Toronto QF: R. Nadal beats R. Gasquet 6-7(12), 6-2, 6-1 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Toronto QF: R. Nadal beats R. Gasquet 6-7(12), 6-2, 6-1

federernadalfan
07-26-2008, 03:46 AM
Never in doubt that he would win. Gasquet put up a good fight in the first set and the beginning of the second set. He had a 15-40 BP opportunity and after he squandered that, the match was then dictated by Nadal. Third set got broken early by Nadal, then nadal closed it out with a stick. Good job Gasquet for putting up a fight. Congrats Nadal on reaching the SF. :worship: The title is for yours to take. :worship:

LinkMage
07-26-2008, 03:47 AM
Gasquet had 3 BPs to go up a break in the 2nd set, blew them and then bent over to get broken at love. He then got destroyed.

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 03:47 AM
good to see that nadal found a way around his coulrophobia.

gasquet can be dangerous for people with that condition.

extremely dangerous.

Nidhogg
07-26-2008, 03:47 AM
The first set was as outstanding as the rest was comically predictable.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 03:47 AM
What a heart! What a fighter this Gasquet! :worship:

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 03:49 AM
Gasquet had 3 BPs to go up a break in the 2nd set, blew them and then bent over to get broken at love. He then got destroyed

He couldn´t care less about that, he had already won his match by winning a set :shrug:

eck
07-26-2008, 03:49 AM
:help:

shotgun
07-26-2008, 03:49 AM
First set was the highlight of this tournament so far, the rest of the match was crap.

Sunset of Age
07-26-2008, 03:49 AM
Very enjoyable match, well done Rafa! :hatoff: :hearts:

Gasquet... okay, you are a nice fellow, but eh... not good enough, yet. The awfull truth, I daresay.

Come on Raf, take that title right now! :D

Davodus
07-26-2008, 03:49 AM
richard :(
played so well in the first set

nadal :mad::fiery:

vincayou
07-26-2008, 03:50 AM
That was Gasquet in a nutshell. Brillant and terrible.

selyoink
07-26-2008, 03:50 AM
Gasquet was glad to take a set and then lay down for his master. Expect more of the same from Murray tomorrow.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 03:50 AM
After a tremendous first set, that was a pathetic performance by Gasquet. Really disgusting. He kept going for one insane low percentage shot after another and missed them time and time again. Can someone tell Richie that you don't have to take the cover off of the ball to win the point? One of the most brainless displays I've seen from him. Why not take 5-10mph off your strokes and get them in the court?

I was hopeful after the first set, but he got what he deserved in the end. The match was always in his hands, given his ability and power. He threw it away with a brainless display of tennis. Horrific.

eck
07-26-2008, 03:50 AM
Yeah, first set was all guns blazing. Second set was garbage.

Goget
07-26-2008, 03:50 AM
The longest tie-break in Nadal's career, and IMO the best tie-break of the year.

10nisfan
07-26-2008, 03:50 AM
You Guys are fffaasssttt with this Result Thread..... there's 2 of them as well as the Poll Thread between Murray and Rafa... :haha:

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 03:51 AM
The match was always in his hands, given his ability and power.

Still deluded 5 years later, well done

Clydey
07-26-2008, 03:51 AM
Gasquet was glad to take a set and then lay down for his master. Expect more of the same from Murray tomorrow.

Doubt it. Murray is no Gasquet in the mental department.

~*BGT*~
07-26-2008, 03:51 AM
:sobbing: Well, at least the 1st set showed us what he is capable of. I'm sure if he were fitter, he would have been able to finish this match stronger if not win it. Just goes to show you how physically demanding and tough it is to take a set off Rafa, let alone beat him. Be confident Richie, get some more points at Cincy, train hard and do better at the USO.

So much for Murray revenge, but I'll take Murray repeat. :p

Henry Chinaski
07-26-2008, 03:52 AM
After a tremendous first set, that was a pathetic performance by Gasquet. Really disgusting. He kept going for one insane low percentage shot after another and missed them time and time again. Can someone tell Richie that you don't have to take the cover off of the ball to win the point? One of the most brainless displays I've seen from him. Why not take 5-10mph off your strokes and get them in the court?


Because he's not fit enough to rally with Nadal.

Gasquet isn't fit enough for 3 sets of darts against Nadal nevermind tennis.

RafaTheBest
07-26-2008, 03:52 AM
I only got to see the final set but Nadal was superb in it. This really is his tournament to lose now. Snaggletooth is probably still having nightmares about what Nadal did to him at Wimbledon so tomorrow should be interesting.

Vaaamoooos Rafa!

SPARTA! THIS...IS...TENNIS!

habibko
07-26-2008, 03:52 AM
what a first set, and what a tiebreak :worship: but seriously people can gasquet do more than that? that was so draining I was tired just from watching that, it took everything from gasquet just to clinch that set, afterwards Gas has no more gas and nadal wins it easily, no need to bash gasquet.

freeandlonely
07-26-2008, 03:53 AM
He couldn´t care less about that, he had already won his match by winning a set :shrug:

Indeed. sad.

Lurker011
07-26-2008, 03:53 AM
very heroic performance by Gasquet,he just ran out of gas at the end. murray will roast rafa tomorrow. i think rafa has to feel a little tired.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 03:53 AM
Still deluded 5 years later, well done

So you're saying Gasquet doesn't have it in him to hit Rafa off the court on hard? Nadal maintained his level. Simple as that. Gasquet's best HC game is better than Nadal's best HC game. I don't see how you can eve argue with that, since Nadal's game just isn't suited to hard.

I was hoping Nadal had improved on hard and would maybe win the US, but I can't see it. He's the same as last year.

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 03:53 AM
Because he's not fit enough to rally with Nadal.

Gasquet isn't fit enough for 3 sets of darts against Nadal nevermind tennis.

gasquet isnt fit mentally to play 3 matches of chess

RogiRafaFan86
07-26-2008, 03:54 AM
This match illustrated the main difference between Nadal and Gasquet, and explains why their careers have taken such different courses since they played each other as kids.

If matches were only one set, Reeshard would kick ass and take names. Unfortunately for him, you have to be consistent. And Nadal is nothing if not consistent.

Of course, Gasquet's frequent lack of balls is also a pretty big difference. But whatever.

Congrats Rafa! The last 2 sets weren't so difficult. I don't think fatigue will be too much of a factor tomorrow against Murray, win or lose.

fast_clay
07-26-2008, 03:54 AM
Because he's not fit enough to rally with Nadal.

Gasquet isn't fit enough for 3 sets of darts against Nadal nevermind tennis.

The Power would have Nadal's measure tho no doubt... he'd need five sets tho...

Clydey
07-26-2008, 03:54 AM
Because he's not fit enough to rally with Nadal.

Gasquet isn't fit enough for 3 sets of darts against Nadal nevermind tennis.

He only started to tire against Murray in the 5th at Wimbledon. How can he struggle to go 3 sets?

Action Jackson
07-26-2008, 03:55 AM
Never in doubt.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 03:55 AM
So you're saying Gasquet doesn't have it in him to hit Rafa off the court on hard? Nadal maintained his level. Simple as that. Gasquet's best HC game is better than Nadal's best HC game. I don't see how you can eve argue with that, since Nadal's game just isn't suited to hard.

I was hoping Nadal had improved on hard and would maybe win the US, but I can't see it. He's the same as last year.


Okay :haha:

fast_clay
07-26-2008, 03:55 AM
gasquet isnt fit mentally to play 3 matches of chess

anyone for a game of Snap...?

10nisfan
07-26-2008, 03:55 AM
Congrats RAFA... :woohoo::yippee::bigclap:

Hope you'll Get by Murray tomorrow and win the Title on Sunday over Simon/Kiefer....

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 03:56 AM
Gasquet isn't fit enough for 3 sets of darts against Nadal nevermind tennis.

:haha:

dejosav
07-26-2008, 03:56 AM
Tnx for the first set Gasquet that was fun, don't bother to do it twice. After two bp's in second you could've go home no one would notice. "Are you OK?" - priceless

Mashachosen1
07-26-2008, 03:57 AM
Rafa :worship:

Richard already struggled on that tie break. And what the heck with all those backhand every SP. :o Already exhausted on 2nd set. :hug: Richard

rolandgarros
07-26-2008, 03:57 AM
How many set points did Nadal waste and save in 1st TB?

LinkMage
07-26-2008, 03:57 AM
Gasquet is a great example of the mental midgets running rampant in this weak era.

oranges
07-26-2008, 03:57 AM
Wow, what amount of belittling comments. Tennis aficionados at their best :yeah:

gulzhan
07-26-2008, 03:57 AM
Never in doubt.

you said Rafa in 2 easily :ras:

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 03:57 AM
seriously, in the 3rd set, gasquet forgot his service game is not finished when it was 40-30? or what the fuck happened ?

braindead

selyoink
07-26-2008, 03:58 AM
what a first set, and what a tiebreak :worship: but seriously people can gasquet do more than that? that was so draining I was tired just from watching that, it took everything from gasquet just to clinch that set, afterwards Gas has no more gas and nadal wins it easily, no need to bash gasquet.

All the reason in the world to bash Gasquet. If he can only play one set at a high level no matter how long that set is, then he is a fucking joke. He is supposed to be a professional athlete.

gulzhan
07-26-2008, 03:58 AM
Gasquet is not the only one who loses to Nadal, so what's all this fuss is about?

Clydey
07-26-2008, 03:58 AM
Okay :haha:

What planet are you living on? Nadal is a good to very good hard court player. He is not a world beater on the surface. He has been exposed on numerous occasions. I'd love for him to a great hard court player, but he just isn't. You saw how Nalbandian and Tsonga exposed him.

tennizen
07-26-2008, 03:59 AM
I enjoyed that match throughly particularly the first set. Gasquet folded terribly after that but still hit some amazing shots. His backhand shots are to die for but sadly that doesn't do it

HarryMan
07-26-2008, 03:59 AM
What a phenomenal fighter Nadal is, I mean most would just wither away after losing a set 14-12 in the tie break (I am sure Gasquet would have if the roles were reversed). Thats what seperates Nadal from the rest of the field at the moment.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 03:59 AM
What planet are you living on? Nadal is a good to very good hard court player. He is not a world beater on the surface. He has been exposed on numerous occasions. I'd love for him to a great hard court player, but he just isn't. You saw how Nalbandian and Tsonga exposed him.

Mmmm, yeah :lol:

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:00 AM
Gasquet is not the only one who loses to Nadal, so what's all this fuss is about?

Because it was his match to win or lose and he played a brainless final 2 sets. He kept going for the most ridiculous, low percentage shots and he kept missing them.

Action Jackson
07-26-2008, 04:01 AM
you said Rafa in 2 easily :ras:

Selective memory again. Don't make me quote my own post, where it says. If Gasquet wins a set, then that's like winning the match for him. Guess what happened, he did it and but the result was never in doubt. Just like federernadalfan starting a match thread, never in doubt.

Stensland
07-26-2008, 04:01 AM
the fitness thing is bullshit. of course gasquet can go the distance if he needs to, just remember the roddick match last year. it's the intensity that kills him usually, and nadal's THE man concerning intensity. gasquet likes to lay low for some time and then explode once in a while; he likes to rest a bit during the match, especially in the mental department. this is what prevents him from being a consistent top5-player. the lack of intensity and focus throughout the match is what separates him from the best.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:01 AM
Mmmm, yeah :lol:

Try arguing your point. Was Nadal exposed by Tsonga and Nalbandian or wasn't he? Simple question.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 04:03 AM
All the reason in the world to bash Gasquet. If he can only play one set at a high level no matter how long that set is, then he is a fucking joke. He is supposed to be a professional athlete.

:yeah:


Funny how when he won the first set he was staring in awe at the stadium screen in changeover, like saying, "I´ve already won my match"

RafaTheBest
07-26-2008, 04:03 AM
very heroic performance by Gasquet,he just ran out of gas at the end. murray will roast rafa tomorrow. i think rafa has to feel a little tired.

People have been saying that Nadal will get roasted before every match in this tournament so far (other than Lavine) and he just keeps proving the haters wrong every time. He will do so again tomorrow!

10nisfan
07-26-2008, 04:04 AM
What a phenomenal fighter Nadal is, I mean most would just wither away after losing a set 14-12 in the tie break (I am sure Gasquet would have if the roles were reversed). Thats what seperates Nadal from the rest of the field at the moment.

Your Post is Right on the Money...:yeah:

habibko
07-26-2008, 04:04 AM
the first set says something about gasquet's forehand though, that looked like a real shot, strange it gets bashed that much just because he has a super backhand, when his forehand is on we see magic thats for sure :o

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 04:04 AM
Try arguing your point. Was Nadal exposed by Tsonga and Nalbandian or wasn't he? Simple question.

