4 is already a heck of a lot to do. And very difficult to do.
pay that dude no mind, he is the same guy who said that donald young was going to be number 1 in the world this year,
enough said
Low blow, my friend. Brilliant, but very low.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
I remember that few years ago the main trend in these boards consisted in talking about Gasquet as the imminent new Federer.
6rump
Rookie
Gasquet always do well on grass court season expecially Wimbledon hopefully he can win this title because you don't have to have power to win the Wimbledon but you have to play "smart" here, like gasquet did in last two years..... Another thing people always talk about his forehand as a weaker shots, thats not a really big problem! now he serve well, always has a good tactic on court, and i think his forehand is better that federer backhand....hahaha
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
I think so. Even just one sometime in his career is probable.
O
oneleggedcardinal
Guest
Is this good or bad? :twisted:
As to the general topic:
Gasquet is one of my favorite players, and, as I posted before, I hope he can win a slam...that's very different from me saying that he can. I agree with oranges in that Gasquet has the weapons to achieve something more...and I don't see why some posters can categorically say that some one as young and talented as he is will never win a slam or that he has no chance. That's ridiculous. 'Unlikely' is an okay word to use IMO. But, as I'm not in the business of predicting the future (at least not on weekdays), this is as much as I can say on this subject.
aceroberts13
Professional
He definitley has the talent to win 2-3 slams, but talent means squat when you dont have the mental sturdiness or commitment and work ethic to get better. I hope he pulls one out one day. But his days are numbered (young or not) and the younger talent never stops coming.
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
The 'funny' thing about this comparison is that both Gasquet and Federer were heralded as insanely talented players, but as true head-cases as well, in their youths.
Fed was said to be a "complete GS-failure" before he finally managed to capture his first in 2003, at the age of 22 - which identified him as a relative late bloomer.
The same thing could still happen to Gasquet, if he, just like Fed managed to do, finally finds controll on his choking habits. I still think it's too early to write the guy off like many seem to do.
ESP#1
Professional
Man I had to do it, dude was bragging about having some great insight, I know you wouldve done the same
tennis-hero
Banned
Yes
he will win the grand slam without dropping a set at any of the 4 majors :roll:
he will win the grand slam without dropping a set at any of the 4 majors :roll:
thalivest
Banned
Federer's first slam was at the age of 21. His first Masters title, something Gasquet is yet to achieve, was at the age of 20. At the age of 21 he was already ranked #3 in the World. The year Federer turned 22 in the summer he ended #2 in the World as opposed to Gasquet ending that same year at #24 in the world. No comparision.
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
I stand corrected. Fed's first GS was indeed at the age of 21, but just scarce of his 22nd birthday two months later, btw.
Still, I think that it's too soon to completely write off Gasquet. He still has time on his side - IF - he manages to get his head together, that is, indeed.
thalivest
Banned
Perhaps but he is running short on time. You even concede Federer as a late bloomer but as I have shown Gasquet is already well behind his pace. Granted even the biggest Gasquet believers would never think he could be on pace for being a double digit slam winner like Federer. However still when Federer arrived as this late bloomer, not only was he starting to win younger than Gasquet already is but there were not young guys his age or younger of exceptional talent already there. That is very different now with Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro. If he doesnt make the move in the next year or two it is never going to happen. You are not going to breakthrough in your mid 20s if you havent already when you have the young talent that is starting to crowd the upper ranks of mens tennis now. Mental issues aside Gasquet's game, while some may like it alot, is not improving at the rate of his peers of late.
thalivest
Banned
Agassi had made 3 slam finals already before he even turned 22. He had won multiple Masters titles, the year end World Championships, and been ranked as high as #3 in the World. He had been in 6 slam semis already. Again I dont see any comparision.
Being passed by Tsonga, Simon, and Monfils is a much bigger worry than being bypassed by the likes of Sampras, Courier, and Chang. Sampras was pretty much always above Agassi his whole career, 2001 when Sampras really fell apart was the first time Agassi was ever truly better than Sampras as it was only Sampras's injury at the Open that put Agassi ahead in 1999. Courier was just an amazing player in the early 90s, he was arguably playing at atleast an equal higher level than Agassi ever would during those few years of his peak. I dont really believe Chang was above Agassi in the early 90s, he had a grand slam yeah but his overall results in slams especialy were below Agassi's. The only time Chang truly passed Agassi for awhile was during Agassi's most massive slump from 96-98. He was never really considered above him any other time, even while being a 1-time slam winner and Agassi a 0-time.
Gasquet also isnt part tanking like Agassi was in many early years. Also while Gasquet may be very talented in his own way he does play something that would be depicted the modern game anywhere near what Agassi does.
Being passed by Tsonga, Simon, and Monfils is a much bigger worry than being bypassed by the likes of Sampras, Courier, and Chang. Sampras was pretty much always above Agassi his whole career, 2001 when Sampras really fell apart was the first time Agassi was ever truly better than Sampras as it was only Sampras's injury at the Open that put Agassi ahead in 1999. Courier was just an amazing player in the early 90s, he was arguably playing at atleast an equal higher level than Agassi ever would during those few years of his peak. I dont really believe Chang was above Agassi in the early 90s, he had a grand slam yeah but his overall results in slams especialy were below Agassi's. The only time Chang truly passed Agassi for awhile was during Agassi's most massive slump from 96-98. He was never really considered above him any other time, even while being a 1-time slam winner and Agassi a 0-time.
Gasquet also isnt part tanking like Agassi was in many early years. Also while Gasquet may be very talented in his own way he does play something that would be depicted the modern game anywhere near what Agassi does.
