Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Tennis_Maestro, Mar 28, 2010.
A resounding no from me.
Yep, of course.
yes he would still be ranked maybe like 1000-2000! Better question would he be in the top 100...Hell no!
Yeah, like #950. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=319897
How would he be ranked with an average serve? This guy can't maintain a rally from the back of the court which consist of balls landing past the service line.
If its even semi deep, he shanks it, especially on the backhand, admittedly his volley's are good, but aside from that, he has a game hardly good enough for an ITF tournament.
A resounding no, I could out-rally this muppet
How good would Roddick/Sampras/Karlovic be without their serves? How good would Agassi be without his return game? How good would Gonzalez be without his forehand? How good would Gasquet be without his backhand?
All irrelevant, b/c they do have those things. There is no such thing as an alternate reality. You might as well say, "How good would X Player be if he wasn't good at tennis?"
Sorry. I don't even need to read the rest of the post. I also knew some "smartarse" would try and apply this logic.
This isn't the same thing and you know it. Karlovic relies SOLEY on his serve, Sampras and Roddick's simply compliment their games.
Even Isner has good attacking groundstrokes, but Karlovic, this guy is the most talentless off serve tennis player I've seen.
Without his height he wouldn't possess the ability to bomb down serves from such uncomfortable angles. He has the forehand of a top college player and the backhand of a top club player. lol
The more mysterious fact is, how come this guy, that is dubbed to be unbreakable doesn't have the fastest serve around?...
Not even on average speed.
Still a mystery to me to this day.
And judging by his numbers of aces, more respect to him.
Donald Young is top 200 in the world, surely Karlovic has better game even outside of the serve than Donald Young.
And if he were shorter he wouldn't have to rely on his serve so much.
Probably not, but if you strip a few players of their biggest weapon, they also would fail. Maybe not as harshly as he would though.
Probably a bottom challenger player, ranked 300 or something like that.
Find me one player between 300-1000 he'd beat then...
If he's beaten top 10 players I'm pretty sure he could deal with the likes of Donald Young or other players ranked around that level, even without the best serve in the world (history?).
Did he beat these top 10 player's without that ridiculous serve, bombing down from out-of-this-World trajectories?
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say all the sets he won against those players were in tie breaks by the odd point?
308 Goodall, Joshua (GBR)
354 Smethurst, Daniel (GBR)
406 Eaton, Chris (GBR)
408 Phillips, Morgan (GBR)
451 Cox, Daniel (GBR)
485 Rice, David (GBR)
531 Bloomfield, Richard (GBR)
557 Milton, Joshua (GBR)
570 Willis, Marcus (GBR)
606 Fleming, Colin (GBR)
633 Inglot, Dominic (GBR)
650 Ward, Alexander (GBR)
685 Pauffley, Neil (GBR)
702 Feaver, James (GBR)
718 Slabinsky, Alexander (GBR)
752 Illingworth, Matthew (GBR)
778 Thornley, Sean (GBR)
907 Brassington, Kyle (GBR)
951 Arlidge, Burnham (GBR)
I haven't laughed like this in a long time. Thanks.
Most of them, but then again they're top 10 players and have the best groundstrokes in the world.
He's beaten several top 50 players this year without the need of tiebreaks, and in the last year or so rarely loses to players below that ranking.
This is brilliant
The cream of the English crop? Not a chance.
Edit: Delete post
Anyway, I'm find it a little ironic that someone who suffers fools as badly as the OP would make a thread this pointless.
Anyone's backhand will look bad against top 100 guys if it's not at least nearly flawless. I bet that if he played some of those guys he could rip crosscourt backhand winners all day.
Before I forget: *obligatory "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"*
Pointless, it is, in your opinion, in mine its very useful in the way it helps highlight just how talentless Karlovic is. If racket technology keeps developing at the rate it has been, sooner or later we'll end up with a heap of skill-less 6,6 + guys making up the top 50.
Actually, most scientists accept the "many worlds interpretation" in modern science. It suggests that every decision/event creates a a parallel universe. This means there are infinitely many universes in which every possible reality exists.
SO, there IS a universe where Karlovic doesn't have his serve! The question is: what is he ranked in that universe!?
Hmmm, interesting. I stand corrected
he'd own you with his left hand and 1 eye blindfolded
So I guess all the coaches that say the serve is the most important shot in tennis are 100% correct. It's a part of the game, apparently big enough to get a win off Federer (although he wasn't on top of his game).
Before I forget: *obligatory "if my grandma had balls, she'd be my uncle"*
Why wouldn't she be your grandfather? Unless there is something really interesting going on in your family? Just wondering.
even without a killer serve he's still a good serve & volleyer, without the serve he would be ranked professionally but definitely not in the top 100
lol, total failure on my part. Thanks for pointing it out- it has been corrected!
Because there's no point in having the fastest serve if you're taking advantage of extreme height to bend a ball away from your opponent. You can create greater angles with a quick but not extreme ball from massive height with a lot of spin.
He puts spinning, bending balls on the line or thereabouts over and over.
Sheer speed means having to hit straighter, which means closer to the opponent.
Agree. No way he cracks even the top 200 if you gave him a Nadal serve.
He has a pretty good forehand and pretty good volleys. Still his backhand, return of serve, and movement are such thrash for pro standards. I cant imagine him surviving on the pro tour with say even Nadal or Agassi's serve as the guys are good and would expose these glaring holes in his game.
Donald Young would even overall outplay Karlovic from the baseline quite easily for the most part without his serve. Karlovic would crack a few forehands, but even Young would be able to jerk him around and work out that pitiful backhand. Karlovic would also be overall to weak from the baseline overall to even find his way to net much, and even if he did he isnt that strong up there to win by consistently withstanding todays baseline/passing game unless his approaches were very strong which they wouldnt be. Karlovic struggles to return anyones serve, even Young's first serve is decent enough he would hold pretty easily most of the time vs Karlovic.
I'd simply love to see your source for this.
Maybe once when he's 40-0, you'd think he could try something like that.
He serves as fast as Ljubicic, who doesn't have as much control on his first serve as Karlovic.
And I've noticed one thing, both of these guys hit their serves(at least the service winners) on the line most of the times, compared to others that don't serve consistently long.
Look at someone like Dent, who can have some horrible service percentages but also can bring a 145mph serve at any giving moment. He takes more risks I guess, but that also could be because his shot is not as good as Ivo's.There might be a strategy behind the serve of course, that is overlooked.
Also probably very true.
Yes his serve is the basis of his game but you have to admit his all around game has improved a lot in the past 6 months. He has started using more topspin instead of just slicing everything back and has become much better in a rally.
His serve was born out of a lack of practice partners when he was growing up, so he would spend hours and hours just hitting serves when he didnt have anyone else to hit with. If he, for arguments sake, had tons of practice partners always begging him to hit I think he probably would have developed a more overall game and less of a devastating serve and maybe he would have become more John Isner-ish.
His energies would have been focused to other parts of his game and I for one think he would have been just as good. Succeeding as a pro is all mental and all about perseverance and he has those qualities in abundance.
This is like asking if Nadal would even be ranked without his forehand.
Separate names with a comma.