Was Nadal exposed by Gilles Muller and Robert Kendrick in Wimbledon or wasn´t he? Go to bed, kid :wavey:

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:05 AM
People have been saying that Nadal will get roasted before every match in this tournament so far (other than Lavine) and he just keeps proving the haters wrong every time. He will do so again tomorrow!

I doubt many will be predicting Murray tomorrow, so I wouldn't get ahead of yourelf on that one. He'll get loads of poll votes, so I'd hardly say everyone is betting against him.

RafaTheBest
07-26-2008, 04:07 AM
I doubt many will be predicting Murray tomorrow, so I wouldn't get ahead of yourelf on that one. He'll get loads of poll votes, so I'd hardly say everyone is betting against him.

Notice I didn't say "everyone" in my post. I just said that "people" are picking against him, and he keeps proving them wrong.

Ilovetheblues_86
07-26-2008, 04:07 AM
the fitness thing is bullshit. of course gasquet can go the distance if he needs to, just remember the roddick match last year. it's the intensity that kills him usually, and nadal's THE man concerning intensity. gasquet likes to lay low for some time and then explode once in a while; he likes to rest a bit during the match, especially in the mental department. this is what prevents him from being a consistent top5-player. the lack of intensity and focus throughout the match is what separates him from the best.

That is so TRUE.

octatennis
07-26-2008, 04:07 AM
what a first set, and what a tiebreak :worship: but seriously people can gasquet do more than that? that was so draining I was tired just from watching that, it took everything from gasquet just to clinch that set, afterwards Gas has no more gas and nadal wins it easily, no need to bash gasquet.



someone playing the way gasquet did it could be enough to win 80% of players in the top ten, but having rafa in front you have to play perfect at least for 2 hours.

the match wasn't that good, rafa is not showing improvement in his hc game and that can be a desecive point tomorrow, he won by heart and balls and obviously gasquet dropping the level.

something good about the match is seeing gasquet with high confidence and showing that if he feels ok his forehand and his whole game shows the real tennis level this guy has.

gasquet is THE real deal. :worship:

Schu
07-26-2008, 04:07 AM
Vintage RAfa. TOO Good and way too strong.

Gasquet gave it everything he had for one brilliant set but ran out of gas. It wasn't so much a mental breakdown as it was a physical breakdown - just a step off and not getting the extra punch on the ball and that's all Rafa needed. Granted missing those 3 break point opportunities in the second set were deflating but how many set points did he miss in the tie break and he kept fighting back? His only chance was to be aggressive so the brilliant shots in the first set became "brainless ball bashing" when he got tired.

:hatoff: to Rafa!

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:07 AM
Was Nadal exposed by Gilles Muller and Robert Kendrick in Wimbledon or wasn´t he? Go to bed, kid :wavey:

We can all see Nadal's improvement on grass. Can you see a hard court improvement? Unfortunately, I can't see any, as much as I would like to. By the way, we're not talking about 3 years ago, like with Muller. Nadal was exposed this year and at the end of last year. Like it or not, he's not a world beater on hard. He'll always lose to an on form Nalby or Djokovic or Federer on hard.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 04:09 AM
We can all see Nadal's improvement on grass. Can you see a hard court improvement? Unfortunately, I can't see any, as much as I would like to. By the way, we're not talking about 3 years ago, like with Muller. Nadal was exposed this year and at the end of last year. Like it or not, he's not a world beater on hard. He'll always lose to an on form Nalby or Djokovic or Federer on hard.

:bowdown:

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:10 AM
Notice I didn't say "everyone" in my post. I just said that "people" are picking against him, and he keeps proving them wrong.

Yeah, but hardly anyone is picking against him, so I don't see your point. If he was proving the majority wrong, fine. All he's doing is proving a small minority wrong.

I'm just disappointed that his overall improvement doesn't seem to include hard. I've been underwhelmed thus far. He looks the same as last year.

RafaTheBest
07-26-2008, 04:12 AM
Yeah, but hardly anyone is picking against him, so I don't see your point. If he was proving the majority wrong, fine. All he's doing is proving a small minority wrong.

I'm just disappointed that his overall improvement doesn't seem to include hard. I've been underwhelmed thus far. He looks the same as last year.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like he's coming to net more often, which is really helping him out.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:12 AM
:bowdown:

Can't you construct an argument? Responding with stuff like :bowdown: merely highlights how weak your position is. I'm making valid points and you haven't responded with anything of note.

Is :bowdown: something that usually wins you a debate?

Vlad1980
07-26-2008, 04:13 AM
What a heart! What a fighter this Gasquet! :worship:

He won more sets than anyone else will in this tournament (combined) against Nadal.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:13 AM
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like he's coming to net more often, which is really helping him out.

He does seem to be, but still not as often as I'd like. He has good hands. He's underrated in that department.

Schu
07-26-2008, 04:15 AM
He only started to tire against Murray in the 5th at Wimbledon. How can he struggle to go 3 sets?

Cuz one set (well actually that first set was more like 2 sets)against Rafa is equal to about 3 against Murray.

Zaba
07-26-2008, 04:16 AM
We can all see Nadal's improvement on grass. Can you see a hard court improvement? Unfortunately, I can't see any, as much as I would like to. By the way, we're not talking about 3 years ago, like with Muller. Nadal was exposed this year and at the end of last year. Like it or not, he's not a world beater on hard. He'll always lose to an on form Nalby or Djokovic or Federer on hard.

*On form Nalby* "exposed" Federer and Djokovic at the end of last year too :o
OMG *on form Nalby* is the only "great" hard court player in teh world :rolleyes:

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:18 AM
*On form Nalby* "exposed" Federer and Djokovic at the end of last year too :o
OMG *on form Nalby* is the only "great" hard court player in teh world :rolleyes:

He didn't expose Federer and Djokovic. He beat them. Whereas he absolutely spanked Nadal.

GlennMirnyi
07-26-2008, 04:18 AM
Best moment goes to Gasquet thinking the game was over when he actually had won the point. Then the umpire calls him "are you ok?"

:haha:

octatennis
07-26-2008, 04:19 AM
Can't you construct an argument? Responding with stuff like :bowdown: merely highlights how weak your position is. I'm making valid points and you haven't responded with anything of note.

Is :bowdown: something that usually wins you a debate?


do not waste your time answering that guy, i'm a rafa fan and what you say about his game is true, he hadn't show improvements in his game it is something obvious.:wavey:

federernadalfan
07-26-2008, 04:20 AM
Best moment goes to Gasquet thinking the game was over when he actually had won the point. Then the umpire calls him "are you ok?"

:haha:

i think the situation was he thought rafa had made a challenge and he was waiting for hawkeye to show the animation

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 04:20 AM
Best moment goes to Gasquet thinking the game was over when he actually had won the point. Then the umpire calls him "are you ok?"

:haha:

yeah thats what i said. he must've dropped his brain somewhere on court during that point

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:21 AM
do not waste your time answering that guy, i'm a rafa fan and what you say about his game is true, he hadn't show improvements in his game it is something obvious.:wavey:

Thanks for a sensible reponse. I'm a Rafa fan, too. I just don't see any improement on hard, which is what I was looking for. He was hitting flatter at Wimbledon, but is back to hitting his forehand like he's on clay again.

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 04:21 AM
the volley was like a meter inside

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 04:23 AM
and what about that (1 handed :silly:) jump backhand in the tiebreak ?

coulrophobia is what made nadal lose that set...

tennizen
07-26-2008, 04:32 AM
:rolls: Half the posts in this thread are Clydey whining and posting a whole bunch of nonsense. Rafa is not the best hard court player that is obvious to a three year old. But I suggest you watch the match against Agassi in 2005 again to see if he has improved on hard courts or not.

vincayou
07-26-2008, 04:32 AM
Can't you construct an argument? Responding with stuff like :bowdown: merely highlights how weak your position is. I'm making valid points and you haven't responded with anything of note.

Is :bowdown: something that usually wins you a debate?

Don't bother, he's a clown of the highest order. Don't expect either a sentence of more than 10 words. He's in gloating mode. Be happy he doesn't answer you with caps locks and a 20px font. ;)

Puschkin
07-26-2008, 04:44 AM
Vintage RAfa. TOO Good and way too strong.

Gasquet gave it everything he had for one brilliant set but ran out of gas. It wasn't so much a mental breakdown as it was a physical breakdown - just a step off and not getting the extra punch on the ball and that's all Rafa needed.

I totally agree. Rafa too strong and the pysical breakdown, but some people will always come up with the mental thing.

The great play in the first set hides the poor serve percentage. Richard had to work hard for his points. He will never be as strong physically as Nadal, though there is room for improvement in this area which Peyre seems to know perfectly well, so if he wants to beat him, he needs short rallies and cheap points on first serve. He can't win on Rafs's terms and the last two sets showed it clearly.

However, I am proud of my man. :) He would not have won this breaker in the form he showed from January to June.

vincayou
07-26-2008, 04:46 AM
Nadal will be hard to stop. Only Djokovic could have done that IMO. He's on cloud nine after his win in RG and Wimby. How many wins in a row now? 30?

Still, Murray has the best chance of the remaining field.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 04:50 AM
:rolls: Half the posts in this thread are Clydey whining and posting a whole bunch of nonsense. Rafa is not the best hard court player that is obvious to a three year old. But I suggest you watch the match against Agassi in 2005 again to see if he has improved on hard courts or not.

I didn't say he hadn't improved since 2005. I said he hasn't improved since last year/this year's AO. Why is that nonsense and on what do you base that assertion?

I'm dying to hear your argument, since I'm apparently whining and talking nonsense.

Zaba
07-26-2008, 05:02 AM
Thanks for a sensible reponse. I'm a Rafa fan, too. I just don't see any improement on hard, which is what I was looking for. He was hitting flatter at Wimbledon, but is back to hitting his forehand like he's on clay again.

Hmm. Well, as a Rafa fan myself I'll take hard court wins of any kind, whether they involve flat hitting or not. But you are clearly a more noble Rafa fan than me, because you are too upset by his lack of improvement to be happy that he won :sad:

Or perhaps you were hoping Gasquet would win, so that Muzza could thrash him again?

prima donna
07-26-2008, 05:04 AM
Hahahaha, thanks for playing Richard.

selyoink
07-26-2008, 05:10 AM
someone playing the way gasquet did it could be enough to win 80% of players in the top ten, but having rafa in front you have to play perfect at least for 2 hours.

Bullshit. Most players who beat Rafa on a hardcourt beat the living shit out of him in quick order. See: Davydenko (Miami), Djokovic (IW), Tsonga (AO), Youzhny (Chennai), Roddick (Dubai), Gonzo (AO), Nalbandian (Madrid & Paris).

RafaTheBest
07-26-2008, 05:10 AM
He does seem to be, but still not as often as I'd like. He has good hands. He's underrated in that department.

Yeah, there are still several points where I am yelling "Get your ass to the net, Nadal." If he can continue to improve that area of his game that will really help him on HC.

T2KN
07-26-2008, 05:12 AM
Nadal will be hard to stop. Only Djokovic could have done that IMO. He's on cloud nine after his win in RG and Wimby. How many wins in a row now? 30?

Still, Murray has the best chance of the remaining field.

I believe it's 27.

zaboomafoo
07-26-2008, 05:13 AM
im back,
expected win, #1 is closer than ever, vamoooss

edit: please someone, a donation would be very appreciated, waana bet but my numbers are in fuckn red =(

ChinoRios4Ever
07-26-2008, 05:14 AM
too good Rafa

Clydey
07-26-2008, 05:15 AM
Hmm. Well, as a Rafa fan myself I'll take hard court wins of any kind, whether they involve flat hitting or not. But you are clearly a more noble Rafa fan than me, because you are too upset by his lack of improvement to be happy that he won :sad:

Or perhaps you were hoping Gasquet would win, so that Muzza could thrash him again?

I was hoping Gasquet would win, as I'm a fan of his too. That isn't relevant, though. After Wimbledon, I wanted to see Rafa transfer that dominant form onto hard. He hasn't done it, though. Yes, he beat Gasquet but I don't think he'll win the US Open on current form. I think he'll need to be better than he was tonight (and he was good) if he wants to win hard court slams. And I think the way to do that is to play on hard like he does on grass, hitting flatter, coming to the net a little more and playing with less margin for error. Right now, he is playing on hard the way he does on clay.

Greatness
07-26-2008, 05:49 AM
Spartan tennis prevails once again: mental toughness, consistency, keep fighting as hard as you can.
Nadal has a legitimate shot at winning Toronto.

Sebby
07-26-2008, 05:51 AM
Nice try Gasquette.

Maybe you could have won if only the guy was human.

TMJordan
07-26-2008, 05:52 AM
Give Rafa the title already :zzz:

richie21
07-26-2008, 06:48 AM
Gasquet completely ran out of gas since the middle of the second set(probably the effect of the first set).
It was obvious as he almost always went to the net from then,even suicidarly.
Seems like he is still very far from the level required in term of fitness to compete with the very best

richie21
07-26-2008, 06:52 AM
Doubt it. Murray is no Gasquet in the mental department.