Last edited:
ESP#1
Professional
just saying its to early to write em off, not saying hes the next agassi or federer, although he could be great if he used his head during matches dude has no strategy
thalivest
Banned
I dont write him off from winning a slam just because of his age. He has just too many issues and obstacles to overcome at this point:
1. He is a bit "soft" for todays standards in every respect, not enough firepower overall in his game, not enough physical strength and physical fitness, obviously mental fragility.
2. Rafael Nadal who also owns him head to head btw
3. His forehand is not a weapon and is pretty mediocre for todays standards. That is the most important shot in mens tennis today.
4. Novak Djokovic
5. He has not really improved from the level of tennis he showed in the spring of 2005. His tennis at Monte Carlo in 2005 was still the best tennis I ever saw him play including 2007 Wimbledon. When you havent improved for almost 4 years it is not a good sign.
6. Andy Murray
7. His serve isnt really enough of a weapon for todays game either, and the serve is the second most important shot today after the forehand. His serve is better than Nadal's, but unless you have the insane foot speed, defensive skills, will to win, and other attributes of Nadal (which nobody today has to the same degree) he does not apply. His serve doesnt even compare to remaining guys at the very top like Federer, Murray, or Djokovic.
8. The even younger guys like Del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic, maybe even Nishikori.
9. His best surfaces seem to be grass and indoor type courts and there are only 1 slam event played there these days, and it also happens to be the slam that Federer and Nadal are most jointly dominating of all 4. Not a great situation for someone looking to win a slam.
10. Like I said he doesnt really play the modern style game. He plays an interesting game but it isnt the type of game that is most effective today.
1. He is a bit "soft" for todays standards in every respect, not enough firepower overall in his game, not enough physical strength and physical fitness, obviously mental fragility.
2. Rafael Nadal who also owns him head to head btw
3. His forehand is not a weapon and is pretty mediocre for todays standards. That is the most important shot in mens tennis today.
4. Novak Djokovic
5. He has not really improved from the level of tennis he showed in the spring of 2005. His tennis at Monte Carlo in 2005 was still the best tennis I ever saw him play including 2007 Wimbledon. When you havent improved for almost 4 years it is not a good sign.
6. Andy Murray
7. His serve isnt really enough of a weapon for todays game either, and the serve is the second most important shot today after the forehand. His serve is better than Nadal's, but unless you have the insane foot speed, defensive skills, will to win, and other attributes of Nadal (which nobody today has to the same degree) he does not apply. His serve doesnt even compare to remaining guys at the very top like Federer, Murray, or Djokovic.
8. The even younger guys like Del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic, maybe even Nishikori.
9. His best surfaces seem to be grass and indoor type courts and there are only 1 slam event played there these days, and it also happens to be the slam that Federer and Nadal are most jointly dominating of all 4. Not a great situation for someone looking to win a slam.
10. Like I said he doesnt really play the modern style game. He plays an interesting game but it isnt the type of game that is most effective today.
ESP#1
Professional
See i disagree with this, i think he does have weapons, hes a better vollyer than any of these guys with "the modern game" alot more touch than any of them besides maybe murray( which he has a winning record against, and who himself a great returner said gasquets serve is deceptively big) i think he has better footwork than alot of the names mentioned above,i think he strikes the ball as well as anyone the forehand i do agree is an issue and it could be his other downfall besides his head, to me when i watch his matches i noticed a lack of strategy, dumb errors on key points, unnecessary shots trying to be flashy to please the crowd, immaturaty in his game, not willing to make adjustments,
btw i cant believe you mentioned Nishikori, even Gulbis as big as his game is is not a a contender at least yet, way too erratic
TennisLover17
Semi-Pro
No. I know that everyone thought he'd get like 2 before he hangs his racket, but with these young guns and fed still in the game, i dont think RG will get one.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
No. As others have mentioned, not even in the top 3 in his own country - which hasn't won a major in a while. And his head, serve, and forehand woes don't appear to be improving.
And those who thought he could pull a Thomas Johannson - not likely. The draw that year was very weak - the men's depth now precludes that from happening. He'd have to rely on too many people taking out too many guys he can't beat in 3 out of 5 matches. Nice career - I'd kill a roomful of kindergartners with their Lab puppies to have it - and decent guy - but not a major winner. Sorry.
And those who thought he could pull a Thomas Johannson - not likely. The draw that year was very weak - the men's depth now precludes that from happening. He'd have to rely on too many people taking out too many guys he can't beat in 3 out of 5 matches. Nice career - I'd kill a roomful of kindergartners with their Lab puppies to have it - and decent guy - but not a major winner. Sorry.
anointedone
Banned
Good summary.
ESP#1
Professional
well this is gasquet against the top guy in his country, i myself am uncertain of his chances but you cant deny the talent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-T4KfgNjwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-T4KfgNjwU
Nadal-GOAT
Banned
The only slam Gasquet will ever win is a butt slam from another man.
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
I think he may win the AO or Wimby. Maybe not this year, but he'll hopefully climb back into the top 10 and make a splash soon.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
come on now
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
I choose the "maybe" option, the crystal ball is in the shop.
Things has to fall in place for him in terms of the draw and his game catching fire. Even then it would still be touch and go for the Frenchman.
Things has to fall in place for him in terms of the draw and his game catching fire. Even then it would still be touch and go for the Frenchman.
ESP#1
Professional
Well put I agree, if he wants to have any chance he needs to correct his forehand and court positioning, as has been mentioned he still makes alot of the same mistakes he made when he first got on tour, nadal, djoko and murray have raised their games immensely
Tempest344
Professional
He needs to chip more on the backhand rather than jumping and stepping back to hit a topspin backhand on heavy balls or serves
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
agreed 1000 char.
O
oneleggedcardinal
Guest
That's almost as funny as your user name.
TennisNinja
Hall of Fame
Doubt it. He needs to work on his mental game.
Similar threads