I don't think it was mental: just look how strong he was mentally in the first set.
I simply think he once again got tired too quickly: the simple fact he suicidarly went to the net so many times from the beginning of the second set just showed that.
He has still some huge huge work to do in term of fitness

GlennMirnyi
07-26-2008, 06:55 AM
:rolls: Half the posts in this thread are Clydey whining and posting a whole bunch of nonsense. Rafa is not the best hard court player that is obvious to a three year old. But I suggest you watch the match against Agassi in 2005 again to see if he has improved on hard courts or not.

Don't make me remember that load of crap.

No he hasn't.

richie21
07-26-2008, 06:58 AM
He only started to tire against Murray in the 5th at Wimbledon. How can he struggle to go 3 sets?

Simply because one set of tennis against Nadal is already more draining than 4 sets of tennis against Murray.
Nadal's game is physically much more draining for his opponents than Murray's game.

Albatros99
07-26-2008, 07:03 AM
We should start creating the Gasquet excuses thread: mental midget, runs out of gas after playing just one set (is he a professional tennis player or what?).

Even better, we should create the ultimate excuses thread:

Why Nadal won this match excuse thread.

There every Nadal hater would put forward their excuses for Nadal winning his last match, as Nadal never seems to win a game on merit, but just because his opponent tires, is out of form, is recovering from an injury, is a mental midget and so on and so forth. I predict it would be a highly popular thread considering Nadal's winning spree.

moon language
07-26-2008, 07:12 AM
Try arguing your point. Was Nadal exposed by Tsonga and Nalbandian or wasn't he? Simple question.

Tsonga? I guess you aren't referring to their most recent meeting on hardcourt when Nadal won, or the beatdown Nadal gave him at the US Open last year.

And was someone really trying to make the point that Gasquet is a better hardcourt player than Nadal? Gasquet and his one career hardcourt title in ... Mumbai?

guy in sf
07-26-2008, 07:26 AM
Had Gasquet broken Nadal early in the second set when he 3 chances, the final result might have been different.
Nadal didn't outplay Gasquet in the last 2 sets like the score would suggest, Gasquet just lost his head after failing to capitalize on that break in the second set. This is very reminiscent of his final against Federer at this same tournament a couple of years ago where he played great tennis in the first set and just completely fell apart the last 2 sets. As always though, Gasquet produced some amazing shots along the way. That forehand of his can be such a weapon when it wants it to be.

Sebby
07-26-2008, 07:27 AM
Damn I'm very afraid right now :scared:

Before Wimbledon some people said that Nadal was not a good grass court player (and we know what happened).

These days some people say that Nadal is not a good hard court player... and the US Open is coming :bolt:

guy in sf
07-26-2008, 07:35 AM
Gasquet completely ran out of gas since the middle of the second set(probably the effect of the first set).
It was obvious as he almost always went to the net from then,even suicidarly.
Seems like he is still very far from the level required in term of fitness to compete with the very best

Gasquet didn't run out of gas, he just became a mental midget after he failed to convert 3 break points early in the second set and subsequently allowed that disappointment to completely turn the momentum toward Nadal. He became completely ineffective immediately after that game.
Nadal didn't raise his game, Gasquet just couldn't maintain the game he had in the first set and got worse because his head didn't want to play tennis.

A_Skywalker
07-26-2008, 07:36 AM
Why people say the fitness was important, the match was 2,20 minutes, not normal but just in time for 3 sets match.

Davodus
07-26-2008, 07:52 AM
Gasquet didn't run out of gas, he just became a mental midget after he failed to convert 3 break points early in the second set and subsequently allowed that disappointment to completely turn the momentum toward Nadal. He became completely ineffective immediately after that game.
Nadal didn't raise his game, Gasquet just couldn't maintain the game he had in the first set and got worse because his head didn't want to play tennis.

I don't think his head didn't 'want to play tennis,' I think more to the point, Nadal just wore him down, and you can't always maintain that kind of aggressive, attacking play for the full three sets to beat him.
Nevertheless, i'm disappointed :(

richie21
07-26-2008, 07:54 AM
Had Gasquet broken Nadal early in the second set when he 3 chances, the final result might have been different.

Don't think so.
Gasquet was already "finished" physically,it was obvious from the way he was moving,hitting his shots and more importantly,his tactics comparing to the first set(coming to the net as often as possible,even suicidarly,etc....)

I know that it's laughable to think that a professionnal player can run out of gas just after one set but that's truly what happened with Gasquet in this case i felt.

zqloy
07-26-2008, 08:01 AM
He didn't expose Federer and Djokovic. He beat them. Whereas he absolutely spanked Nadal.

This is because *on form Nalby* is playing an *off-form Nadal*. Nadal didnt even hit a decent shot is those matches.

Lopez
07-26-2008, 08:01 AM
The first set was great and entertaining, I shouted so much that my gf woke up and had to go to another room :D. The following two sets Gasquet was awful, no thinking on the court. He decided to take directions from a new book of his, "the Dmitry Tursunov tennis strategy guide for Dummies". Seriously, did he ever succeed in his "jumping one-handed backhand"?

What's Gasquet's forehand grip by the way? Eastern or even Continental? I think his grip is why he was able to flatten out the high bouncing forehands.

guy in sf
07-26-2008, 08:03 AM
I don't think his head didn't 'want to play tennis,' I think more to the point, Nadal just wore him down, and you can't always maintain that kind of aggressive, attacking play for the full three sets to beat him.
Nevertheless, i'm disappointed :(

Sorry, but again, I just didn't see him running out of gas or Nadal wearing him down. Nadal didn't do anything special in the last 2 sets, he just kept on at his game. Gasquet went through 3 tie breakers to beat Roddick in five sets last year so I just don't buy the whole "out of gas" excuse anymore, especially when this was only 3 sets. Gasquet just couldn't sustain a high level of mental intensity long enough to beat Nadal. To be a set up on Nadal and have 3 break points to take a lead in the second set against a player like Nadal is like godgiven, you have to take the opportunity and he didn't. Gasquet needs to face the fact that he's not a mentally tough person so when the opportunities come at your feet to close out matches or maintain momentum you have to take it or it will bite you in the ass.

richie21
07-26-2008, 08:06 AM
Sorry, but again, I just didn't see him running out of gas or Nadal wearing him down. Nadal didn't do anything special in the last 2 sets, he just kept on at his game.

He made him run....and that was more than enough considering his opponent's tiredness

Foxy
07-26-2008, 08:13 AM
Why do you still mention this mug Tsonga? He will never be a good player. He had hell of a luck at AO and as I said after that match he would never win against Nadal again. And see? I was right.

guy in sf
07-26-2008, 08:20 AM
He made him run....and that was more than enough considering his opponent's tiredness

Sorry richie21, but if you think Gasquet was already "finished" physically by only the beginning of the second set then Gasquet needs to retire from tennis right now! I just didn't see that, I saw a mental intensity fading and his game jumped in for a ride.

Nadal_Fanatic
07-26-2008, 08:21 AM
Why do you still mention this mug Tsonga? He will never be a good player. He had hell of a luck at AO and as I said after that match he would never win against Nadal again. And see? I was right.
They only played one time. It was on a high bouncing hardcourts in Indian Wells where Nadal won the year before. The injury really set him back though. We'll see if he can recover from that.

richie21
07-26-2008, 08:25 AM
Sorry richie21, but if you think Gasquet was already "finished" physically by only the beginning of the second set then Gasquet needs to retire from tennis right now!

No......but on the other hand,Deblicker and/or whoever he appointed as his conditionnal coach during all the previous years would need to retire from tennis coaching!

Gasquet's new coach himself implied that Gasquet was probably not working a lot his fitness before he became his coach and that he wants to impose him much much demanding physical training than everything he did until now.

MrChopin
07-26-2008, 08:34 AM
the first set says something about gasquet's forehand though, that looked like a real shot, strange it gets bashed that much just because he has a super backhand, when his forehand is on we see magic thats for sure :o

I think there was a recent thread about which was worse--Gasquet FH or Roddick BH--and it's clearly Roddick. Gasquet's FH has been on lately, like today or for the first 2+ sets against Murray at Wimbledon. One of the main reasons Gasquet lost today was his bh. Nadal kept it deep and didn't go away, and Gasquet started going for straight out winners, dumping it into the net again and again. He generated so little pace tonight with his bh, often throwing in extreme moonballs. He had a few nice cc shots, but the bh was the ugly shot, not the forehand.

Gasquet took a pill after the first set. Uncle Toni probably switched his normal medicine with some nyquil, or maybe it's because Gasquet is just a huge mental midget.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 08:48 AM
Can't you construct an argument? Responding with stuff like :bowdown: merely highlights how weak your position is. I'm making valid points and you haven't responded with anything of note.

Is :bowdown: something that usually wins you a debate?

Don't bother, he's a clown of the highest order. Don't expect either a sentence of more than 10 words. He's in gloating mode. Be happy he doesn't answer you with caps locks and a 20px font. ;)


Good to see you´re on the same wave in this "Deluded after 5 years" meeting :haha:

Foxy
07-26-2008, 08:49 AM
They only played one time. It was on a high bouncing hardcourts in Indian Wells where Nadal won the year before. The injury really set him back though. We'll see if he can recover from that.


Sorry, but I have nothing to do with his injury. :eek: Still I am right.

Rafalover15
07-26-2008, 08:50 AM
Yeah :woohoo:

Now take down Andy swiftly :lol:

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 08:52 AM
relax guys , after this match i think even djokovic would've folded considering their current forms (djoko and nadal)

gasquet got what was due , and murray is in for a serious spanking himself.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 08:56 AM
We should start creating the Gasquet excuses thread: mental midget, runs out of gas after playing just one set (is he a professional tennis player or what?).


You will be fine with these, I´ve read them for a few years in this board:

1) He had an off day

2) FFS, he´s too young yet, his game is still developing, he will win his opponent next time

3) Had the match in his racket but he let it slip away

4) Ran out of gas, had he a better fitness he would have won, easily

5) Pressure caught him up

Even better, we should create the ultimate excuses thread:

Why Nadal won this match excuse thread.

There every Nadal hater would put forward their excuses for Nadal winning his last match, as Nadal never seems to win a game on merit, but just because his opponent tires, is out of form, is recovering from an injury, is a mental midget and so on and so forth. I predict it would be a highly popular thread considering Nadal's winning spree.

That´s a good idea, but I believe there´s already sth like this in here

Pfloyd
07-26-2008, 08:58 AM
Nadal sucks at Hard Courts its obvious.

What happens is that Murray, Gasquet, Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, Safin, Baghdatis, Ferrer (add whoever you want) suck more than Rafa.

I mean, who would dare look at Rafa's HC results objectively, instead of talking like a toilet?

:retard:

Pfloyd
07-26-2008, 08:59 AM
Next thing were gonna have to see is adee-gee having to come up with a book to explain why Nadal manages to win a single win on HC.

Never his merits, of course.

finishingmove
07-26-2008, 09:05 AM
Ni te molestes en poner sentido común. Yo me lo paso pipa viendo como escuece que Rafa gane sin parar y que vaya a destronar al suizo del ranking en el próximo mes;)

yea lol, fedtards will be jumping off bridges when it happens

HeiwaDream
07-26-2008, 09:22 AM
Try arguing your point. Was Nadal exposed by Tsonga and Nalbandian or wasn't he? Simple question.

No he was not.

Or : Was Tsonga exposed by Nadal? (Nadal leads 2-1 on hard court, including US open) Was Federer exposed on hard court by Nadal at Dubai? Was Djokovic exposed on hard court against Nalbandian , Santoro and Nadal at the end of last year?

Nadal does not win every match he plays , but he is a very good player on hard court. He is the 3rd favourite at US open.

Nadal_Fanatic
07-26-2008, 09:50 AM
No he was not.

Or : Was Tsonga exposed by Nadal? (Nadal leads 2-1 on hard court, including US open) Was Federer exposed on hard court by Nadal at Dubai? Was Djokovic exposed on hard court against Nalbandian , Santoro and Nadal at the end of last year?

Nadal does not win every match he plays , but he is a very good player on hard court. He is the 3rd favourite at US open.
Make that Second Favorite. Federer has not proved he is worthy of that position this year. Nadal has outplayed or tied Fed in all 6 hardcourt events this year.

Veronique
07-26-2008, 09:57 AM
So Gasquet is a better hard court player than Rafa, but the latter is the one with hard court MS titles and finals? How do you reconcile that? Isn't consistency a big part of the equation as well? Sure Rafa has had some humiliating losses against the likes of Youzhny, Blake, Birdych, etc yet none of them is even remotely considered a favorite to win the USA, but Rafa is. Why? B/c is a champion.

Gasquet's game plan was to go for broke. It worked well in a very close 1st set when all the shots were falling in. You just had to know he wasn't going to keep it up for another set or 2 with Rafa on the other side of the net.

Zolka
07-26-2008, 10:43 AM
The first set was special, i don't know if i ever saw better than that, Gasquet basically won this set from the baseline, he served 43% i think, so you could imagine how well he played against probably the best baseliner of all-time if he won that set. kudos to him, the forehand looked reeeaaalllyy good. Later, when his game ran out of magic, he couldn't hit a first serve to save his life, and you can't beat this Nadal without serving extremely well. As for Nadal, i'm scared and speechless. Who's gonna beat that guy, and how? I don't think i've ever seen a player moving like that, i couldn't see it for years, i always thought he is not that talented, but that's not true, he is extremely talented (i'm still not the biggest fan of his tennis, and never will be, but now i'm not blind, unfortunately, because it's scary.). He's invincible right now, Nole and Roger has to respond quickly if they want the Olympic Gold medal.

moon language
07-26-2008, 11:01 AM
The first set was special, i don't know if i ever saw better than that, Gasquet basically won this set from the baseline, he served 43% i think, so you could imagine how well he played against probably the best baseliner of all-time if he won that set. kudos to him, the forehand looked reeeaaalllyy good. Later, when his game ran out of magic, he couldn't hit a first serve to save his life, and you can't beat this Nadal without serving extremely well. As for Nadal, i'm scared and speechless. Who's gonna beat that guy, and how? I don't think i've ever seen a player moving like that, i couldn't see it for years, i always thought he is not that talented, but that's not true, he is extremely talented (i'm still not the biggest fan of his tennis, and never will be, but now i'm not blind, unfortunately, because it's scary.). He's invincible right now, Nole and Roger has to respond quickly if they want the Olympic Gold medal.

I don't think he's invincible. He definitely looks to have more confidence now than he did at this point in the season last year though. I think he really wants that #1 ranking.

His movement was looking great at points I agree, especially when he was exchanging inside out forehands with Gasquet and each time inching back to cover the middle, then moving back for the inside out forehand.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 11:08 AM
So Gasquet is a better hard court player than Rafa, but the latter is the one with hard court MS titles and finals? How do you reconcile that? Isn't consistency a big part of the equation as well? Sure Rafa has had some humiliating losses against the likes of Youzhny, Blake, Birdych, etc yet none of them is even remotely considered a favorite to win the USA, but Rafa is. Why? B/c is a champion.

Wow, a sensible post in this thread, congrats

Gasquet's game plan was to go for broke. It worked well in a very close 1st set when all the shots were falling in. You just had to know he wasn't going to keep it up for another set or 2 with Rafa on the other side of the net.

He closed his eyes and hit the crap out of the ball non-stop during the first set, even playing at his best, being very sharp and hitting winners at will, he only managed to win it at 12-10 in the breaker and with a point less than his rival. Of course this is enough for many idiots in here to say "Gasquet proved everybody that as his best that he´s is better than Nadal" :haha:

star
07-26-2008, 11:23 AM
Next thing were gonna have to see is adee-gee having to come up with a book to explain why Nadal manages to win a single win on HC.

Never his merits, of course.

:bigclap: Excellent idea for a thread! You must PM him at once. :rolls:

pascal'rG
07-26-2008, 11:54 AM
In the beginning of the second set Gasquet said "i'm exhausted"..; so it was mainly physical...

because on the mental part, i found it quite good.

For example when Nadal had a set point in the tie-break at 9-8 with serve coming, he managed to hit a really powerful forehand
return winner on the first serve.

You must be strong mentally to play this move on a set point, no ?

Congrats Richard, just a shame you could'nt continue the same way in the second set

rafa the best
07-26-2008, 12:00 PM
All this comparing just doesn't makes sense. There's no comparing, they are in a different universe if you look at their results. Rafa is making history while all the others (except for Roger of course) are just there to be names in the lists of players he beats.

Even Djokovic is not in the same league as Rafa, he can't win consistantly, they are the same age (almost) but the results are just incomparable.

VAMOS RAFA

Voo de Mar
07-26-2008, 12:11 PM
Excellent first set, the longest tie-break in career of both players :yeah: Nadal is incredible, he survives everything. Most players after losing such an intense tie-break with two set points wasting, should have lost second set 2-6 or 3-6, but not this modern gladiator.

adee-gee
07-26-2008, 12:20 PM
Next thing were gonna have to see is adee-gee having to come up with a book to explain why Nadal manages to win a single win on HC.

Never his merits, of course.
:haha:

These "Gasquet is a better hard court player than Nadal" posts are hilarious. I'm still struggling to see what exactly Gasquet has done to suggest this could be even remotely true. He can't beat Nadal on the surface, he can't get further in a slam on the surface, he can't win a TMS on the surface like Nadal has....in fact, has he won any titles on hard courts? :scratch:

Sure, hard courts are Nadal's worst surface but results suggest he's the 3rd best player in the world on them.

vincayou
07-26-2008, 12:20 PM
Good to see you´re on the same wave in this "Deluded after 5 years" meeting :haha:

wow does it make really laugh you that hard. You must be a pretty strange guy. Scary. By the way, I registered on MTF 3 years a 2 month ago. Next time try "Deluded after 10 years". No wait "Deluded after 20 years". :haha: (in a deivid23 demented mode)

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 12:25 PM
wow does it make really laugh you that hard. You must be a pretty strange guy. Scary. By the way, I registered on MTF 3 years a 2 month ago. Next time try "Deluded after 10 years". No wait "Deluded after 20 years". :haha: (in a deivid23 demented mode)

:baby:

miura
07-26-2008, 12:29 PM
Too bad

Caio_Brasil
07-26-2008, 12:39 PM
First set was the highlight of this tournament so far, the rest of the match was crap.

Agree, specially that tiebreak. It was already predictable that Gasquet would die after it tough. :(

Clydey
07-26-2008, 12:40 PM
:haha:

These "Gasquet is a better hard court player than Nadal" posts are hilarious. I'm still struggling to see what exactly Gasquet has done to suggest this could be even remotely true. He can't beat Nadal on the surface, he can't get further in a slam on the surface, he can't win a TMS on the surface like Nadal has....in fact, has he won any titles on hard courts? :scratch:

Sure, hard courts are Nadal's worst surface but results suggest he's the 3rd best player in the world on them.

I'm not suggesting that Gasquet is a more consistent hard court player. I'm saying that I think his best HC game is better than Nadal's best HC game, in the same way Nalbandian's best HC and Fed's best HC game is better than Nadal's.

Nadal's game just isn't suited to hard. He profits from maintaining a good level on hard, while his opponent's level goes up and down. However, if he's playing an on form player, he'll lose. His best on a hard court doesn't, in my opinion, compare to Federer's best or Djokovic's best. And a lot of that is down to his insistence that he hit his forehand like he's back on a clay court.

You have to remember that you can't judge who is better by who gets deeper into tournaments. Nadal is the second seed and doesn't get the tougher matches until much later in a tournament. You only need look at Federer this year to see how a good seeding can carry you through a draw even when you're playing poorly.

I'd like to say that Nadal has turned the corner on hard, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he's ready to take the US Open. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.

adee-gee
07-26-2008, 12:47 PM
I'm not suggesting that Gasquet is a more consistent hard court player. I'm saying that I think his best HC game is better than Nadal's best HC game, in the same way Nalbandian's best HC and Fed's best HC game is better than Nadal's.
I agree with the rest of your post, it's just this I have an issue with. I don't think Nadal will win the US Open either.

But this part of your post is from the KaxMisha school of thinking and I've had too many disputes with him to bother starting another, it's absolute nonsense though. This "best HC game" is a useless argument. It's like saying Karlovic is better than Federer on grass because if he was playing his "best GC game", he'd serve an ace every point and there's no way he could lose. Surely consistent performances are a more accurate indication of who is the better player on the surface.

scoobs
07-26-2008, 12:51 PM
Mmm the best hardcourt game argument seems to be "well he plays better points - apart from all the bad ones he plays."

You still have to look at the overall results and the bigger picture of the performances. Gasquet may have played a superb set of tennis in the first set but it still took him 14-12 in a tiebreak and 7 set points to get it done.


To some degree I understand the point being made but I believe it's a bit meaningless to try and distil it down in that way to what someone's "pure game" is.

HeiwaDream
07-26-2008, 01:02 PM
I'm not suggesting that Gasquet is a more consistent hard court player. I'm saying that I think his best HC game is better than Nadal's best HC game, in the same way Nalbandian's best HC and Fed's best HC game is better than Nadal's.

Nadal's game just isn't suited to hard. He profits from maintaining a good level on hard, while his opponent's level goes up and down. However, if he's playing an on form player, he'll lose. His best on a hard court doesn't, in my opinion, compare to Federer's best or Djokovic's best. And a lot of that is down to his insistence that he hit his forehand like he's back on a clay court.



You are wrong again. What is the "best Gasquet hard court game" ? You can name his best performances on hard to compare with the best performance of Nadal? No , you can't. Gasquet is a very good player , well rounded , with a game who is well suited for the fast surfaces , but he is not at the level of Nadal now , not even on hard.

You are underrating Nadal because he is not as dominant on hard as he is on clay.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:08 PM
I agree with the rest of your post, it's just this I have an issue with. I don't think Nadal will win the US Open either.

But this part of your post is from the KaxMisha school of thinking and I've had too many disputes with him to bother starting another, it's absolute nonsense though. This "best HC game" is a useless argument. It's like saying Karlovic is better than Federer on grass because if he was playing his "best GC game", he'd serve an ace every point and there's no way he could lose. Surely consistent performances are a more accurate indication of who is the better player on the surface.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not talking about Gasquet producing one great performance. I mean, when he is performing well in general.

There are various ways you can look at it. Is Nadal a better HC player? Based on results and consistency, absolutely. If both he and Gasquet are red lining on HC, who is better? I'd say Gasquet, purely because he can hit through Nadal. Nadal can't do the same on a HC. His forehand, while still a great shot, isn't as effective as it is on grass and clay.

Basically, I think Nadal wins because Gasquet plays poorly. I don't think he can match Gasquet's best HC game. That isn't meant as an insult to Rafa. He just hasn't adapted his game to hard the way he has to grass.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:12 PM
Mmm the best hardcourt game argument seems to be "well he plays better points - apart from all the bad ones he plays."

You still have to look at the overall results and the bigger picture of the performances. Gasquet may have played a superb set of tennis in the first set but it still took him 14-12 in a tiebreak and 7 set points to get it done.


To some degree I understand the point being made but I believe it's a bit meaningless to try and distil it down in that way to what someone's "pure game" is.

Well, that's how I view it. I'll make it more simple. Who is the better hard court player, Nadal or Nalbandian? Nadal has been more successful, but I don't think there's any doubt who the better HC player is.

I think the same applies to Gasquet. So when I say the match is in his hands, I mean he wins if he plays well. It is his match to win or lose. Nadal can only hope to maintain his level, as he's never going to hit you off the court on hard. Gasquet is more than capable of hitting anyone off the court on hard.

Pfloyd
07-26-2008, 01:14 PM
:haha:

These "Gasquet is a better hard court player than Nadal" posts are hilarious. I'm still struggling to see what exactly Gasquet has done to suggest this could be even remotely true. He can't beat Nadal on the surface, he can't get further in a slam on the surface, he can't win a TMS on the surface like Nadal has....in fact, has he won any titles on hard courts? :scratch:

Sure, hard courts are Nadal's worst surface but results suggest he's the 3rd best player in the world on them.

Yeah. Which is why logic is uselss in this forum.

But the excuses people can come up with here are just mind boggling(ly) stupid.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:17 PM
You are wrong again. What is the "best Gasquet hard court game" ? You can name his best performances on hard to compare with the best performance of Nadal? No , you can't. Gasquet is a very good player , well rounded , with a game who is well suited for the fast surfaces , but he is not at the level of Nadal now , not even on hard.

You are underrating Nadal because he is not as dominant on hard as he is on clay.

No, I am rating Nadal based on his HC displays. He has been exposed too often on the surface to be considered a world beater on hard. His strength on hard is his consistency. However, if he comes across a player who is playing at the top of his game, he invariably gets exposed. Tsonga, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Davydenko even.

Stefwhit
07-26-2008, 01:20 PM
I'm not suggesting that Gasquet is a more consistent hard court player. I'm saying that I think his best HC game is better than Nadal's best HC game, in the same way Nalbandian's best HC and Fed's best HC game is better than Nadal's.

Nadal's game just isn't suited to hard. He profits from maintaining a good level on hard, while his opponent's level goes up and down. However, if he's playing an on form player, he'll lose. His best on a hard court doesn't, in my opinion, compare to Federer's best or Djokovic's best.
Although you acknowledge that Nadal is more consistent than most others on Hard courts; which by the way is something quantifiable and measurable, you unfortunately base your entire argument for "best" hardcourt game on something entirely subjective and unmeasurable. Exactly how are you defying best? :confused:

I'd argue that any player who has the ability to maintain a good level on a particular surface has a game that's suited to that surface. Tennis is all about consistency and just because a player has the ability to outhit another player that doesn't mean that that player is better on the surface. If that player can't consistently do it, then why should anyone view that player as the better player?

You have to remember that you can't judge who is better by who gets deeper into tournaments.
And why the hell not? :confused: At least by judging on who goes deeper, who has the better results, and who has the most titles won on a surface yields ways in which we can objectively measure success. Instead you want us to throw all that out the window as meaningless and only concentrate on "who can beat who at their absolute best"; something entirely subject and unmeasurable.

I'd like to say that Nadal has turned the corner on hard, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he's ready to take the US Open. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.
Judging by the way you're defying best I highly doubt you'll ever be proved wrong. You've got it set up so that real proof is discounted. The only thing that matters to you is hypothetical scenario wherein you're able to magically decipher who can beat who at their absolute best; how convenient for you. ;)

Smash.
07-26-2008, 01:22 PM
Richard needs to start winning these matches :fiery: Anyway, congrats, Rafa you are stiĺl amazing :worship:
Richard:fiery::rolleyes:

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:23 PM
Yeah. Which is why logic is uselss in this forum.

But the excuses people can come up with here are just mind boggling(ly) stupid.

The forum regs on here seem to specialise in ad hominem attacks. Can't people address the points I'm making instead of just calling my argument "stupid" and making no effort to prove why what I'm saying is so mind boggling?

Has Nadal been exposed on hard or hasn't he? He has, on more than one occasion. Why, then, do people insist on making out that what I'm saying is baseless? Nadal's HC game is based on consistency, pure and simple. He does not have an awe-inspiring game on hard. He has a good game that remains good throughout a match. He doesn't dip. However, if he plays someone with a world class HC game, he has no answer. And that is his biggest problem. He still hasn't found the best way to play on a hard court.

Pfloyd
07-26-2008, 01:26 PM
The forum regs on here seem to specialise in ad hominem attacks. Can't people address the points I'm making instead of just calling my argument "stupid" and making no effort to prove why what I'm saying is so mind boggling?

Has Nadal been exposed on hard or hasn't he? He has, on more than one occasion. Why, then, do people insist on making out that what I'm saying is baseless? Nadal's HC game is based on consistency, pure and simple. He does not have an awe-inspiring game on hard. He has a good game that remains good throughout a match. He doesn't dip. However, if he plays someone with a world class HC game, he has no answer. And that is his biggest problem. He still hasn't found the best way to play on a hard court.

Okay...

But he still has titles on them. Important ones. He's beaten every single player in the top 10 on HC.

You can "argue" your way around that fact (not that YOU are), but it still remains.

He has consistency issues on HC, yes. It's not his best surface, no?

But is he damn good on it when he plays well? You can't deny that.

HeiwaDream
07-26-2008, 01:27 PM
No, I am rating Nadal based on his HC displays. He has been exposed too often on the surface to be considered a world beater on hard. His strength on hard is his consistency. However, if he comes across a player who is playing at the top of his game, he invariably gets exposed. Tsonga, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Davydenko even.

He has lost on hard , yes , but he has beaten on hard all of the players you bring in , except Nalbandian (who last year beat Djokovic easily too , that means that Djokovic is not that good on hard?).
Nadal has some weakness on hard , with the players who play very agressively. But you take only count of his defeats , not of his victories. The perfect exemple was Tsonga. He was on his cloud when he played Nadal at Australian Open , but has lost his two others matchs against the Spaniard on hard.

You know that Nadal can beat all the others players you name , even if they are playing very well. The fact is thaht he can lose too. Hard is no clay and he has not a large margin on his opponent. But he is still easily top 3-5 when he plays his best hard court game. Remember that it's Nadal who ended the winning streak of Federer on hard.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:29 PM
Although you acknowledge that Nadal is more consistent than most others on Hard courts; which by the way is something quantifiable and measurable, you unfortunately base your entire argument for "best" hardcourt game on something entirely subjective and unmeasurable. Exactly how are you defying best? :confused:

I'd argue that any player who has the ability to maintain a good level on a particular surface has a game that's suited to that surface. Tennis is all about consistency and just because a player has the ability to outhit another player that doesn't mean that that player is better on the surface. If that player can't consistently do it, then why should anyone view that player as the better player?


And why the hell not? :confused: At least by judging on who goes deeper, who has the better results, and who has the most titles won on a surface yields ways in which we can objectively measure success. Instead you want us to throw all that out the window as meaningless and only concentrate on "who can beat who at their absolute best"; something entirely subject and unmeasurable.


Judging by the way you're defying best I highly doubt you'll ever be proved wrong. You've got it set up so that real proof is discounted. The only thing that matters to you is hypothetical scenario wherein you're able to magically decipher who can beat who at their absolute best; how convenient for you. ;)

There's an easy way to prove me wrong. Nadal just has to beat someone who is playing at their peak. He can beat anyone on clay and grass, no matter how well they are playing. However, he has been shown up on hard on numerous occasions.

Hell, I would be satisfied if he was even competitive against a player who was red-lining. The truth is, he keeps getting smoked whenever someone like Nalbandian or Tsonga is playing at their peak on hard. Have you ever watched Nadal on hard and thought, "He was unplayable today"? I haven't.

You're talking like I don't want it to happen. I want Nadal to win the US Open. I simply don't see it happening this year.

HeiwaDream
07-26-2008, 01:31 PM
The forum regs on here seem to specialise in ad hominem attacks. Can't people address the points I'm making instead of just calling my argument "stupid" and making no effort to prove why what I'm saying is so mind boggling?

Has Nadal been exposed on hard or hasn't he? He has, on more than one occasion. Why, then, do people insist on making out that what I'm saying is baseless? Nadal's HC game is based on consistency, pure and simple. He does not have an awe-inspiring game on hard. He has a good game that remains good throughout a match. He doesn't dip. However, if he plays someone with a world class HC game, he has no answer. And that is his biggest problem. He still hasn't found the best way to play on a hard court.

He has lost = He has been exposed ? Federer has been exposed by Djokovic and Canas? Djokovic by Santoro , Gasquet and Nadal?

I am a little tired by the people who underrate a lot Nadal. In Indian Wells and Miami , the majority of users of this board thought he will lose at every match. At Queen's , they said he will lose almost surely against Djokovic , and after , he had no chance against Federer at Wimbledon...

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:34 PM
He has lost on hard , yes , but he has beaten on hard all of the players you bring in , except Nalbandian (who last year beat Djokovic easily too , that means that Djokovic is not that good on hard?).
Nadal has some weakness on hard , with the players who play very agressively. But you take only count of his defeats , not of his victories. The perfect exemple was Tsonga. He was on his cloud when he played Nadal at Australian Open , but has lost his two others matchs against the Spaniard on hard.

You know that Nadal can beat all the others players you name , even if they are playing very well. The fact is thaht he can lose too. Hard is no clay and he has not a large margin on his opponent. But he is still easily top 3-5 when he plays his best hard court game. Remember that it's Nadal who ended the winning streak of Federer on hard.

Nalbandian didn't smoke Djokovic last year. He humiliated Nadal. It was actually hard to watch in the end. Nadal was struggling to win a point in the final set, if you remember.

The fact is when Nadal has beaten guys like Tsonga on hard, they have played at a decent level, but nowhere near their peak. Let's not pretend that the Tsonga he beat was the same Tsonga who was at the AO.

You say "when Nadal plays his best hard court game" but I've never seen him not play his best HC game. He is always the same, and that is his strength. He maintains a high level in every match, but it is not a level high enough to deal with someone who can hit him off the court. The fact is, he often is made to look one-dimensional on hard. And when his opponent is playing at such a high level, he has no answer to it. All he can do is hope that they dip. He can't raise his game on hard and match it.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:36 PM
He has lost = He has been exposed ? Federer has been exposed by Djokovic and Canas? Djokovic by Santoro , Gasquet and Nadal?

I am a little tired by the people who underrate a lot Nadal. In Indian Wells and Miami , the majority of users of this board thought he will lose at every match. At Queen's , they said he will lose almost surely against Djokovic , and after , he had no chance against Federer at Wimbledon...

He hasn't just lost. His losses to Nalbandian and Tsonga weren't just losses. They were demolition jobs. And it had nothing to do with Nadal's level dropping. He played as well as he always does on hard. It just wasn't anywhere near good enough.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:39 PM
Okay...

But he still has titles on them. Important ones. He's beaten every single player in the top 10 on HC.

You can "argue" your way around that fact (not that YOU are), but it still remains.

He has consistency issues on HC, yes. It's not his best surface, no?

But is he damn good on it when he plays well? You can't deny that.

He is always a very good hard court player. His level never goes up or down. It stays the same. I don't deny that he's still very good on hard. I'm saying that he can't raise his game to match someone who is red-lining. He doesn't yet have that ability on hard.

He relies too heavily on his opponent not playing their best. And I think the main reason is his forehand on hard. He hits it like he's on clay.

Pfloyd
07-26-2008, 01:40 PM
Nalbandian didn't smoke Djokovic last year. He humiliated Nadal. It was actually hard to watch in the end. Nadal was struggling to win a point in the final set, if you remember.

The fact is when Nadal has beaten guys like Tsonga on hard, they have played at a decent level, but nowhere near their peak. Let's not pretend that the Tsonga he beat was the same Tsonga who was at the AO.

You say "when Nadal plays his best hard court game" but I've never seen him not play his best HC game. He is always the same, and that is his strength. He maintains a high level in every match, but it is not a level high enough to deal with someone who can hit him off the court. The fact is, he often is made to look one-dimensional on hard. And when his opponent is playing at such a high level, he has no answer to it. All he can do is hope that they dip. He can't raise his game on hard and match it.

Nadal beating good HC players at there peak:

Federer in Dubai was pretty damn good. Nadal beat him There.

Davydenko in the Masters Cup was playing his best tennis on HC. Nadal beat him.

Blake at Indian wells this year was playing at his best. Nadal finally defeated him.

Ljubicic in Madrid. Ljubo was on FIRE, Nadal won in 5 sets.

He's beatean Murray in Madrid while Murray was playing very good tennis.

He's also won against Haas playing quite well.

So in conclusion, and in my opinion, he can beat many players in HC when they are in peak form. Again, on HC he has to do this on a match to match basis, it's not that easy.

But these victories can be twisted to say that none of these players were at there peak, which is why Nadal won.

You see, he can't win really :shrug:

tennizen
07-26-2008, 01:42 PM
There's an easy way to prove me wrong. Nadal just has to beat someone who is playing at their peak. He can beat anyone on clay and grass, no matter how well they are playing. However, he has been shown up on hard on numerous occasions.

Really, right now the only player who's playing at his peak is Nadal. So maybe he should beat himself. Oh, wait he never does that. So that means he will never beat anyone playing at their peak ever. What a sad state of affairs. Off with Nadal's head.

Hell, I would be satisfied if he was even competitive against a player who was red-lining. The truth is, he keeps getting smoked whenever someone like Nalbandian or Tsonga is playing at their peak on hard. Have you ever watched Nadal on hard and thought, "He was unplayable today"? I haven't.


Try watching some more tennis then instead of spouting nonsense on a message board then. And the stupid argument about Rafa being unplayable on a day can't get stupider. Rafa is unplayable on most days to most opponents but he is unplayable with his own style of remarkable consistency. There is no way he will commit an error more than necessary. And still he will hit winners too. And like I said yesterday , you are spewing the same nonsense that has been discussed over and over here and so don't pat yourself on your back thinking you have made a magnificent discovery.

You're talking like I don't want it to happen. I want Nadal to win the US Open. I simply don't see it happening this year

We are very pleased with your concern for Nadal. Great to know that you think he won't win it this year. Let me tell you/you are not alone. Most of us don't either.

Stefwhit
07-26-2008, 01:42 PM
There's an easy way to prove me wrong. Nadal just has to beat someone who is playing at their peak. He can beat anyone on clay and grass, no matter how well they are playing. However, he has been shown up on hard on numerous occasions.

Hell, I would be satisfied if he was even competitive against a player who was red-lining. The truth is, he keeps getting smoked whenever someone like Nalbandian or Tsonga is playing at their peak on hard. Have you ever watched Nadal on hard and thought, "He was unplayable today"? I haven't.

You're talking like I don't want it to happen. I want Nadal to win the US Open. I simply don't see it happening this year.
Nobody can beat player “A” when player “A” is at 100%.

Who cares!?!?!

Whether you're number one in the world or number 5000 it's rare for a player to actually play at 100% of their capabilities. I’m actually more impressed with a player who's having an off day and whose weapons aren’t working, yet that player still finds a way to come up with the win. Winning when you're not at your best actually says a lot more about a player, than that same player winning when they’re playing at their respective best.

Since there's always a lot of uncontrollable factors at play, such as the time of day, confidence, weather; and so on and so on, it's easy to understand why it's rare for players to play an entire match at 100%. Whether you're having an off day or totally in the zone, it doesn't change the goal, and the goal is always to come up with the win, or at the very least, to play the best you can on any given day which is different than playing at 100%.

If you’re a player who plays your best tennis only 2% of the time you ever step onto the court and you never lose when your at your best, are you considered the better player?

- I would say NO, if you're not consistently winning outside of that 2% of the times when you're at your best. The best player isn’t the player that when at 100% they can beat everybody else; the best player is the player that no matter what level their playing at, they can still find ways to win. It’s all about tapping into your skills and being mentally strong enough to come up with the goods regardless of the occasion, regardless of who you’re playing, regardless of the surface, and regardless of whether or not you're at your personal best.

groundstroke
07-26-2008, 01:42 PM
Great first set. Gasquet is a fucking chocker, as soon as he wasted those 2 BPs at the start of the second set, that was it.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:44 PM
Nadal beating good HC players at there peak:

Federer in Dubai was pretty damn good. Nadal beat him There.

Davydenko in the Masters Cup was playing his best tennis on HC. Nadal beat him.

Blake at Indian wells this year was playing at his best. Nadal finally defeated him.

Ljubicic in Madrid. Ljubo was on FIRE, Nadal won in 5 sets.

He's beatean Murray in Madrid while Murray was playing very good tennis.

He's also won against Haas playing quite well.

So in conclusion, and in my opinion, he can beat many players in HC when they are in peak form. Again, on HC he has to do this on a match to match basis, it's not that easy.

But these victories can be twisted to say that none of these players were at there peak, which is why Nadal won.

You see, he can't win really :shrug:

I agree, it's something that is subjective. The difference is I'm not suggesting that your opinion is baseless. You think those players were playing their best game and I don't. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not trying to be awkward, as I'd want to see Nadal playing on hard like he does on grass.

HeiwaDream
07-26-2008, 01:45 PM
Nalbandian didn't smoke Djokovic last year. He humiliated Nadal. It was actually hard to watch in the end. Nadal was struggling to win a point in the final set, if you remember.

The fact is when Nadal has beaten guys like Tsonga on hard, they have played at a decent level, but nowhere near their peak. Let's not pretend that the Tsonga he beat was the same Tsonga who was at the AO.

You say "when Nadal plays his best hard court game" but I've never seen him not play his best HC game. He is always the same, and that is his strength. He maintains a high level in every match, but it is not a level high enough to deal with someone who can hit him off the court. The fact is, he often is made to look one-dimensional on hard. And when his opponent is playing at such a high level, he has no answer to it. All he can do is hope that they dip. He can't raise his game on hard and match it.

Nadal was coming back of a knee injury , Djokovic was not. Nalbandian managed to win 2 MS and to beat in indoor twice Nadal , twice Federer and Djokovic. He was at his best level and the others was not , after a long season. At the end of last year , he was playing very short with his forehand.
You take the Nadal's defeats like if he was a machine who plays always the same game at the same level. And this is not true. Nadal has already reached his best level on hard , Dubai 2006 or IW 2007 for exemple.
The Tsonga at the AO was , for the moment , a one shot. Tsonga was in the zone , at his best. Nadal was not. I am not sure you can bring this comparison like you do , because a guy , based on one tournament , played the tennis of his life against another player.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:45 PM
Nobody can beat player “A” when player “A” is at 100%.

Who cares!?!?!

Whether you're number one in the world or number 5000 it's rare for a player to actually play at 100% of their capabilities. I’m actually more impressed with a player who's having an off day and whose weapons aren’t working, yet that player still finds a way to come up with the win. Winning when you're not at your best actually says a lot more about a player, than that same player winning when they’re playing at their respective best.

Since there's always a lot of uncontrollable factors at play, such as the time of day, confidence, weather; and so on and so on, it's easy to understand why it's rare for players to play an entire match at 100%. Whether you're having an off day or totally in the zone, it doesn't change the goal, and the goal is always to come up with the win, or at the very least, to play the best you can on any given day which is different than playing at 100%.

If you’re a player who plays your best tennis only 2% of the time you ever step onto the court and you never lose when your at your best, are you considered the better player?

- I would say NO, if you're not consistently winning outside of that 2% of the times when you're at your best. The best player isn’t the player that when at 100% they can beat everybody else; the best player is the player that no matter what level their playing at, they can still find ways to win. It’s all about tapping into your skills and being mentally strong enough to come up with the goods regardless of the occasion, regardless of who you’re playing, regardless of the surface, and regardless of whether or not you're at your personal best.

So you think Nadal is a better hard court player than Nalbandian? Fair enough.

HeiwaDream
07-26-2008, 01:46 PM
He hasn't just lost. His losses to Nalbandian and Tsonga weren't just losses. They were demolition jobs. And it had nothing to do with Nadal's level dropping. He played as well as he always does on hard. It just wasn't anywhere near good enough.

He has just lost. He has lost badly , but he has just lost. Nadal's margin is not big on hard , that's why he lost badly sometimes. But he can beat anyone on hard and on any surface.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:47 PM
Nadal was coming back of a knee injury , Djokovic was not. Nalbandian managed to win 2 MS and to beat in indoor twice Nadal , twice Federer and Djokovic. He was at his best level and the others was not , after a long season. At the end of last year , he was playing very short with his forehand.
You take the Nadal's defeats like if he was a machine who plays always the same game at the same level. And this is not true. Nadal has already reached his best level on hard , Dubai 2006 or IW 2007 for exemple.
The Tsonga at the AO was , for the moment , a one shot. Tsonga was in the zone , at his best. Nadal was not. I am not sure you can bring this comparison like you do , because a guy , based on one tournament , played the tennis of his life against another player.

There was nothing wrong with Nadal against Nalbandian. He always has "knee problems". Also, he did not play badly against Tsonga at all. Tsonga was just too good.

We're going around in circles, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Pfloyd
07-26-2008, 01:48 PM
I agree, it's something that is subjective. The difference is I'm not suggesting that your opinion is baseless. You think those players were playing their best game and I don't. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not trying to be awkward, as I'd want to see Nadal playing on hard like he does on grass.

Believe me I understand where you're coming from.

Tsonga and Gonzalez both times at the AO are classic examples of what I think you're reffering to.

I'd see those two players as playing "out of there ass" tennis for one tournament, specfically in there respectice matches against Nadal.

He got his ass handed to him both times. True.

But then again, Gonzalez did waste two set points in the first set final vs. Federer as well, and then Federer beat him....

That's a whole other story.

As far as other examples go, it's like you say, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Turquoise
07-26-2008, 01:49 PM
Just too good from Nadal. I never cease to wonder at his mental strength. Even after losing the first set where both traded multiple set-points in the tie-break (including failing to serve out the set), he just wiped the slate clean, dug in his heels, maintained the level of intensity and gradually wore down his opponent, both mentally and physically.

Gasquet deserves much credit for putting up a great fight. I'm pleased for him that he's finding his way back after his confidence/injury issues earlier this year. He's superbly talented, he'll realise his true potential eventually.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:49 PM
Really, right now the only player who's playing at his peak is Nadal. So maybe he should beat himself. Oh, wait he never does that. So that means he will never beat anyone playing at their peak ever. What a sad state of affairs. Off with Nadal's head.



Try watching some more tennis then instead of spouting nonsense on a message board then. And the stupid argument about Rafa being unplayable on a day can't get stupider. Rafa is unplayable on most days to most opponents but he is unplayable with his own style of remarkable consistency. There is no way he will commit an error more than necessary. And still he will hit winners too. And like I said yesterday , you are spewing the same nonsense that has been discussed over and over here and so don't pat yourself on your back thinking you have made a magnificent discovery.



We are very pleased with your concern for Nadal. Great to know that you think he won't win it this year. Let me tell you/you are not alone. Most of us don't either.

Way to keep your cool. Cry more.

I'm not about to argue with someone who can't support their position without acting like a child.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:52 PM
Believe me I understand where you're coming from.

Tsonga and Gonzalez both times at the AO are classic examples of what I think you're reffering to.

I'd see those two players as playing "out of there ass" tennis for one tournament, specfically in there respectice matches against Nadal.

He got his ass handed to him both times. True.

But then again, Gonzalez did waste two set points in the first set final vs. Federer as well, and then Federer beat him....

That's a whole other story.

As far as other examples go, it's like you say, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Well, at least you're civil about it. It seems you can't hold an opinion on here without idiots resorting to insults.

I think Nadal needs to play on hard more like he plays on grass, particularly off the forehand. I really think that's the key. Flatter, with less margin for error. Right now, it's not penetrating the court.

tennizen
07-26-2008, 01:53 PM
Way to keep your cool. Cry more.

I'm not about to argue with someone who can't support their position without acting like a child.

I'm so disappointed that you won't argue with me

Clydey
07-26-2008, 01:56 PM
I'm so disappointed that you won't argue with me

Argue with what? You have no real argument. Your argument is: "You're stupid"; or if you decide to get really creative: "You're a moron".

If you can't have a discussion like a grown up, you're not worth wasting time on.

tennizen
07-26-2008, 02:02 PM
Argue with what? You have no real argument. Your argument is: "You're stupid"; or if you decide to get really creative: "You're a moron".

If you can't have a discussion like a grown up, you're not worth wasting time on.
:rolls:

Rafa is unplayable on most days to most opponents but he is unplayable with his own style of remarkable consistency. There is no way he will commit an error more than necessary. And still he will hit winners too.

Edited for Clydey because he cannot take an insult

Clydey
07-26-2008, 02:07 PM
:rolls:

Rafa is unplayable on most days to most opponents but he is unplayable with his own style of remarkable consistency. There is no way he will commit an error more than necessary. And still he will hit winners too.

Edited for Clydey because he cannot take an insult

I can take an insult. I just think it completely undermines your position, that you can't keep your cool.

Ouragan
07-26-2008, 02:08 PM
0-5 head to head. I hate it that Gasquet is one of Nadal's bitches.

scoobs
07-26-2008, 02:08 PM
Enough please - if you can't agree, then disagree civilly and if you can't do that, stop posting.

tennizen
07-26-2008, 02:11 PM
Enough please - if you can't agree, then disagree civilly and if you can't do that, stop posting.

So now this kind of thing is moderated too:lol:

Clydey
07-26-2008, 02:12 PM
So now this kind of thing is moderated too:lol:

As it should be. This is a tennis forum, not a sandbox.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 02:13 PM
There's an easy way to prove me wrong. Nadal just has to beat someone who is playing at their peak. He can beat anyone on clay and grass, no matter how well they are playing. However, he has been shown up on hard on numerous occasions.


I really can´t understand why you´re giving room to this troll when saying things like this :lol:

ReturnWinner
07-26-2008, 02:16 PM
Gasquet played a great first set but then he was tired both mental and physically, to beat Nadal he has to play 100% over his normal level as he did in the first set.

scoobs
07-26-2008, 02:19 PM
So now this kind of thing is moderated too:lol:
Flamewars have always been moderated and you have been bordering on just insulting each other rather than arguing your points of view. :)

tennizen
07-26-2008, 02:21 PM
As it should be. This is a tennis forum, not a sandbox.
:lol: I have read your posts in the MTF suggestions thread where you posted another 30 posts complaining about the mods.

RafaTheBest
07-26-2008, 02:21 PM
We should start creating the Gasquet excuses thread: mental midget, runs out of gas after playing just one set (is he a professional tennis player or what?).

Even better, we should create the ultimate excuses thread:

Why Nadal won this match excuse thread.

There every Nadal hater would put forward their excuses for Nadal winning his last match, as Nadal never seems to win a game on merit, but just because his opponent tires, is out of form, is recovering from an injury, is a mental midget and so on and so forth. I predict it would be a highly popular thread considering Nadal's winning spree.

Good idea! Some people just can't stand the fact that he's not only become the best grass-courter in the game, now he's starting to improve on hard courts as well. Seeing people in here's reaction to it is quite comical, really.

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 02:22 PM
Flamewars have always been moderated and you have been bordering on just insulting each other rather than arguing your points of view. :)

Your new sheriff role is getting a bit too much into your head, just my opinion

Clydey
07-26-2008, 02:23 PM
:lol: I have read your posts in the MTF suggestions thread where you posted another 30 posts complaining about the mods.

I complained about RagingLamb, not the mods. I wasn't the only one. Even scoobs complained about RagingLamb.

tennizen
07-26-2008, 02:26 PM
Flamewars have always been moderated and you have been bordering on just insulting each other rather than arguing your points of view. :)

I called his argument out as nonsense and said its stupid. I stated why this is the case. He chose to focus on that rather than the argument. He is spamming the thread with repetitive arguments. If you only choose to focus on the civility aspect and ignore everything else, I think there is no hope for GM. Feel free to edit my posts.

scoobs
07-26-2008, 02:28 PM
Your new sheriff role is getting a bit too much into your head, just my opinion
Thank you for your opinion. I prefer to try and steer the thread back onto topic if it looks like heading off the rails.

As for going to my head, no - I'd rather not spend my time on here cleaning up the bile and idiocy that often gets posted around here and so I try and stop it going there in the first place. People who think moderation is fun are people who have probably not done it :)

scoobs
07-26-2008, 02:32 PM
I called his argument out as nonsense and said its stupid. I stated why this is the case. He chose to focus on that rather than the argument. He is spamming the thread with repetitive arguments. If you only choose to focus on the civility aspect and ignore everything else, I think there is no hope for GM. Feel free to edit my posts.
You know, I'm merely trying to ask that you both back off from getting snappy and personal.

If you want to disregard that, go ahead and if need be any mess can be cleaned up later.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 02:35 PM
You know, I'm merely trying to ask that you both back off from getting snappy and personal.

If you want to disregard that, go ahead and if need be any mess can be cleaned up later.

I didn't insult him. I was having a civil discussion before he lost his cool and dragged the discussion down

scoobs
07-26-2008, 02:38 PM
*sighs*

Anyway.

So what did Gasquet do wrong?

Okay he didn't take break points early in the second set but after that he sorta fell apart.

Why?

Nadal played a bit better in the second and third sets, a bit freer and more assertively, but rather than trying to counter that it seemed like Gasquet just felt he had to go for ever more extraordinary winners. I realise you can't just hang around in rallies with Nadal and you need to make stuff happen but I think you need to be more selective on when you try to pull the trigger. Seemed like he couldn't wait to get a better position and just went for it anyway too often.

Merton
07-26-2008, 02:46 PM
The impressive thing about this match was Nadal saving the break points he faced at the beginning of the first set, it must have been a huge letdown to lose such a tiebreak but still he survived that. Gasquet was totally on fire in the first set, actually I don't think it was so much that he got tired after that, I just think he gave up in the 3rd set. Still, a good tournament for him, he will need to make a deep run at the US Open to salvage his year anyway.

Clydey, it is too soon to say that "Nadal has not improved on hard courts" after only 3 matches. In my mind he is doing better here so far than he did last year in Montreal, in particular he was hitting good length against Andreev and Gasquet. Still, it is just unrealistic to expect Nadal to dominate on hard courts and then judge him a failure when he does not.

tennizen
07-26-2008, 02:53 PM
You know, I'm merely trying to ask that you both back off from getting snappy and personal.

If you want to disregard that, go ahead and if need be any mess can be cleaned up later.

Ok, point taken. I don't intend to continue this discussion anyway:)

Clydey
07-26-2008, 02:53 PM
The impressive thing about this match was Nadal saving the break points he faced at the beginning of the first set, it must have been a huge letdown to lose such a tiebreak but still he survived that. Gasquet was totally on fire in the first set, actually I don't think it was so much that he got tired after that, I just think he gave up in the 3rd set. Still, a good tournament for him, he will need to make a deep run at the US Open to salvage his year anyway.

Clydey, it is too soon to say that "Nadal has not improved on hard courts" after only 3 matches. In my mind he is doing better here so far than he did last year in Montreal, in particular he was hitting good length against Andreev and Gasquet. Still, it is just unrealistic to expect Nadal to dominate on hard courts and then judge him a failure when he does not.

I never said that he is a failure. Maybe I am judging prematurely. I just expected more, that's all. I'm more disappointed with the forehand than anything else. He's gone back to his clay court forehand.

Maybe he'll peak against Murray tonight. Who knows?

tennizen
07-26-2008, 02:56 PM
I didn't insult him. I was having a civil discussion before he lost his cool and dragged the discussion down

Sorry for being more than a bit snappy. However, just having a civil discussion doesn't mean writing pages of the same argument imo. If you feel unconvinced about other arguments there is a point when you should let go and it is annoying for the match thread to go the direction of you vs the rest. But I.m out of here so you can continue your discussion with whoever's willing to go for it.

Henry Chinaski
07-26-2008, 03:04 PM
the fitness thing is bullshit. of course gasquet can go the distance if he needs to, just remember the roddick match last year. it's the intensity that kills him usually, and nadal's THE man concerning intensity. gasquet likes to lay low for some time and then explode once in a while; he likes to rest a bit during the match, especially in the mental department. this is what prevents him from being a consistent top5-player. the lack of intensity and focus throughout the match is what separates him from the best.

you can't compare playing Roddick on grass to playing Nadal on a slowish high bouncing hardcourt.
it's true what you say about maintaining mental intensity but it's something that's closely related to physical fitness I believe. It's simple enough, the fresher you feel the easier it is to concentate. it's the same for everyone in every walk of life but small margins probably have greater effects at the level of elite athlete

DDrago2
07-26-2008, 03:07 PM
you can't compare playing Roddick on grass to playing Nadal on a slowish high bouncing hardcourt.

Was toronto always like that, or they recently slowed it down?

scoobs
07-26-2008, 03:08 PM
Toronto was this slow in 2006 too I think - of the US Open Series events it's probably the slowest hardcourt.

Clydey
07-26-2008, 03:09 PM
Sorry for being more than a bit snappy. However, just having a civil discussion doesn't mean writing pages of the same argument imo. If you feel unconvinced about other arguments there is a point when you should let go and it is annoying for the match thread to go the direction of you vs the rest. But I.m out of here so you can continue your discussion with whoever's willing to go for it.

If people aren't grasping my point, I feel compelled to reiterate it or try and simplify it. It wasn't my intention to spam the thread. I was merely responding to those who responded to me.

Regardless, the discussion has died down now anyway.

Erica86
07-26-2008, 05:12 PM
Toronto was this slow in 2006 too I think - of the US Open Series events it's probably the slowest hardcourt.

No. I think that is not exactly right.
The slowest hardcourt is the one where Nadal beats his rivals, no matter where that is.

Damn
07-26-2008, 05:13 PM
Great first set and TB. Nadal broke Gasquet's serve twice with ease, but then he couldn't consolidate the set with his own serve. Gasquet broke him twice too and that gave him quite confidence. Then he started to launch fireballs with his groundstrokes until he won the first.

But then Nadal noticed that he had to step up his game to a high level and the match just finished for Richard in that moment. There's no player in the whole tour who has the mental edge against Nadal, and that's one of the most important things in this sport.

Conclusion: Gasquet was playing at his peak in the first set and had lots of difficults to win it (If Nadal had served better, he could have won with 2 breaks of advantage). But when Nadal started to play better in the second set, Gasquet just dissapeared of the court.

mikkemus23
07-26-2008, 05:39 PM
and this means nadal is the new # 1?

Gustavo Ovatsug
07-26-2008, 05:40 PM
first set was incredible from both. Next two sets were why Nadal will rightly deserve his place at No. 1 when he gets there. Far better than any other player right now.

GlennMirnyi
07-26-2008, 05:50 PM
first set was incredible from both. Next two sets were why Nadal will rightly deserve his place at No. 1 when he gets there. Far better than any other player right now.

:retard:

Why is it there all new Brazilian posters can't post anything but pure bollocks? :rolleyes:

Damn
07-26-2008, 05:58 PM
No. I think that is not exactly right.
The slowest hardcourt is the one where Nadal beats his rivals, no matter where that is.

Good answer :yeah:

GlennMirnyi
07-26-2008, 06:03 PM
Toronto was this slow in 2006 too I think - of the US Open Series events it's probably the slowest hardcourt.

Montreal is the slowest surface of them all in the USO series.

luie
07-26-2008, 06:48 PM
Good result,,gasquet did what was necessary.. keeping nadal on court for 2+ hours and letting him win.Just looking at the BIGGER picture.
Now its murrays turn to keep nadal on court for 2/3 hours & letting him win.

Puschkin
07-26-2008, 06:58 PM
Conclusion: Gasquet was playing at his peak in the first set and had lots of difficults to win it (If Nadal had served better, he could have won with 2 breaks of advantage).

I am not taking anything away from Nadal, but this is plain wrong. Quite the opposite: If Gasquet had served better, he'd have won the first set easier, particularly in the breaker when he hardly got a first serve in.

Serve percentage in first set.

Nadal: 80 %
Gasquet: 47%

Vlad1980
07-26-2008, 07:14 PM
Montreal is the slowest surface of them all in the USO series.

Sir, do you even watch tennis? I mean even a little bit?

MaryX
07-26-2008, 07:17 PM
I must share my admiration for Gasquet and his first set performance.I like Nadal too, and always put results ahead of a style, but that one was exceptional from Gasquet...And more, I finally got myself thinking that this guy is worth of watching even when he loses...Apart from that, congrats for Nadal, he is the best atm :yeah:

Schu
07-26-2008, 07:30 PM
I must share my admiration for Gasquet and his first set performance.I like Nadal too, and always put results ahead of a style, but that one was exceptional from Gasquet...And more, I finally got myself thinking that this guy is worth of watching even when he loses...Apart from that, congrats for Nadal, he is the best atm :yeah:

:yeah:

Some people you enjoy watching for style and Gasquet tops that list and some you appreciate for their grit and Nadal tops the list there. Grit usually trumps style when it comes to results but it sure is fun to watch "mozart" on a tennis court anyway.

krystlel
07-26-2008, 07:46 PM
First set was great to watch where Gasquet was on fire and was hitting his forehand about as well as his backhand. Some shocking errors on the set points though - how many times did he dump that backhand into the net trying to rely on the backhand to give him a quick winner/finish to the rally? I agree with the poster that said, what was with those attempted jump backhands? Not much of a surprise that Gasquet wasn't able to keep it up and as soon as that happened, it was an easy win for Nadal.

GlennMirnyi
07-26-2008, 07:58 PM
Sir, do you even watch tennis? I mean even a little bit?

:lol:

Why, was that wrong? :rolleyes:

Damn
07-26-2008, 08:00 PM
I am not taking anything away from Nadal, but this is plain wrong. Quite the opposite: If Gasquet had served better, he'd have won the first set easier, particularly in the breaker when he hardly got a first serve in.

Serve percentage in first set.

Nadal: 80 %
Gasquet: 47%

I already know that. But Gasquet himself said in the press conference that his performance in the first set had been one of his best ever.

green25814
07-26-2008, 08:00 PM
Nadal has that mental edge over people fed used to have. People are terrified of playing him.

Puschkin
07-26-2008, 08:12 PM
I already know that. But Gasquet himself said in the press conference that his performance in the first set had been one of his best ever.

well, he must have been too tired to add "except my serve". ;)

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 08:25 PM
No guts but at least you are gracious unlike some of your fans and you´ve got some brain Richie ;)

R. NADAL/R. Gasquet
6-7, 6-2, 6-1

THE MODERATOR: Questions, please.

Q. What did you think when you had Rafa in the first set there?
RICHARD GASQUET: I was playing incredible, maybe my best set in my life. But you have to win two sets to win him. I had three breakpoints in the second set, and after it was really difficult for me.
But he never miss. He has an incredible forehand and incredible backhand, physical, so it's really, really hard to win him.
I think he's playing just incredible.

Q. Did fatigue play a role in the second set at all? Were you a little tired?
RICHARD GASQUET: Yeah. I was a little bit tired, but I knew it was a really difficult for me to win the match because Rafael is just a good player and such a great fighter. I tried to play my game so I was a little bit tired. It was harder for me with my forehand, with my serve. I didn't have easy points with him.
It's hard, but I try to do my best. I have to work to try to play a better third set.

Q. What's it like trying to put him away? It took six set points in that tiebreak, which was a really a remarkable tiebreak, and he just kept coming and coming.
RICHARD GASQUET: Yeah, he was playing great, but physically and mentally it was really hard to win this tiebreak. After it was physically and mentally really hard to continue like that.
But I knew with him it's the same. He never miss. He's like that all the match. You have to play so aggressive. If you don't play aggressive he has such a big forehand. He's the best player in the world for me, and it will be really hard for one player to win him.
Q. Is there anybody else in the sport who matches his mental strength?
RICHARD GASQUET: Maybe, but in tennis, he's the best for sure.


Enough said, you can already close this thread, sheriff :shrug:

guy in sf
07-26-2008, 08:26 PM
I know this sounds like a really crazy suggestion but I think Gasquet needs to slice more on his backhand when he's given these deep and high balls with a lot of spin that come to his backhand side. The reason I say this is because in order for Gasquet to hit deep and effective topspin backhands back to his opponent he has to have a lot of time and space to prepare his shot. He does this by stepping back well behind the baseline and how many times did we all see last night when he did this and the ball would come over to Nadal's side and Nadal, seeing how far Gasquet was behind the baseline, would like drop shot for an easy winner? When you slice the ball back, you're just blocking and chipping it back so you can slice the ball while it's on the rise so there is no need to step so far back, which means you can stay in the point and get to any drop shot or any other shot more easily. I know his topspin backhand is his bread and butter shot but when he's not in a good position to hit it, he should just slice the ball back and not overuse it.

richie21
07-26-2008, 08:41 PM
Agree, specially that tiebreak. It was already predictable that Gasquet would die after it tough. :(

Apparently,at the beginning of the second set,we could read on Gasquet's lips :"i'm exhausted".
It confirms that he just ran out of gas....which ,i admit, is a bit ridiculous after just one set.

scoobs
07-26-2008, 08:45 PM
Would explain why he was going for ever more high risk shots.

It was a long tough set but even so...

He needs to get some work done. I remember when he run totally out of steam against Hewitt at the US Open in 2006 and nothing seems to have changed.

Puschkin
07-26-2008, 08:46 PM
Apparently,at the beginning of the second set,we could read on Gasquet's lips :"i'm exhausted".

in english? :eek:

nkhera1
07-26-2008, 08:47 PM
Clydey I agree with some of what you said. He is not the favorite to win the US Open. I think that would be Djokovic at this point, with Fed second (yes he has had a tough year but its still better than just about anyone elses). He should probably be trying to hit his forehand a little more aggresively (players with good backhands will be able to handle it very well) and his 2nd serve can be attacked handily (this would be more noticeable if he wasn't such a great defender), but I don't like your argument about with regards to consistency/best form. Basically what you saying is that if Nadal decided to flatten his strokes and serve like crazy so that he could be on fire and successfull for one or two weeks a year, he would be better than he is now. Nalbandian probably played the best he has in his life and same for Tsonga. Sure he isn't good enough to beat them when they are playing "best of their life" on hard and he is merely playing at his usual high level but then again not too many players are. Nalbandain beat a whole bunch of people (a loss is a loss) and Tsonga took more sets from Djokovic than anyone else did. Also I think it speaks volumes that Gasquet played among the best tennis he has and it went to 14-12. Plus he has a good backhand so its not like Nadal can just keep hitting to the backhand like he does against Federer. I think Nadal is doing some good things on the hardcourts but you are correct in noting that he will need to do more if he wants to WIN the US Open. With his current form he can still beat many players on this surface.

richie21
07-26-2008, 08:51 PM
Mmm the best hardcourt game argument seems to be "well he plays better points - apart from all the bad ones he plays."

You still have to look at the overall results and the bigger picture of the performances. Gasquet may have played a superb set of tennis in the first set but it still took him 14-12 in a tiebreak and 7 set points to get it done.


To some degree I understand the point being made but I believe it's a bit meaningless to try and distil it down in that way to what someone's "pure game" is.


It's not like Gasquet won that first set being at his very best either.
I mean, for example,his famous backhand was off in that first set (and during the whole match actually)

richie21
07-26-2008, 08:54 PM
in english? :eek:

No,in french of course;)

vincayou
07-26-2008, 08:55 PM
No guts but at least you are gracious unlike some of your fans and you´ve got some brain Richie ;)


Enough said, you can already close this thread, sheriff :shrug:

Lol, I for one agree with him (like most people if you tried and listen), Nadal is better than Gasquet on hardcourt, nobody expected him to win this. He did his best even if he could have done better than losing the last one with a breadstick. You are the one lacking graciousness in victory. Don't reverse roles :silly:

Scoobs does his job, what is quite hard with guys like you.

I don't get it, when my favourite wins, I don't provoke fans of the player on the losing side. Why don't you try that once for a change.

Puschkin
07-26-2008, 08:58 PM
No,in french of course;)
So what did he say then? There are many ways to express this.

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:06 PM
0-5 head to head. I hate it that Gasquet is one of Nadal's bitches.

The most frustrating thing in this H2H is that in 4 of those 5 matches(4 matches in the best of 3 sets),Gasquet took a set from Nadal but Nadal always won the last set.

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:08 PM
So what did he say then? There are many ways to express this.

He said "putain je suis cuit".
In english, "Shit,i'm done physically."

scoobs
07-26-2008, 09:10 PM
lol

I am cooked :)

prima donna
07-26-2008, 09:10 PM
The most frustrating thing in this H2H is that in 4 of those 5 matches(4 matches in the best of 3 sets),Gasquet took a set from Nadal but Nadal always won the last set.

Gasquet's best chance came against Federer in Toronto in the final a few years back, he was dominating and I believe perhaps even up a break in the 2nd set, but Roger clawed his way back into the match and ultimately prevailed in the 3rd set.

He has obvious problems closing out matches, with the exception of his victory against Fed in Monte Carlo and his miraculous comeback against Roddick at Wimbledon after having trailed two sets to none, also he demonstrated courage by sticking in there against Hewitt in NYC.

Nadal isn't exactly the best player to go up against if one is still in the process of learning how to close out matches, it's for this reason that I've stopped following Richard's "development."

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:11 PM
The impressive thing about this match was Nadal saving the break points he faced at the beginning of the first set, it must have been a huge letdown to lose such a tiebreak but still he survived that. Gasquet was totally on fire in the first set, actually I don't think it was so much that he got tired after that, I just think he gave up in the 3rd set. Still, a good tournament for him, he will need to make a deep run at the US Open to salvage his year anyway.


Hum,not quite.
For example,his best shot(backhand) was off during that first set.
He played much better against Murray during 2 sets and half in last Wimbledon than in yesterday's first set.

Bad Religion
07-26-2008, 09:17 PM
Spain , country of tennis champions >>>>> France, country of tennis chumps

Damn
07-26-2008, 09:18 PM
Nadal has that mental edge over people fed used to have. People are terrified of playing him.

That's right. There's only one main diference: Federer himself is terrified of playing Nadal. Must be really tough to play against such a physical and mental moster, who never gives up and also is capable of maintaining the intensity (or even increase it) during the whole match, and no matters if it's a 3 or a 5-setter.

well, he must have been too tired to add "except my serve". ;)

Agree then :)

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:19 PM
Gasquet's best chance came against Federer in Toronto in the final a few years back, he was dominating and I believe perhaps even up a break in the 2nd set, but Roger clawed his way back into the match and ultimately prevailed in the 3rd set.

He has obvious problems closing out matches.

At the notable exception of his match against Murray in last Wimbledon,i think the main reason for that is simply his fitness.
It was obvious yesterday,comparing for example the way he was moving and hitting the ball in first set and then at the beginning of second set.
During the first set,he looked sharp and fast and he was hitting the ball cleanly and then ,after this tie break,he looked suddenly slow and it looked like the balls weighed 10 kg when he was hitting them........it's too big to be dued to some mental cracking(and he won the first set,so he had no real reason to crack mentally,especially so soon in the second set)

Bad Religion
07-26-2008, 09:22 PM
At the notable exception of his match against Murray in last Wimbledon,i think the main reason for that is simply his fitness.
It was obvious yesterday,comparing for example the way he was moving and hitting the ball in first set and then at the beginning of second set.
During the first set,he looked sharp and fast and he was hitting the ball cleanly and then ,after this tie break,he looked suddenly slow and it looked like the balls weighed 10 kg when he was hitting them........it's too big to be dued to some mental cracking(and he won the first set,so he had no real reason to crack mentally,especially so soon in the second set)

:zzz: :yawn:

Gasquet sucks , plain and simple :wavey:

Deivid23
07-26-2008, 09:24 PM
Lol, I for one agree with him (like most people if you tried and listen), Nadal is better than Gasquet on hardcourt, nobody expected him to win this. He did his best even if he could have done better than losing the last one with a breadstick. You are the one lacking graciousness in victory. Don't reverse roles :silly:

Scoobs does his job, what is quite hard with guys like you.

I don't get it, when my favourite wins, I don't provoke fans of the player on the losing side. Why don't you try that once for a change.

Are you done with your moaning or do you need more tissues?

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:24 PM
Conclusion: Gasquet was playing at his peak in the first set and had lots of difficults to win it (If Nadal had served better, he could have won with 2 breaks of advantage). But when Nadal started to play better in the second set, Gasquet just dissapeared of the court.

Bullshite,he couldn't have been playing at his peak with his BH (his best shot by a country mile) being off for most part of this set and with only 47% of first serve percentage.

Pfloyd
07-26-2008, 09:29 PM
Wow long thread....

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:30 PM
Would explain why he was going for ever more high risk shots.

It was a long tough set but even so...

He needs to get some work done. I remember when he run totally out of steam against Hewitt at the US Open in 2006 and nothing seems to have changed.


That's what i said in some of my previous posts.
That would also explain why he came to the net so often ,even suicidarly.

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:32 PM
Would explain why he was going for ever more high risk shots.

It was a long tough set but even so...

He needs to get some work done. I remember when he run totally out of steam against Hewitt at the US Open in 2006 and nothing seems to have changed.

Blame his previous coaching team :o

scoobs
07-26-2008, 09:35 PM
Blame his previous coaching team :o
Well first and foremost I blame him - ultimately the player is responsible for their own development and if it's not obvious to him that he's needed to get physically stronger and more resilient for a long time, I don't know why.

richie21
07-26-2008, 09:35 PM
:zzz: :yawn:

Gasquet sucks , plain and simple :wavey:

Post of the year.

Bad Religion
07-26-2008, 09:36 PM
Post of the year.

Better than all your pathetic excuses :)

Damn
07-26-2008, 09:38 PM
Bullshite,he couldn't have been playing at his peak with his BH (his best shot by a country mile) being off for most part of this set and with only 47% of first serve percentage.

Well, then call him and tell him: "what the hell were you talking about in the press conference when you said that the first set had been the best of your life?"

That's was Gasquet said, he knows how he was playing far better than you, me or anybody else. I only have written what he said before :wavey:

Rumour
07-26-2008, 09:39 PM
I totally agree. Rafa too strong and the pysical breakdown, but some people will always come up with the mental thing.

The great play in the first set hides the poor serve percentage. Richard had to work hard for his points. He will never be as strong physically as Nadal, though there is room for improvement in this area which Peyre seems to know perfectly well, so if he wants to beat him, he needs short rallies and cheap points on first serve. He can't win on Rafs's terms and the last two sets showed it clearly.

Interesting how many posters - probably the same ones who predicted an easy straight sets Nadal victory - continue to hammer Gasquet's 'frail' mentality as the main or sole reason he lost this match :rolleyes: Obviously it is nowhere near as strong as the Spaniard's or other top players but it was certainly not a major liability yesterday, especially compared to earlier this year.

If anything, I've been encouraged since Wimbledon with how Gasquet has obviously tried to stay positive and fight his way through tough match situations. No, he hasn't always prevailed in the end but that has usually been due as much to his opponent's play as his own shortcomings. The fact that he could barely put a first serve in play, especially in the latter part of the first set, reinforces how composed the Frenchman really was in winning it.

However, I am proud of my man. :) He would not have won this breaker in the form he showed from January to June.
Actually he'd never have even gotten to a tiebreak, considering he was twice down by a break and IIRC Nadal even served for the first set. Yet Gasquet's detractors conveniently fail to mention this, or all the missed SPs he both missed and saved in the TB. However, as deserved as the praise is for how he started off yesterday, he shouldn't be satisfied with just that and should instead work on sustaining enough of that form throughout a match.

prima donna
07-26-2008, 09:41 PM
Also, Richard plays an extremely high risk game, which I feel many of his critics may be taking for granted, fact of the matter is that people have grown accustomed to seeing Roger consistently apply this style of game suffering only the occasional hiccup, but there have been plenty of talented shotmakers on tour that have been less than reliable in terms of winning, week in and week out.

I'm afraid that the expectations of the average spectator may simply be too much, it's much easier to apply consistency with a game like Nadal's, but far more difficult to develop a game like Gasquet's, which kind of reminds me of a quote made by Sampras which to paraphrase basically stated that serve & volley players must undergo several stages of development -- the same can be said for players with a great transitional and all-court game.

lalit
07-26-2008, 10:30 PM
Also, Richard plays an extremely high risk game, which I feel many of his critics may be taking for granted, fact of the matter is that people have grown accustomed to seeing Roger consistently apply this style of game suffering only the occasional hiccup, but there have been plenty of talented shotmakers on tour that have been less than reliable in terms of winning, week in and week out.

I'm afraid that the expectations of the average spectator may simply be too much, it's much easier to apply consistency with a game like Nadal's, but far more difficult to develop a game like Gasquet's, which kind of reminds me of a quote made by Sampras which to paraphrase basically stated that serve & volley players must undergo several stages of development -- the same can be said for players with a great transitional and all-court game.
gr8 post
gasquet's game is beautiful but it will take much longer to develop
hope he can focussed for that long

richie21
07-27-2008, 08:24 PM
you can't compare playing Roddick on grass to playing Nadal on a slowish high bouncing hardcourt.
it's true what you say about maintaining mental intensity but it's something that's closely related to physical fitness I believe. It's simple enough, the fresher you feel the easier it is to concentate. it's the same for everyone in every walk of life but small margins probably have greater effects at the level of elite athlete

Well said.
As i said in the Murray-Nadal match thread,mental toughness and fitness are 2 very connected things.